  Quest. CXXXIV. What is the sixth Commandment? Answ. The sixth Commandment is, [Thou shalt not kill.] Quest. CXXXV. What are the duties required in the sixth Commandment? Answ. The duties required in the sixth Commandment are, all careful studies, and lawful endeavours to preserve the life of ourselves, and others, by resisting all thoughts and purposes, subduing all passions, and avoiding all occasions, temptations, and practices, which tend to the unjust taking away the life of any; by just defence thereof against violence, patient bearing of the hand of God, quietness of mind, cheerfulness of spirit, a sober use of meat, drink, physic, sleep, labour, and recreations, by charitable thoughts, love, compassion, meekness, gentleness, kindness, peaceable, mild, and courteous speeches and behaviour, forbearance, readiness to be reconciled, patient bearing and forgiving of injuries, and requiting good for evil, comforting and succouring the distressed, and protecting and defending the innocent. Answ. The sins forbidden in the sixth Commandment are, all taking away the life of ourselves, or of others, except in case of public justice, lawful war, or necessary defence; the neglecting or withdrawing the lawful and necessary means of preservation of life, sinful anger, hatred, envy, desire of revenge, all excessive passions, distracting cares, immoderate use of meat, drink, labour, and recreations; provoking words, oppressing, quarrelling, striking, wounding, and whatsoever else tends to the destruction of the life of any. In explaining this Commandment, we are, I. To consider the positive part thereof, or the duties required in it, namely, that we should use all lawful endeavours to preserve our own life, and the life of others; and consequently we should avoid all those passions, and other things, which may afford an occasion to take it away, and live in the constant exercise of the duties of temperance and sobriety, as to what respects ourselves; meekness, gentleness, and forgiving injuries, as to what concerns others. In this Commandment it is supposed, that life is the most valuable blessing of nature; and therefore to take it away, is to do the utmost injury that can be attempted against us. The valuableness of the life of man appears in four things. 1. It is the result of the union of the soul with the body, which is the principle of those actions that are put forth by us as intelligent creatures; and therefore life is to be esteemed in proportion to the excellency thereof; which, is the noblest part of the creation, angels excepted. 2. Nothing can compensate or satisfy for the taking away the life of man, how much satisfaction soever may be given for the loss of other things. 3. We may observe, that man, in this respect, is the subject of the divine image; which supposes us to have a more excellent life than any other creatures in this lower world; and it is assigned as a reason of our obligation to preserve it, Gen. ix. 6. 4. Life is given and continued to us, that hereby the most valuable ends may be attained, conducive to the glory of God, the advancement of religion in the world, and promoting our everlasting happiness. From whence we may take an estimate of its excellency; and it contains the highest motive to us, to yield obedience, to this Commandment. This leads us to consider the means which we are to use, to preserve our own lives, and the lives of others. As to As to what concerns our endeavours to preserve the lives of others; we are to caution them against those things, which would tend to destroy their health, and, by degrees, their lives. And we must also discover and detect all secret plots and contrivances which may be directed against them; and we are to support and relieve those who are ready to perish by extreme poverty; yea, though they were our enemies, Rom. xii. 20. Job xxxi, 19, 20, 22. We are also to defend them who are in imminent danger of death, Psal. lxxxii. 3, 4. Prov. xxiv. 11, 12. Nevertheless, we must not use unwarrantable means, though it were to save our own lives. As, in times of persecution, we are not to renounce the truths of God, or give occasion to the common enemy, to revile, or speak evil of them, to avoid suffering for the cause thereof. This was that noble principle by which the martyrs, whom the apostle speaks of, were acted; They were tortured, not accepting deliverance, Heb. xi. 35. that is, when they were exposed to the most exquisite torments, and their lives offered them, in case they would deny Christ, they would not accept deliverance on so dishonourable terms. Neither are we, at any time, to tell a lye, or act that which is contrary to truth, though it were to save our lives. This leads us, II. To consider the sins forbidden in this Commandment; and these are either the taking away of life, or doing that which has a tendency thereunto. 1. It is unlawful to take away the life of another. But this is to be considered with some exceptions, or limitations. (1.) This may be done in lawful wars. Thus we read of many wars begun and carried on, and much blood shed therein, by God’s direction, and with his approbation and blessing; upon which occasion it is said, that the war was of God, 1 Chron. v. 22. Nevertheless, when wars are proclaimed, merely to satisfy the pride and avarice of princes, as in Benhadad’s war against Ahab, 1 Kings xx. 1. & seq. or the Romans, who made war on the countries round about them, merely to enlarge their own dominions, by ruining others; or, like those which the Devil excites, and Antichrist carries on (2.) It is no violation of this Commandment, to take away the life of offenders, guilty of capital crimes, by the hand of the civil magistrate; for this is elsewhere commanded, and magistrates are appointed for that end, Deut. xvii. 8,-10. (3.) It is no breach of this Commandment, when a person kills another without design, or the least degree of premeditated malice. Nevertheless, the utmost caution ought to be used, that persons might not lose their lives through the carelessness and inadvertency of others. (4.) In some instances, a person may kill another in his own defence, without being guilty of the breach of this Commandment. But this is to be considered with certain limitations; as, [1.] If there be only a design, or conspiracy against our lives, but no immediate attempt made, to take them away; we are to defend ourselves, by endeavouring to put him that designed the execrable fact, out of a capacity of hurting us, by having recourse to the protection of the law; whereby he may be restrained from doing it, or we secured. This was the method which Paul took, when the Jews had bound themselves with an oath, to slay him; he informed the chief captain of this conspiracy, and had recourse to the law for his safety, Acts xxiii. 21. [2.] If there be a present attempt made against our lives, we should rather chuse to disarm, or fly from the enemy, than take away his life; but if this cannot be done, so that we must either lose our own lives, or take away his, we do not incur the least guilt, or break this Commandment, if we take away, his life, to preserve our own, especially if we were not first in the quarrel; nor give occasion to it by any injurious or unlawful practices. Here it may be enquired, whether it be lawful for two persons to fight a duel, upon a set challenge, or provocation given? In answer to which, let it be considered, 1st, That, when a war, between two armies, may be issued, and the shedding of much blood prevented hereby, it is not unlawful, provided it be by mutual consent, and with the approbation of those on both sides, who have a right of making war and peace; and if the matter in controversy may be thus decided, without tempting providence. We have a remarkable instance of this, in the duel fought between David and Goliath, in 1 Sam. xvii. Nevertheless, 2dly, It is unlawful for two persons, each seeming too prodigal of his life, to challenge, accept of, and, pursuant thereunto, to endeavour to put an end to each others life, merely to Here we may consider the wicked practice of those who have obliged poor wretches, who were under their command, to murder one another for their diversion. This Joab and Abner did, when they said, Let the young men arise and play before us; and every one thrust his sword in his fellows side, 2 Sam. ii. 14,-16. There is also an unlawful diversion, which, though not altogether so barbarous and cruel, is, in some respects, a breach of this Commandment, viz. when persons fight with, and wound one another, without design of killing, merely to get a little money, while entertaining a number of unthinking persons with their folly; in which case they that fight, and they that look on, are equally guilty, Prov. xxvi. 18, 19. Thus concerning the sin of killing another; we shall now account for two or three difficulties that occur in scripture, relating to the actions of some good men, who seem to have been guilty of the breach of this Commandment; but were not really so. 1st, It is enquired, whether Elijah was chargeable with the breach of it in destroying Baal’s prophets, which we read of in 1 Kings xviii. 40. wherein it is said, that he ordered that none of them should escape; and he brought them down to the brook Kishon, and slew them there. In answer to which, it may be observed, that it was not a small inoffensive error that these prophets of Baal were punished for; but apostasy from God. And that the persons who were thus punished, deserve it, will appear, if we consider, [1.] That, they were the advisers and ring-leaders of all Israel’s idolatry, and the abettors and principal occasion of that violent persecution, which then raged against the Lord’s prophets, and true worshippers. [2.] Had they only been false prophets, and not persecutors, they were according to the law of God to be put to death, Deut. xiii. 6,-9. [3.] This was done after a solemn appeal to God, and an answer from heaven, by fire, which determined, not only who was the true God, but who were his prophets, and consequently whether Elijah deserved death, as an impostor, or Baal’s prophets. [4.] Ahab himself was present, and all his ministers of state, who had a right to execute justice on false prophets; and, it is highly probable, that they consented to, and many of them had an immediate hand in their death, which might be occasioned by a sudden conviction in their consciences, proceeding from the miracle which they had just before observed, or 2dly, It is farther enquired, whether Abraham’s offering Isaac was a breach of this Commandment? This is proposed as a difficulty by those who do not pay that deference to divine revelation, as they ought, nor consider, that God cannot command any thing which is contrary to his perfections; nor do his people sin in obeying any command that is given by him. However, that this matter may be set in a just light, let it be considered, [1.] That God, who is the sovereign Lord of life, may take it away, when, and by whom he pleases. Therefore Isaac had no more reason to complain of any wrong or injury done him, by God, in ordering his father to sacrifice him, than any one else has, who dies by his immediate hand, in the common course of providence. [2.] Abraham could not be said to do this with the temper and disposition of a murderer, which such have, who are guilty of the breach of this Commandment, who kill persons in a passion, or out of envy or malice, being void of all natural affection or brotherly love; but he acted plainly in obedience to God’s command. His hand was lifted up against one whom he loved equally to, or, it may be, more than his own life, and, doubtless, he would rather have been, had God so ordered it, the sacrifice, than the offerer. [3.] This was done, as is more than probable, with Isaac’s full consent. Hence some think, that his faith was no less remarkable herein than that of Abraham. His willingness to be offered, evidently appears, in that Abraham was in his feeble and declining age, and Isaac in his full strength; for it was not a little strength which was sufficient to carry wood enough to answer this occasion, which we read he did, Gen. xxii. 6. Besides, if Isaac had resisted, none was at hand to assist Abraham against him, and, doubtless, he would have strove in this matter as one who desired to be overcome. Therefore we must suppose, that it is so far from being a breach of this Commandment, that it was one of the most remarkable instances of faith in scripture; and God’s design in ordering him to do this, was, that it might be a type whereby he would lead him into the glorious mystery of his not sparing his own Son, the Lord Jesus Christ, and of his willingness to lay down his life a ransom for his people. 3dly, Some charge Moses with being guilty of the breach of this Commandment, in killing the Egyptian, which we read [1.] That the Egyptian, whom he slew, not only smote an Hebrew, as it is in this chapter, but he did it wrongfully, as it is observed in Acts vii. 24. there was no offence given, nor just reason for this injurious treatment, and to oppress or abuse one that is in a miserable condition, as the Hebrews were at that time, is an heinous crime in God’s account. Moreover, to smite, in scripture, is often taken, for to slay; so that it is not improbable, that the Egyptian slew the Hebrew; or if he did not, it might be such an injury as deserved death; which would have been inflicted in another manner, had not Israel been denied, at that time, the protection of the law. [2.] Moses was, at this time, raised up, and called by God, to be a ruler and a judge, to defend the cause of his oppressed people; and in this action he first began to fulfil his commission; though the people refused to own him, and seemed to join with those that designed him evil for it; for which reason their deliverance was put off forty years longer, while he was an exile in the land of Midian, Acts vii. 24, 26. compared with 30. Now to slay a public enemy and oppressor, and, as it is probable, one who had forfeited his life, and that with a commission from God, to act as a ruler and a judge over his people, cannot be reckoned a breach of this Commandment. Thus concerning the violation of this Commandment, as including in it the murdering of our neighbour. 2. This Commandment is notoriously broken by those who lay violent hands on themselves, which we have no instance of any good man, in scripture, that was ever suffered to do, but only such who were, like Saul, Ahitophel, Judas, and others, of the most infamous character. This is a sin which is attended with many aggravations; For, (1.) It is to act as though our lives were at our own disposal; which are to be considered as a talent which we are entrusted with by God, to improve for his glory; and he alone has a right to dispose thereof at his pleasure. (2.) This argues, and arises from, the highest discontent and impatience under the hand of God, which is contrary to that temper, which we ought to exercise as Christians, who profess subjection to him. (3.) It is contrary to nature, and that principle of self-preservation which God has implanted in us; and, indeed, he that does this, not only acts below the reason of a man, but does that which even brutes themselves are not inclined to. (4.) It is a giving place to, and gratifying the Devil, who acts agreeably to his character, as a murderer from the beginning, (5.) It is presumptuous and bold to resolve, that whatever measure of duty God has prescribed for us to fill up in this world, we will serve him no longer. If marshal law punishes deserters with death, is there not a severe punishment due unto those who do, as it were, desert the service of God by self-murder? Nothing is more certain than this, that if duty be enjoined by God, the time in which it is to be performed, is also fixed by him, and not left to our determination. (6.) It is a rushing hastily into eternity, not considering the consequence thereof, nor the awful tribunal of Christ, before which they must immediately appear, and give an account of this, as well as other sinful actions of life. (7.) It is done with such a frame of spirit, that a person cannot, by faith, commit his soul into the hands of Jesus Christ; for that requires a better temper of mind than any one can be supposed to have, who murders himself. Here it may be enquired, since, as was before observed, no good man was ever guilty of this crime, whether Samson did not break this Commandment in pulling down the house upon his own head, as well as the Philistines? To this it may be answered, [1.] That Samson’s life, at this time, was a burden to himself, useless to his brethren, a scorn to the open enemy, and an occasion of their ascribing their deliverance to their idol; and probably, it would have been soon taken away by them; which circumstances, though they would not, in themselves, have been sufficient to justify this action; yet they might justify his desire, that God would put an end, to his life, and release him out of this miserable world; especially if this would redound more to his glory than any thing he could do for the future, or had done in the former part of his life. [2.] It plainly appears, that God, in answer to his prayer, not only gave him leave to take away his own life, together with the lives of his enemies, but he wrought a miracle to enable him to do it; and therefore it was a justifiable action, and no breach of this Commandment, Judges xvi. 28,-30. 3. We shall now consider the heinous aggravation of this sin, of taking away the life of another unjustly, and the terrible judgments that such have ground to expect, who are guilty hereof. (1.) According to the divine law, this sin is to be punished with death, by the hand of the civil magistrate, Deut. xix. 11, 12. Thus Joab, who had deserved to die for murders formerly committed, was slain, by David’s order, by his son Solomon; though he sought protection by taking hold of the (2.) God often gives up those who are guilty of the sin of murder, to the terrors of a guilty conscience, which is a kind of hell upon earth; as in the instances of Cain, Lamech, and others, Gen. iv, 13,-15. and 23, 24. (3.) Such are followed with many remarkable instances of divine vengeance; so that the blast of providence attends all their undertakings. Thus David, after he had killed Uriah, was followed with such rebukes of providence, that the latter part of his life was rendered very uneasy thereby; and what the prophet foretold was fulfilled, that the sword should never depart from his house; that is, as long as he lived, 2 Sam. xii. 9, 10. (4.) The judgments of God for his sin, are oftentimes transmitted to posterity. Thus Simeon and Levi’s murder of the Shechemites, was punished in the tribes that descended from them; who, according to the patriarch’s prediction, were divided in Jacob, and scattered in Israel, Gen. xlix. 7. And Saul’s slaying the Gibeonites, was punished in David’s time, by a famine occasioned thereby, 2 Sam. xxi. 1. And the murders which the Jews had committed on the prophets in former ages, were punished in the destruction of their state and nation; when all the righteous blood that had been shed upon the earth, came upon them, Matt. xxiii. 35. (5.) Their lives are often shortened, and they brought to the grave with blood. Thus Absalom perished by the just judgment of God, for the murder of his brother, as well as his other crimes; and in this the Psalmist’s observation holds true, that bloody and deceitful men shall not live out half their days, Psal. lv. 23. We are now to consider, 4. That this Commandment may be broken otherwise than by the taking away the life of our neighbour. It may be committed by a person in his heart, when he has not an opportunity to execute his malicious designs; or is afraid to do it, because of the punishment from men, which will ensue. Thus the apostle says, Whosoever hateth his brother, is a murderer, 1 John iii. 15. Of this we have an instance in wicked Ahab; who hated Micajah, because he prophesied not good concerning him, but evil, 1 Kings xxii. 9. And, it is more There is another instance of sinful and unaccountable passion, that cannot be excused from a degree of heart-murder in Jonah; who was very angry because God was gracious, and spared Nineveh, on their repentance; and in this fit of passion, he desires that God would take away his life, justifies his anger, and, as it were, dares him to cut him off; which was as bad a frame as ever any good man was in. And all this took its rise from pride, lest some should think him a false prophet, who did not rightly distinguish between what God might do, and would have done, had they not repented, and what he determined to do, namely, to give them repentance, and so to spare them. I say, rather than be counted a false prophet, which, it may be, was a groundless surmise, he was angry with God for sparing it, Jonah iv. 1-4. Here it will be enquired, whether all anger is sinful, or a breach of this Commandment? To which it may be answered, That since the apostle says, Be angry and sin not, Eph. iv. 26. it implies, that there may be anger which is not sinful; but, on the other hand, may rather be styled, a zeal for God. Of this kind was that anger which our Saviour expressed against the Scribes and Pharisees, when he calls them serpents, a generation of vipers, Matt. xxiii. 33. and when he whipped the buyers and sellers out of the temple; on which occasion it is said, The zeal of thine house hath eaten me up, John ii. 15, 17. And the apostle reproved Elymas the sorcerer, who endeavoured to turn away the deputy from the faith, with words that seemed full of anger; when he addressed himself to him in this manner; O full of all subtilty, and all mischief thou child of the Devil, thou enemy of all righteousness; Wilt thou not cease to pervert the right ways of the Lord? Acts xiii. 10. And Peter could not reprove that vile hypocrite Simon (1.) What is the difference between sinful anger or passion, and an holy zeal for God? [1.] An holy zeal for God, leads us rightly to distinguish between the person reproved, and his actions, that give us occasion for it; so that we hate the sin, but not the person that commits it. Thus the Psalmist says, I hate the work of them that turn aside, Psal. ci. 3. But sinful anger is principally directed against the person with whom we are offended. [2.] The honour of God is the only motive that excites holy zeal; but pride or evil surmise, is generally the occasion of sinful anger. Thus Jehu’s executing the vengeance of God, in cutting off Ahab’s wicked family, was right, as to the matter of it; yet it had a great mixture of ambition, pride, and private hatred of them, as those whom he thought would stand in competition with him for the crown; and for this action he also desires the applause and esteem of the people; and therefore says to Jonadab, Come with me, and see my zeal for the Lord, 2 Kings x. 16. so that the one is attended with many Other graces, the other with many sins. [3.] Holy zeal for God inclines us to express anger against his enemies, with sorrow and reluctancy, as being grieved for their sin, and at the same time desiring their reformation and salvation; but sinful anger meditates revenge, is restless till it has accomplished it, Prov. iv. 16. and pleased with having opportunities of executing it. [4.] Holy zeal sets aside, or is not much concerned about injuries as directed against ourselves; but as they reflect dishonour on the name of God, or are prejudicial to his interest in the world. With this view it was that David says concerning Edom, Happy shall he be that dasheth thy little ones against the stones, Psal. cxxxvii. 9. when at the same time, he professes, that it was for Jerusalem’s sake that he desired the ruin of his enemies, and not his own; for he says, that he preferred Jerusalem above his chief joy, ver. 6. Whereas, on the other hand, sinful anger designs or wishes evil to others, to promote our own interest and advantage. (2.) We shall now consider the aggravations of sinful passion. [1.] It unfits a soul for holy duties. Accordingly our Saviour advises his people, first to be reconciled to their brethren, and then come and offer their gift, Matt. v. 23, 24. [3.] It will occasion sorrow and shame, when reflected on in our most serious thoughts. [4.] It will expose us to Satan’s temptations, and occasion a multitude of sins; therefore the apostle calls it, a giving place to the Devil, Eph. iv. 27. [5.] The smallest injuries are hereby magnified, and our resentments exceed their due bounds. We do not consider, as we ought to do, that the injuries done against us, are very small when compared with the sins we commit, whereby we dishonour God. [6.] It is opposite to a Christian temper, and very much unlike that frame of spirit, which our Saviour has recommended concerning loving our enemies, Matt. v. 44. and is also contrary to his example, Who, when he was reviled, reviled not again, 1 Pet. ii. 23. [7.] As it is a stirring up our own corruptions, so it tends to stir up the corruption of others, and provoke them to sin, as one flame kindleth another, and hereby increaseth itself, Prov. xxvii. 17. (3.) We shall farther enquire, how we are to deal with those whom we converse with, who are addicted to passion or anger? [1.] We are to exercise a calm, meek, and humble disposition, bearing reflections with patience, and replying to them with gentleness; especially when it is more immediately our own cause, and not the cause of God which is concerned herein. A soft answer turneth away wrath, chap. xv. 1. He that is slow to wrath, is of great understanding, chap. xiv. 29, [2.] Let us take heed that we do nothing that tends to stir up the passions of any. If a superior is disposed hereunto, let us prudently withdraw from him; if it be an inferior, let us reprove him with faithfulness; if it be in an equal, let us take away the edge of it, by meekness, love, and tenderness towards him, having compassion on his weakness; let us bear injuries without revenging them, and overcome evil with good, Rom. xi. 19,-12. END OF THE THIRD VOLUME. ANSWER TO THE BISHOP OF LINCOLN. PROPOSALS BY W. W. WOODWARD, PHILADELPHIA, FOR PUBLISHING BY SUBSCRIPTION, The Rev. Dr. Thomas Scott’s Remarks ON “The Refutation of Calvinism, BY GEORGE TOMLINE, D.D. LORD BISHOP OF LINCOLN.” The writings of this eminent divine are held in the highest estimation by the pious of various denominations. He is acknowledged to be one of the best advocates for evangelical truth, which the present age has produced. His commentary on the scriptures has passed through three large editions in this country and a fourth, larger than either of the former is now preparing for press by W. W. W. in 3 vols. quarto, 7 dollars per volume, without any marginal references—the notes following immediately after the text. The work now proposed for publication is a most able and elaborate defence of those doctrines which are commonly called evangelical, and which are by no means peculiar to the Calvinists. The bishop of Lincoln, published what he was pleased to call “a Refutation of Calvinism,” under which “proscribed and odious name,” says the Christian Observer, “he has attacked some of the fundamental points of that faith, which was once delivered to the saints.” “In this work of the Bishop,” continues the Christian Observer, “he has greatly mistaken and misrepresented the sentiments and the persons he undertook to refute, and in many Dr. Scott, in his remarks upon this publication of the Bishop of Lincoln, most ably defends that system of religion, which a great body of christians supposed to be contained in the scriptures, from the uncandid and illiberal attacks of its enemies, and obviates the unfounded objections which are so often brought up against it. The reviewers in the Christian Observer, after occupying about sixty pages of their miscellany in commenting on the excellencies of Dr. Scott’s “remarks,” conclude their review with the following passage. “We cannot, however, conclude this long extended article, without recommending the study of Dr. Scott’s laborious work to such of our readers as feel interested in these discussions. It will amply repay those who are willing to undertake and patiently to pursue its perusal. If it does not afford, what cannot be expected from any human performance, a satisfactory solution of the difficulties which must ever attend some of the subjects of which it treats, it will be found to contain a large and valuable mass of observations on other most important theological topics; and will, at least, leave on the mind of every unprejudiced reader a strong impression of the extensive scriptural knowledge, the controversial ability, and what is far more estimable than any other qualities and attainments, the christian moderation and charity, and the mature and vigorous piety of its author.” CONDITIONS. The work shall be comprised in two large octavo volumes—answering as a sixth and seventh volume to his Miscellaneous works, published by W. W. Woodward; or will be sold separate in two volumes. It shall be printed on good paper with a fair type, and shall be delivered to subscribers for two dollars and fifty cents per volume, bound, and two dollars and twenty-five cents in boards, payable on delivery of each volume. Those who interest themselves in the work and procure five subscribers, they becoming responsible for their subscriptions, shall receive every sixth copy for their trouble. The work shall be put to press as soon as a number of subscribers shall have been procured sufficient to warrant the undertaking, Persons holding subscription papers are requested to return them by the first January next, to W. W. Woodward, Bookseller, Philadelphia. Philadelphia, August 21, 1815. Footnotes 1.The first that seems to use this unsavoury mode of speaking, is Gregory Nazianzen; who did not consider how inconsistent some of those rhetorical ways of speaking, he seems fond of, are with that doctrine, which, in other parts of his writings, he maintained. Those words ???st?p??e??, and ?e?p??e??, which he sometimes uses to express the nature, or consequence of this union between Christ and believers, are very disgustful. In one place of his writings, (Vid. ejusd. Orat. 41.) exhorting Christians to be like Christ, he says, That because he became like unto us, ?e??e?a Te?? d? a?t??, efficiamur Dii propter ipsum; and elsewhere, (in Orat. 35. de Folio.) he says, Hic homo Deus effectus postea quam cum Deo coaluit ??a ?e??a? t?s??t?? ?e?? ?s?? e? e???c a????p?? e?e????, ut ipse quoque tantum Deus efficiar quantum ipse homo. And some modern writers have been fond of the same mode of speaking, especially among those who, from their mysterious and unintelligible mode of expressing themselves, have rather exposed than defended the doctrines of the gospel. We find expressions of the like nature in a book put forth by Luther, which is supposed to be written by Taulerus, before the Reformation, called Theologia Germanica, and some others, since that time, such as Parcelsus, Swenckfelt, Weigelius, and those enthusiasts, that have adhered to their unintelligible and blasphemous modes of speaking. 2.See Vol. II. Quest. 31. page 167. 4.This is the principal, if not the only scripture, from which they pretend to prove marriage to be a sacrament, and they argue thus. The Greek church had no other word to express what was afterwards called a sacrament by the Latin church, but ?st?????, a mystery: therefore since the apostle calls marriage, as they suppose, a mystery, they conclude that it is a sacrament; which is a very weak foundation for inserting it among those sacraments which they have added to them that Christ had instituted; for the sacraments are no where called mysteries in scripture: and therefore we are not to explain doctrines by words which were not used till some ages after the apostles’ time: and if there were any thing in their argument, viz. that that which is called a mystery in scripture, must needs be a sacrament, it does not appear that the apostle calls marriage a great mystery, but the union that there is between Christ and his church; as he expressly says in the following words; I speak concerning Christ and the church. 5.That the invitations of the gospel are not restricted to a few amongst a larger number who hear them, is clear, from various considerations. The term evangel, or gospel, importing good tidings, evinces, that it is designed not to call the righteous, but sinners to repentance and salvation. The blessings, which it announces, lead to the same conclusion; liberty is offered to the captives, and the opening of the prison to those who are bound; those who labour and are heavily laden, are invited to seek, and obtain rest: those who hunger and thirst after righteousness, are assured that they shall be filled; the riches of grace and of glory are promised to the poor in Spirit; sight is offered to the blind; and howsoever diseased, those who are afflicted are invited to come to the great Physician; and even those who are dead in sin are revived by his life-giving word. Such are the circumstances of the worst of men, who are consequently the objects of the mercies proffered in the gospel. The unregenerate elect, who stand amongst those who will not be saved, are like them, possessed of prevailing inclinations to sin, and equally impotent to good: they are all equally guilty of an aversation of heart from God, and so possess in themselves nothing which can evidence a right to gospel blessings more than others. The invitations of the gospel are in universal terms, and although such terms are sometimes restricted by the sense, yet where no such restriction appears, they are to be taken in their own unlimited extent; the ransom is asserted to have been rendered for all; the Lord willeth not the destruction of any, but that all should turn and live; Christ proclaimed to sinners, if any man thirst, let him come unto me and drink; and directed his disciples to go and teach all nations; and it is his will, that the gospel should be preached unto every creature. If in the day of final account, the abominable crimes of Sodom and Gomorrha shall evince less guilt than the impenitency of Chorazin and Bethsaida; the aggravation of guilt, which the gospel produces, demonstrates that its messages are directed unto the worst of men, as well as others. Those who are guided by the light of nature, are guilty, because they violate the rule of conscience: such as possessed the law of God were still more guilty, but sinners under the light of the gospel, who trample under foot the blood of Christ, and despise and reject the mercies of the gospel, are guilty in the highest degree. It is just that they should not receive the offered pardon, but remain under the condemnation of the law, the dominion of iniquity, the slavery of Satan, and be left in their beloved darkness until they sink in despair. Yet nothing but their own aversion rejects the invitation, or prevents their salvation: they are straitened in their own bowels, and are the causes of their own destruction. Thus salvation is offered in general, and God is just, though the application of it is plainly special. 6.Vide Fuller’s “Gospel worthy of all Acceptation.” 7.See Vol. II. page 333. 8.This is what is generally called the formalis ratio of liberty. 9.We generally say, that whatever is essential to a thing, belongs to it as such. And there is a known rule in logic, A quatenus ad omne valet consequentia; and the then absurd consequences, above mentioned, would necessarily follow from it. 10.In this respect divines generally consider liberty as opposed to co-action: but here we must distinguish between a natural co-action and a moral one. Liberty is not opposed to a moral co-action, which is very consistent with it. Thus an honest man cannot allow himself in a vile action; he is under a moral constraint to the contrary; and yet he abstains from sin freely. A believer loves Christ freely, as the apostle Paul certainly did; and yet, at the same time, he was under the constraint of the love of Christ; as he himself expresses it, 2 Cor. v. 14. 11.This divines generally call spontaneity. 12.This some call lubentia rationalis. 13.This some divines call voluntas serva. 14.The question between us and the Pelagians, is not whether the will sometimes follows the dictates of the understanding, but, whether it either always does so? or, if it be otherwise, whether that which hinders it does not arise from a defect in these dictates of the understanding? Accordingly they speak of the dictates of the understanding as practical, and not barely speculative, and with a particular application to ourselves. They also consider the will as having been before in some suspense; but that dictate of the understanding which it follows, is the last, after mature deliberation; and it is supposed to have compared things together; and therefore presents a thing, not only as good, but more eligible than any thing else, which they call a comparate dictate of the understanding; and by this means the will is persuaded to a compliance. But though this may be true in many instances that are natural; yet daily experience proves, that it does not hold good with respect to things divine and supernatural. 15.The manners and maxims of the world accord with the inclinations of the human mind, because they spring from them: the dispositions and the pursuits of men are at variance with the laws of God, the doctrines of the gospel, and the practice of the saints, this will appear by comparing them. That the human mind should be brought to submit to the self-denial requisite to the character of a true christian, its bias or bent must be changed. Because men are moral agents, various motives are addressed to them to induce such change, when not attended to, they aggravate their guilt: when they are followed by the change, which they have a tendency to produce, those who yield are said to be “born of the word.” Were it not for the information we derive from the scriptures we should probably look no further than the proximate cause, and give man the glory; but these teach us, that the Spirit of God is always in such change, if it be real, the efficient cause: “God sanctifies by the truth,” he “opens the heart to attend” to the word, and when any have learned from and been taught or drawn by the Father they come unto Christ; they are therefore also in a higher sense born of the Spirit. This work of God immediately upon the mind, is possible to him, who formed, sustains, and knows the secrets of the heart; if we are unconscious of our creation, support in existence, and the access of the Searcher of hearts to our minds, we may be unconscious of his influence to change them. If this were sensible, it might be a motive incompatible with the safety and moral government of beings, who at best, whilst here, are imperfectly holy. The communication of the knowledge of saving truths immediately is unnecessary: we have the sacred scriptures, which are competent to make us wise unto salvation. The inspiration anciently given, is distinct from the change of bias, or disposition necessary to a preparation for heaven, might exist without, and is therefore inferior to it. It is not the sole effect of moral suasion, it is a work of the spirit not the letter, of power not the word: it is a birth, not by “blood, nor by the will of the flesh, nor by the will of man, but of God,” and those only “who are of God, hear,” believe, and obey his word. This influence is sight to the blind, hearing to the deaf, riches to the poor, health to the sick, and life to the dead. It is not incompatible with moral agency, for the holy disposition is as free in its operation, as the former sinful inclinations had been in theirs. The necessity of it to salvation, is no excuse for the impenitent; grace is not necessary to the vindication of Divine justice: the preponderancy of inclinations to evil is the essence of, not an apology for sin. It is very strange if, because a man is so intent upon sinning that nothing can change him but the almighty power of the Divine Spirit, he is on this very account innocent.—It does not render the preaching of the word unnecessary, for besides that it is commanded, and important to call men to repentance and faith, when the grace has been given, God also usually accompanies his ordinances with his Spirit’s influences, and seems in most cases, to direct in his providence the blessings of his instructions to those whom he makes the subjects of his grace. 16.“I have seen it objected, that to suppose a change effected in the heart of man, otherwise than by the power of moral means, is palpably absurd; as implying an evident impossibility in the nature of things. It has been said, by a divine of advanced age, and good sense; ‘The moral change of the mind in regeneration, is of an essentially different kind from the mechanical change of the body, when that is raised from the dead; and must be effected by the exertion of a different kind of power. Each effect requires a power suited to its nature: and the power proper for one can never produce the other. To argue from one to the other of these effects, as the apostle has been misunderstood to do, in Eph. i. 20, is therefore idle and impertinent.—The Spirit of God is possessed of these two kinds of power, and exerts the one or the other, accordingly as he wills to produce a change of the moral or physical kind, in moral beings or inanimate matter.’ “But to this philosophical objection, however plausible and unanswerable it may appear, I think the reply of our Saviour to the difficulty started by the Sadducees, respecting the resurrection and a future state, is neither idle, nor impertinent: ‘Ye do err, not knowing the scriptures, nor the power of God.’ The Almighty is not limited, as men are, to these two modes of operation, by moral and mechanical means. The Spirit of God is possessed of a power of working in a manner different from either of these; that is, supernaturally. The means by which effects are brought to pass in a natural way, must indeed be different; according to the nature of those effects, and of the subjects on which the operations are performed: but when once we admit the idea of a work properly supernatural—an effect produced not by the power of any means at all, we instantly lose sight of all distinctions in the kind of power, or manner of working, adapted to things of different natures. When God, by his omnipotent word alone, called all nature into being at first, are we to suppose that he exerted different powers, according to the natures of the things designed to be created; and that the power proper to create inanimate matter, could never create a thinking mind! Are we to conceive that angels and the souls of men were persuaded into being, by arguments and motives; and that the material world was forced out of nothing, by the power of attraction! So, in regard to quickening the dead, are we to imagine that God can give new life to a soul dead in sin, only by moral suasion; and that, if he will reanimate bodies which have slept thousands of years in the dust of the earth, he has no other way to do it than by a physical operation! The body of Christ was raised to life, I should suppose, not by any mechanical power, but supernaturally. In this manner God always works, when he quickeneth the dead, and calleth things that are not, as though they were. And what absurdity can there be in supposing Him able to give a new principle of action, as well as to give existence to any thing else, in this immediate manner? “Some sound and sensible divines, it must be granted, in order to guard against the notion of regeneration’s being effected by moral suasion, have called it a physical work, and a physical change; but very needlessly, I apprehend, and with very evident impropriety. The change is moral: the work producing it, neither moral nor physical; but supernatural.” Dr. Smalley 17.?pe?a???? e?e??? t?? d??ae?? a?t??—?ata t?? e?e??e?a? t?? ??at??? t?? ?s???? a?t??. 18.The change in regeneration has been often called the communication of a principle of spiritual life. It is described as life, in the scriptures. Sensible objects make no impressions on dead bodies, because insensible; and those, who receive no impressions from divine truths, but remain unaffected by the charms of holiness, are figuratively denominated dead. Life being the opposite of death, such as are sensible of the Divine excellencies, and receive the impressions which religious truths are calculated to make, may, in the same manner, be termed living. Such also are called spiritual, because this holy activity is communicated by the Spirit of God. “You hath he quickened;” and, because it has for its object the things which have been revealed by the Holy Spirit. These terms are derived from the Scriptures, but the word principle is destitute of such support. It is found in the Epistle to the Hebrews: there it is used for those fundamental doctrines, which are the beginnings of the doctrine of the gospel; but this is not the meaning of the term in the above description. This change is the immediate work of God, and not the communication of some operative axiom of truth. There are natural principles of action; as habit, affection, and passion: and there are moral; as sense of duty, fear of God, and love of holiness. These are all termed principles, because they excite to action, and so are the beginnings, or causes of it. But it is scarcely in this sense, that the term principle is used in the description of regeneration; for it is said to be communicated, and so must mean something distinct from, and the effect of the work of the Spirit. Accordingly it has been called “a fixed impression of some spiritual truth upon the heart.” But there is no truth, or other motive, sufficient to prevail against the obduracy of the unrenewed heart; or to become a principle of action to a soul dead in sin. Whatever that is in fallen man, which repels such motives, and prevents their influence until some more worthy motive is thrown into the scale, it is the work of the Spirit to remove it, and to give the soul an activity towards holy things. No intervention of mediate causes seems necessary; the Spirit of God is the agent; the soul of the man is the subject of influence; and He is said to open the heart, to give a new heart, to create anew, to enlighten the mind in the knowledge of the truth, to work in us to will and to do, or to give sight to the blind, and hearing to the deaf. From such scriptural expressions it may be gathered that sight, knowledge, new dispositions, and a change of inclinations, are the effects of regeneration, and not the thing itself. This change is more important than all the gifts of providence, if man therefore be the author of it, he is his own greatest benefactor, and must have the highest glory. If the Holy Spirit acts no otherwise on the human soul, than by addressing motives, angelic natures do also this; and no more power is ascribed to the Searcher of hearts, than to them. Then also it will follow, that all professing christians are of the same kind; and that it was improperly said, that they “were not of us,” who afterwards have “departed from us.” Then also the advice to those who are in the visible church “to examine,” and “prove themselves,” whether Christ be “in them,” is without meaning, or utility; because the thing to be inquired for is notorious, that is, their visible profession. And to “be born again,” is but “to see the” visible “kingdom” of Christ: and so the proposition spoken to Nicodemus was merely identical. 19.See Charnock, Vol. II. page 220, 221, &c. and Cole on Regeneration. 20.See Charnock, Vol. II. page 232, who speaking concerning its being an instrument, appointed by God, for this purpose, says, That God hath made a combination between hearing and believing; so that believing comes not without hearing, and whereas he infers from hence, that the principle of grace is implanted, by hearing and believing the word, he must be supposed to understand it, concerning the principle deduced into act, and not his implanting the principle itself. 21.See Charnock on Regeneration, Vol. II. page 70, 71. 23.When it is said “no man can come unto me, except the Father who hath sent me, draw him,” the negation must be understood as expressive of moral impotency, and as if it had been said “ye will not come unto me that ye might have life;” but nevertheless as direct proof of the absolute necessity of divine grace to the salvation of every person who is saved. That the aid is not merely necessary to the understanding is evident from the guilt of unregeneracy, and from the supposition of the Saviour whose reproof implies that it was the carnality of the heart which created the impotency to come unto or believe on him. The propriety of exhortations to turn, repent, believe, and work out our own salvation, is obvious; because such impotency is chiefly an aversion of heart. When such motives are ineffectual, they prove the inveteracy of the opposition to God, and argue the greater guilt. They are no evidence that grace is unnecessary, because they have an important effect in the change of the man’s views, and pursuits, when the Spirit of God has “opened the heart” to receive the necessary impressions; and because these motives are rendered effectual by the Divine Spirit. He grants us repentance, turns us, helps our unbelief, strengthens our faith, and works in us both to will and to do of his own good pleasure. Because it is charged upon the evil that they “resist” the grace of God, and therefore his Spirit will not always “strive” with men, it by no means follows, that the success of grace depends merely upon our yielding; as often as men yield to the strivings of the Spirit, a victory is obtained; for the carnal heart inclines to evil until subdued by him: we are “made willing in a day of his power.” Were it otherwise the glory of man’s salvation would belong to himself, at least in part; but the language of the believer is “not unto us, O Lord, not unto us, but unto thy name, be the glory given.” Nor is there any need to suppose man’s salvation thus imputable to himself in order that the evil may be charged with the blame of his destruction; for nothing excludes him but his own evil heart, and this is his sin. It does not result that the man, who is thus “made willing,” is in such manner constrained as that his holiness, being the effect of compulsion, possesses no moral beauty; because he acts as freely as the evil man does; and even more so, for the latter is a slave to his preponderating evil inclinations. The believer chooses holiness, and though he has nothing to boast of before God, his good works may well justify him before men. If it be yet objected, that this is a discouraging representation of the way of obtaining happiness; it may be answered, that it can discourage only those, who wish for happiness, at the same time that they more strongly incline to sensuality; and such ought to be discouraged in their vain expectations: but it is highly consolatory to such as prefer holiness and heaven; for it not only discovers to them, that God has wrought in them to will and to do, but that he is engaged for them, and will accomplish their salvation. 24.See Charnock on Regeneration, Vol. II. page 147, 148, &c. 25.When we speak of effectual calling’s being the work of the Spirit, the agency of the Father and Son is not excluded, since the divine power, by which all effects are produced, belongs to the divine essence, which is equally predicated of all the persons in the Godhead; but when any work is peculiarly attributed to the Spirit, this implies his personal glory’s being demonstrated thereby, agreeably to what is elsewhere called the oeconomy of the divine persons; which see farther explained in Vol. I. page 292, 293, &c. 26.??e??e?a. 27.??et?sa?. 28.??????. 29.The former of these divines call reatus potentialis, the latter, reatus actualis; the former is the immediate consequence of sin, the latter is taken away by justification. 30.Righteousness is taken ordinarily to signify a conformity to laws, or rules of right conduct. Actions, and persons may respectively be denominated righteous. The moral law, which is both distinguishable by the moral sense, and expressly revealed, requires perfect and perpetual rectitude in disposition, purpose, and action. Because none are absolutely conformed to this law, none can fairly claim to be in themselves, simply, and absolutely righteous. Men are said therefore to be righteous comparatively, or because the defects of many of their actions are few, or not discernible by their fellow men. To be made, (or constituted) righteous, or, to be justified, in the sight of God, in scriptural language cannot mean, to be made inherently righteous. It is God who justifies, he cannot call evil good, and cannot be ignorant of every man’s real demerit. This righteousness of the saint has not consisted, under any dispensation, in his own conformity to the Divine law; “In the Lord have I righteousness;” “That I may win Christ and be found in him, not having my own righteousness.” If it did, there would be no necessity for the aid of God’s Spirit to sanctify the nature of the justified person. To be justified or constituted righteous, is therefore to be treated and accepted as righteous. If God justifies the ungodly, his truth and justice must be clear. He cannot be induced to depart from perfect rectitude, and strict propriety. When the ungodly are justified, or treated as if righteous, it is not on their own account, for their righteousness is defective; but by the obedience of one, (that is Christ,) many are made righteous. The term obedience excludes the essential righteousness of Christ as God. And his righteousness which he rendered in our nature can neither be transfused into, nor transferred unto his people, so as to be theirs inherently. Nor can an infinitely wise God consider the righteousness of one man to be the personal righteousness of another. But one person may receive advantages from the righteousness of another. Sodom would have been spared if there could have been found ten holy men in it. Millions may be treated kindly, because of favour or respect had for one of their number espousing the cause of the whole. One man may become the surety of, and perform conditions for many, or pay a ransom for them, and purchase them from slavery. If it be said that one may not lay down his life, especially if it be important, for the preservation of another’s; yet Christ was the Lord of life and possessed what no mere creature can, the right to lay down his life, and power to take it up again. The importance of the satisfaction should be adequate to the honour of the law. But that every objection to such substitution might be removed, it is shewn that, this was the very condition upon which the restoration of the saints was suspended in the purposes of God before man was created; and was promised us in Christ Jesus before the world began. Justice therefore can neither object to the substitution, nor withhold the rewards. 31.Splendida peccata. 32.See Vol. II. Page 275. 33.The distinction often used in the civil law between fide-jussor and expromissor, or a person’s being bound together with the original debtor, and the creditor’s being left to his liberty to exact the debt of which of the two he pleases, which is called fide-jussor; and the surety’s taking the debt upon himself, so as that he who contracted it is hereby discharged, which is what we understand by expromissor, has been considered elsewhere. See Vol. II. Page 174, 186. 34.Volenti non fit injuria. 35.See Vol. II. Page 281. 36.See Vol. II. page 288. 37.See Vol. II. page 280-293. 38.??? ??????. 39.I am not without painful apprehension, said Peter to John, that the views of our friend James on some of the doctrines of the gospel, are unhappily diverted from the truth. I suspect he does not believe in the proper imputation of sin to Christ, or of Christ’s righteousness to us; nor in his being our substitute, or representative. John. Those are serious things; but what are the grounds, brother Peter, on which your suspicions rest? Peter. Partly what he has published, which I cannot reconcile with those doctrines; and partly what he has said in my hearing, which I consider as an avowal of what I have stated. John. What say you to this, brother James? James. I cannot tell whether what I have written or spoken accords with brother Peter’s ideas on these subjects: indeed I suspect it does not: but I never thought of calling either of the doctrines in question. Were I to relinquish the one or the other, I should be at a loss for ground on which to rest my salvation. What he says of my avowing my disbelief of them in his hearing must be a misunderstanding. I did say, I suspected that his views of imputation and substitution were unscriptural; but had no intention of disowning the doctrines themselves. Peter. Brother James, I have no desire to assume any dominion over your faith; but should be glad to know what are your ideas on these important subjects. Do you hold that sin was properly imputed to Christ, or that Christ’s righteousness is properly imputed to us, or not? James. You are quite at liberty, brother Peter, to ask me any questions on these subjects; and if you will hear me patiently, I will answer you as explicitly as I am able. John. Do so, brother James; and we shall hear you not only patiently, but, I trust, with pleasure. James. To impute, First: It is applied to the charging, reckoning, or placing to the account of persons and things, THAT WHICH PROPERLY BELONGS TO THEM. This I consider as its proper meaning. In this sense the word is used in the following passages. “Eli thought she, (Hannah,) had been drunken—Hanan and Mattaniah, the treasurers were counted faithful—Let a man so account of us as the ministers of Christ, and stewards of the mysteries of God—Let such an one think this, that such as we are in word by letters when we are absent, such will we be also indeed when we are present—I reckon that the sufferings of this present time are not worthy to be compared with the glory that shall be revealed in us.” In this sense the term is ordinarily used in common life. To impute treason or any other crime to a man, is the same thing as charging him with having committed it, and with a view to his being punished. Secondly: It is applied to the charging, reckoning, or placing to the account of persons and things, THAT WHICH DOES NOT PROPERLY BELONG TO THEM, AS THOUGH IT DID. This I consider as its improper or figurative meaning. In this sense the word is used in the following passages—“And this your heave-offering shall be reckoned unto you as though it were the corn of the threshing-floor and as the fulness of the wine-press—Wherefore hidest thou thy face, and holdest me for thine enemy—If the uncircumcision keep the righteousness of the law, shall not his uncircumcision be counted for circumcision—If he hath wronged thee, or oweth thee aught, put that on mine account.” It is in this latter sense that I understand the term when applied to justification. “Abraham believed God, and it was counted unto him for righteousness—To him that worketh not, but believeth on him that justifieth the ungodly, his faith is counted for righteousness.” The counting, or reckoning, in these instances, is not a judging of things as they are; but as they are not, as though they were. I do not think that faith here means the righteousness of the Messiah: for it is expressly called “believing.” It means believing, however, not as a virtuous exercise of the mind which God consented to accept instead of perfect obedience, but as having respect to the promised Messiah, and so to his righteousness as the ground of acceptance. But if it were allowed that faith in these passages really means the object believed in, still this was not Abraham’s own righteousness, and could not be properly counted by him who judges of things as they are, as being so. It was reckoned unto him as if it were his; and the effects, or benefits of it were actually imparted to him: but this was all. Abraham did not become meritorious, or cease to be unworthy. “What is it to place our righteousness in the obedience of Christ, (says Calvin,) but to affirm that hereby only we are accounted righteous; because the obedience of Christ is imputed to us AS IF IT WERE OUR OWN.” It is thus also that I understand the imputation of sin to Christ. He was accounted in the divine administration as if he were, or had been the sinner, that those who believe in him might be accounted as if they were, or had been righteous. Brethren, I have done. Whether my statement be just or not, I hope it will be allowed to be explicit. John. That it certainly is; and we thank you. Have you any other questions, brother Peter, to ask upon the subject? Peter. How do you understand the apostle in 2 Cor. v. 21. He hath made him to be sin for us, who knew no sin, that we might be made the righteousness of God in him? James. Till lately I cannot say that I have thought closely upon it. I have understood that several of our best writers consider the word aa?t?a (sin) as frequently meaning a sin-offering. Dr. Owen so interprets it in his answer to Biddle, Peter. Do you consider Christ as having been punished, really and properly PUNISHED? James. I should think I do not. But what do you mean by punishment? Peter. An innocent person may suffer, but, properly speaking, he cannot be punished. Punishment necessarily supposes criminality. James. Just so; and therefore as I do not believe that Jesus was in any sense criminal, I cannot say he was really and properly punished. Peter. Punishment is the infliction of natural evil for the commission of moral evil. It is not necessary, however, that the latter should have been committed by the party—Criminality is supposed: but it may be either personal or imputed. James. This I cannot admit. Real and proper punishment, if I understand the terms, is not only the infliction of natural evil for the commission of moral evil; but the infliction of the one upon the person who committed the other, and in displeasure against him. It not only supposes criminality, but that the party punished was literally the criminal. Criminality committed by one party, and imputed to another, is not a ground for real and proper punishment. If Paul had sustained the punishment due to Onesimus for having wronged his master, yet it would not have been real and proper punishment to him, but suffering only, as not being inflicted in displeasure against him. I am aware of what has been said on this subject, that there was a more intimate union between Christ and those for whom he died, than could ever exist between creatures. But be it so, it is enough for me that the union was not such as THAT THE ACTIONS OF THE ONE BECAME THOSE OF THE OTHER. Christ, even in the act of offering himself a sacrifice, when, to speak in the language of the Jewish law, the sins of the people were put or laid upon him, gave himself nevertheless THE JUST FOR THE UNJUST. Peter. And thus it is that you understand the words of Isaiah, The Lord hath laid on him the iniquity of us all? James. Yes, he bore the punishment due to our sins, or that which, considering the dignity of his person, was equivalent to it. The phrase “He shall bear his iniquity,” which so frequently occurs in the Old Testament, means, he shall bear the punishment due to his iniquity. Peter. And yet you deny that Christ’s sufferings were properly penal. James. You would not deny eternal life which is promised to believers to be properly a reward; but you would deny its being a real and proper reward TO THEM. Peter. And what then? James. If eternal life, though it be a reward, and we partake of it, yet is really and properly the reward of Christ’s obedience, and not our’s; then the sufferings of Christ, though they were a punishment, and he sustained it, yet were really and properly the punishment of our sins, and not his. What he bore was punishment: that is, it was the expression of divine displeasure against transgressors. So what we enjoy is reward: that is, it is the expression of God’s well-pleasedness in the obedience and death of his Son. But neither is the one a punishment to him, nor the other, properly speaking, a reward to us. There appears to me great accuracy in the scriptural language on this subject. What our Saviour underwent is almost always expressed by the term suffering. Once it is called a chastisement: yet there he is not said to have been chastised; but “the chastisement of our peace was upon him.” This is the same as saying he bore our punishment. He was made a curse for us: that is, having been reckoned, or accounted the sinner, as though he had actually been so, he was treated accordingly, as one that had deserved to be an outcast from heaven and earth. I believe the wrath of God that was due to us was poured upon him, but I do not believe that God for one moment was angry or displeased with him, or that he smote him from any such displeasure. There is a passage in Calvin’s Institutes, which so fully expresses my mind, that I hope you will excuse me if I read it. You will find it in Bk. ii. chap. xvi. § 10, 11. “It behoved him that he should, as it were, hand to hand, wrestle with the armies of hell, and the horror of eternal death. The chastisement of our peace was laid upon him. He was smitten of his Father for our crimes, and bruised for our iniquities: whereby is meant that he was put in the stead of the wicked, as surety and pledge, yea, and as the very guilty person himself, to sustain and bear away all the punishments that should have been laid upon them, save only that he could not be holden of death. Yet do we not mean that God was at any time either his enemy, or angry with him. For how could he be angry with his beloved Son, upon whom his mind rested? Or how could Christ by his intercession appease his Father’s wrath towards others, if, full of hatred, he had been incensed against himself? But this is our meaning—that he sustained the weight of the divine displeasure; inasmuch as he, being stricken and tormented by the hand of God, DID FEEL ALL THE TOKENS OF GOD WHEN HE IS ANGRY AND PUNISHETH.” Peter. The words of scripture are very express—He hath made him to be sin for us—He was made a curse for us.—You may, by diluting and qualifying interpretations, soften what you consider as intolerable harshness. In other words, you may choose to correct the language and sentiments of inspiration, and teach the apostle to speak of his Lord with more decorum, lest his personal purity should be impeached, and lest the odium of the cross, annexed by divine law, remain attached to his death: but if you abide by the obvious meaning of the passages, you must hold with a commutation of persons, the imputation of sin and of righteousness, and a vicarious punishment, equally pregnant with execration as with death. John. I wish brother Peter would forbear the use of language which tends not to convince, but to irritate. James. If there be any thing convincing in it, I confess I do not perceive it. I admit with Mr. Charnock, “That Christ was ‘made sin’ as if he had sinned all the sins of men; and we are ‘made righteousness,’ as if we had not sinned at all.” What more is necessary to abide by the obvious meaning of the words? To go further must be to maintain that Christ’s being made sin means that he was literally rendered wicked, and that his being made a curse is the same thing as his being punished for it according to his deserts. Brother Peter, I am sure, does not believe this shocking position: but he seems to think there is a medium between his being treated as if he were a sinner, and his being one. If such a medium there be, I should be glad to discover it: at present it appears to me to have no existence. Brother Peter will not suspect me, I hope, of wishing to depreciate his judgment, when I say, that he appears to me to be attached to certain terms without having sufficiently weighed their import. In most cases I should think it a privilege to learn of him: but in some things I cannot agree with him. In order to maintain the real and proper punishment of Christ, he talks of his being “guilty by imputation.” The term guilty, I am aware, is often used by theological writers for an obligation to punishment, and so applies to that voluntary obligation which Christ came under to sustain the punishment of our sins: but strictly speaking, guilt is the desert of punishment; and this can never apply but to the offender. It is the opposite of innocence. A voluntary obligation to endure the punishment of another is not guilt, any more than a consequent exemption from obligation in the offender, is innocence. Both guilt and innocence are transferable in their effects, but in themselves they are untransferable. To say that Christ was reckoned or counted in the divine administration as if he were the sinner, and came under an obligation to endure the curse or punishment due to our sins, is one thing: but to say he deserved that curse, is another. Guilt, strictly speaking, is the inseparable attendant of transgression, and could never therefore for one moment occupy the conscience of Christ. If Christ by imputation became deserving of punishment, we by non-imputation cease to deserve it; and if our demerits be literally transferred to him, his merits must of course be the same to us: and then, instead of approaching God as guilty and unworthy, we might take consequence to ourselves before him, as not only guiltless, but meritorious beings. Peter. Some who profess to hold that believers are justified by the righteousness of Christ, deny, nevertheless, that his obedience itself is imputed to them: for they maintain that the scripture represents believers as receiving only the benefits, or effects of Christ’s righteousness in justification, or their being pardoned and accepted for Christ’s righteousness sake.—But it is not merely for the sake of Christ, or of what he has done, that believers are accepted of God, and treated as completely righteous; but it is IN him as their Head, Representative, and Substitute; and by the imputation of that very obedience which as such he performed to the divine law, that they are justified. James. I have no doubt but that the imputation of Christ’s righteousness presupposes a union with him; since there is no perceivable fitness in bestowing benefits on one for another’s sake where there is no union or relation subsisting between them. It is not such a union, however, as that THE ACTIONS OF EITHER BECOME THOSE OF THE OTHER. That “the scriptures represent believers as receiving only the benefits or the effects of Christ’s righteousness in justification,” is a remark of which I am not able to perceive the fallacy: nor does it follow that his obedience itself is not imputed to them. Obedience itself may be and is imputed, while its effects only are imparted, and consequently received. I never met with a person who held the absurd notion of imputed benefits, or imputed punishments; and am inclined to think there never was such a person. Be that however as it may, sin on the one hand and righteousness on the other, are the proper objects of imputation; but that imputation consists in charging or reckoning them to the account of the party in such a way as to impart to him their evil or beneficial effects. Peter. The doctrine for which I contend as taught by the apostle Paul, is neither novel, nor more strongly expressed than it has formerly been by authors of eminence. James. It may be so. We have been told of an old protestant writer who says, that “In Christ, and by him, every true Christian may be called a fulfiller of the law:” but I see not why he might not as well have added, Every true Christian may be said to have been slain, and, if not to have redeemed himself by his own blood, yet to be worthy of all that blessing, and honour, and glory, that shall be conferred upon him in the world to come.—What do you think of Dr. Crisp’s Sermons? Has he not carried your principles to an extreme? Peter. I cordially agree with Witsius, as to the impropriety of calling Christ a sinner, truly a sinner, the greatest of sinners, &c. yet I am far from disapproving of what Dr. Crisp, and some others, meant by those exceptionable expressions. James. If a Christian may be called a fulfiller of the law, on account of Christ’s obedience being imputed to him, I see not why Christ may not be called a transgressor of the law, on account of our disobedience being imputed to him. Persons and things should be called what they are. As to the meaning of Dr. Crisp, I am very willing to think he had no ill design: but my concern is with the meaning which his words convey to his readers. He considers God in charging our sins on Christ, and accounting his righteousness to us, as reckoning of things as they are. (p. 280.) He contends that Christ was really the sinner, or guilt could not have been laid upon him. (p. 272.) Imputation of sin and righteousness, with him, is literally and actually A TRANSFER OF CHARACTER; and it is the object of his reasoning to persuade his believing hearers that from henceforward Christ is the sinner, and not they. “Hast thou been an idolater, says he; a blasphemer, a despiser of God’s word, a profaner of his name and ordinances, a thief, a liar, a drunkard—If thou hast part in Christ, all these transgressions of thine become actually the transgressions of Christ, and so cease to be thine; and thou ceasest to be a transgressor from the time they were laid upon Christ, to the last hour of thy life: so that now thou art not an idolater, a persecutor, a thief, a liar, &c.—thou art not a sinful person. Reckon whatever sin you commit, when as you have part in Christ, you are all that Christ was, and Christ is all that you were.” If the meaning of this passage be true and good, I see nothing exceptionable in the expressions. All that can be said is, that the writer explicitly states his principle and avows its legitimate consequences. I believe the principle to be false.—(1.) Because neither sin nor righteousness are in themselves transferable. The act and deed of one person may affect another in many ways, but cannot possibly become his act and deed.—(2.) Because the scriptures uniformly declare Christ to be sinless, and believers to be sinful creatures.—(3.) Because believers themselves have in all ages confessed their sins, and applied to the mercy-seat for forgiveness. They never plead such an union as shall render their sins not theirs, but Christ’s; but merely such a one as affords ground to apply for pardon in his name, or for his sake; not as worthy claimants, but as unworthy supplicants. Whatever reasonings we may give into, there are certain times in which conscience will bear witness, that notwithstanding the imputation of our sins to Christ, we are actually the sinners; and I should have thought no good man could have gravely gone about to overturn its testimony. Yet this is what Dr. Crisp has done. “Believers think, says he, that they find their transgressions in their own consciences, and they imagine that there is a sting of this poison still behind, wounding them: but, beloved, if this principle be received for a truth, that God hath laid thy iniquities on Christ, how can thy transgressions, belonging to Christ, be found in thy heart and conscience?—Is thy conscience Christ?” p. 269. Perhaps no man has gone further than Dr. Crisp in his attempts at consistency; and admitting his principle, that imputation consists in a transfer of character, I do not see who can dispute his conclusions. To have been perfectly consistent, however, he should have proved that all the confessions and lamentations of believers, recorded in scripture, arose from their being under the mistake which he labours to rectify; that is, thinking sin did not cease to be theirs, even when under the fullest persuasion that the Lord would not impute it to them, but would graciously cover it by the righteousness of his Son.—— —— John. I think, brother Peter, you expressed at the beginning of our conversation, a strong suspicion that brother James denied the substitution of Christ, as well as the proper imputation of sin and righteousness. What has passed on the latter subject would probably tend either to confirm or remove your suspicions respecting the former. Peter. I confess I was mistaken in some of my suspicions. I consider our friend as a good man; but am far from being satisfied with what I still understand to be his views on this important subject. John. It gives me great pleasure to hear the honest concessions of brethren, when they feel themselves in any measure to have gone too far. Peter. I shall be glad to hear brother James’s statement on substitution, and to know whether he considers our Lord in his undertaking as having sustained the character of a Head, or Representative; and if so, whether the persons for whom he was a substitute were the elect only, or mankind in general. James. I must acknowledge that on this subject I feel considerably at a loss, I have no consciousness of having ever called the doctrine of substitution in question. On the contrary, my hope of salvation rests upon it; and the sum of my delight, as a minister of the gospel, consists in it. If I know any thing of my own heart, I can say of my Saviour as laying down his life for, or instead of sinners, as was said of Jerusalem by the captives—If I forget THEE, let my right hand forget: If I do not remember THEE, let my tongue cleave to the roof of my mouth! I have always considered the denial of this doctrine as being of the essence of Socinianism. I could not have imagined that any person whose hope of acceptance with God rests not on any goodness in himself but entirely on the righteousness of Christ, imputed to him as if it were his own, would have been accounted to disown his substitution. But perhaps, my dear brother, (for such I feel him to be, notwithstanding our differences,) may include in his ideas of this subject, that Christ was so our head and representative, as that what he did and suffered, we did and suffered in him.—If no more were meant by this, resumed James, than that what he did and suffered is graciously accepted on our behalf as if it were ours, I freely, as I have said before, acquiesce in it. But I do not believe, and can hardly persuade myself that brother Peter believes, the obedience and sufferings of Christ to be so ours, as that we can properly be said to have obeyed and suffered. Christ was and is our head, and we are his members: the union between him and us, however, is not in all respects the same as that which is between the head and the members of the natural body: for that would go to explain away all distinct consciousness and accountableness on our part. As to the term representative, if no more be meant by it than that Christ so personated us as to die in our stead, that we, believing in him, should not die, I have nothing to object to it. But I do not believe that Christ was so our representative, as that what he did and suffered, we did and suffered; and so became meritorious, or deserving of the divine favour.—But I feel myself in a wide field, and must entreat your indulgence while I take up so much of the conversation. Peter and John. Go on, and state your sentiments without apology. James. I apprehend then that many important mistakes have arisen from considering the interposition of Christ under the notion of paying a debt. The blood of Christ is indeed the price of our redemption, or that for the sake of which we are delivered from the curse of the law: but this metaphorical language, as well as that of head and members, may be carried too far, and may lead us into many errors. In cases of debt and credit among men, where a surety undertakes to represent the debtor, from the moment his undertaking is accepted, the debtor is free, and may claim his liberty, not as a matter of favour, at least on the part of the creditor, but of strict justice. Or should the undertaking be unknown to him for a time, yet as soon as he knows it, he may demand his discharge, and, it may be, think himself hardly treated by being kept in bondage so long after his debt had been actually paid. But who in their sober senses will imagine this to be analagous to the redemption of sinners by Jesus Christ? Sin is a debt only in a metaphorical sense: properly speaking, it is a crime, and satisfaction for it requires to be made, not on pecuniary, but on moral principles. If Philemon had accepted of that part of Paul’s offer which respected property, and had placed so much to his account as he considered Onesimus to have “owed” him, he could not have been said to have remitted his debt; nor would Onesimus have had to thank him for remitting it. But it is supposed of Onesimus that he might not only be in debt to his master, but have “wronged” him. Perhaps he had embezzled his goods, corrupted his children, or injured his character. Now for Philemon to accept of that part of the offer, were very different from the other. In the one case he would have accepted of a pecuniary representative; in the other of a moral one; that is, of a mediator. The satisfaction in the one case would annihilate the idea of remission; but not in the other. Whatever satisfaction Paul might give to Philemon respecting the wound inflicted upon his character and honour as the head of a family, it would not supersede the necessity of pardon being sought by the offender, and freely bestowed by the offended. The reason of this difference is easily perceived. Debts are transferable; but crimes are not. A third person may cancel the one; but he can only obliterate the effects of the other; the desert of the criminal remains. The debtor is accountable to his creditor as a private individual, who has power to accept of a surety, or if he please, to remit the whole, without any satisfaction. In the one case he would be just; in the other merciful: but no place is afforded by either of them for the combination of justice and mercy in the same proceeding. The criminal, on the other hand, is amenable to the magistrate, or to the head of a family, as a public person, and who, especially if the offence be capital, cannot remit the punishment without invading law and justice, nor in the ordinary discharge of his office, admit of a third person to stand in his place. In extraordinary cases, however, extraordinary expedients are resorted to. A satisfaction may be made to law and justice, as to the spirit of them, while the letter is dispensed with. The well-known story of Zaleucus, the Grecian law-giver, who consented to lose one of his eyes to spare one of his son’s eyes, who by transgressing the law had subjected himself to the loss of both, is an example. Here, as far as it went, justice and mercy were combined in the same act: and had the satisfaction been much fuller than it was, so full that the authority of the law, instead of being weakened, should have been abundantly magnified and honoured, still it had been perfectly consistent with free forgiveness. Finally: In the case of the debtor, satisfaction being once accepted, justice requires his complete discharge: but in that of the criminal, where satisfaction is made to the wounded honour of the law, and the authority of the lawgiver, justice, though it admits of his discharge, yet no otherwise requires it than as it may have been matter of promise to the substitute. I do not mean to say that cases of this sort afford a competent representation of redemption by Christ. That is a work which not only ranks with extraordinary interpositions, but which has no parallel: it is a work of God, which leaves all the petty concerns of mortals infinitely behind it. All that comparisons can do, is to give us some idea of the principle on which it proceeds. If the following passage in our admired Milton were considered as the language of the law of innocence, it would be inaccurate— “——Man disobeying, He with his whole posterity must die: Die he, or justice must; unless for him Some other able, and as willing, pay The rigid satisfaction, death for death.” Abstractedly considered, this is true; but it is not expressive of what was the revealed law of innocence. The law made no such condition, or provision; nor was it indifferent to the law-giver who should suffer, the sinner, or another on his behalf. The language of the law to the transgressor was not thou shalt die, or some one on thy behalf; but simply thou shalt die: and had it literally taken its course, every child of man must have perished. The sufferings of Christ in our stead, therefore, are not a punishment inflicted in the ordinary course of distributive justice; but an extraordinary interposition of infinite wisdom and love: not contrary to, but rather above the law, deviating from the letter, but more than preserving the spirit of it. Such, brethren, as well as I am able to explain them, are my views of the substitution of Christ. Peter. The objection of our so stating the substitution of Christ, as to leave no room for the free pardon of sin, has been often made by those who avowedly reject his satisfaction; but for any who really consider his death as an atonement for sin, and as essential to the ground of a sinner’s hope, to employ the objection against us, is very extraordinary, and must, I presume, proceed from inadvertency. James. If it be so, I do not perceive it. The grounds of the objection have been stated as clearly and as fully as I am able to state them. Fuller 40.???; ??????a?. 41.1 Sam. i. 13. Neh. xiii. 13. 1 Cor. iv. 1. 2 Cor. x. 11. Rom. viii. 18. 42.2 Sam. xix. 19. Ps. xxxii. 2. 2 Tim. iv. 16. 43.Num. xviii. 27-30. Job xiii. 24. Rom. ii. 26. Philem. 18. 44.Expository Discourses on Gen. xv. 1-6. Also Calvin’s Inst. bk. iii. ch. xi. § 7. 45.Inst. bk. iii. ch. xi. § 2. 46.p. 510. 47.Lev. xvi. 21. 48.Lev. i. 4, 5. 49.That faith is a holy duty is evident, because it never obtains, except where the bent, or bias of the mind has been changed by the Holy Spirit; yet it is like all the other works of man, imperfect, and might be stronger. That it is necessary in every action is clear, for whatsoever is not of faith is sin; both because it is the work of an enemy, and because it cannot be accepted, having no reference to Christ. Faith is always accompanied by other holy traits of character, as repentance, love, patience, humility, and the like. The reason of which is evident; for faith is an act of the renewed man, and all the other graces must accompany. But it is even less holy than love; “now abideth faith, hope, charity, (love)—the greatest of these is charity.” It is incapable of procuring by its righteousness our justification, because imperfect. If it were the holiness of the duty of faith, which justifies the man before God, we should read of a justification by love, patience, humility, or holiness in general. No such declaration occurs in the scriptures, but the reverse; “for by the deeds of the law shall no flesh be justified,” which is manifestly spoken not merely of the corporal energy, but of the action taken with the intention. If the righteousness of the duty of faith justifies, there could be no propriety in saying that we are “justified by Christ,” or his righteousness; there would have been no need of a Saviour, and all the sacrifices of former days were useless. If we are to depend upon the righteousness of our believing for our justification, the believing in Christ will be of no importance, because Christ is then not our Saviour; in proportion as our hopes are founded upon our own holiness, they are withdrawn from Christ.—This will also destroy the righteousness of faith, for if it be useless there can be no holiness in believing. If the holiness consist not in the act of believing, but in the disposition of the believer, and if it is for this, that he is justified; salvation is then a debt, not grace; we have whereof to boast; we are justified by the deeds of the law; the offence of the cross has ceased; and Arians, Socinians, Unitarians, and Deists are seeking justification also in the same way. That repentance, and holiness are necessary to salvation is true, because every man who is justified is also sanctified; and that faith, considered as a holy duty, is necessary in the same manner, is equally true; but faith is also useful in our justification, and in a manner, in which, it does not appear, that repentance and holiness can be. To say that they are conditions of salvation is to speak ambiguously; that we cannot be saved without them, is as certain as that we cannot be justified, without being also sanctified; but to say, that by performing them a title to happiness is vested in us, is to rob Christ of his glory, and to put the crown on man’s head. Besides, the condition of holiness is not accomplished till death, and as the condition of our justification is not performed till then, we are never justified in life, which is plainly contrary to the scriptures. 50.This is what is generally styled, by a diminutive word, Acceptilatio gratiosa, which is an accepting a small part of a debt, instead of the whole; a sort of composition, in which, though the payment be inconsiderable, yet the debtor’s discharge is founded thereon, by an act of favour in the creditor, as though the whole sum had been paid. 51.These works they speak of as Tincta sanguine Christi. 52.“Abraham believed God and it was imputed or counted to him for righteousness.” This passage of Scripture is found with little variation also in the Epistle to the Galatians (iii. 6.) and in the Epistle of James (ii. 23.) and in each of the places it seems to have been introduced in support of its context from the first book of Moses. (xv. 6.) Moses is giving at that place a visionary (as we suppose) correspondence between Jehovah and Abraham; in which the Lord promises to the patriarch to be his “shield and exceeding great reward,” and upon Abraham’s complaining that he was childless, his attention is directed to the stars, and he is told that it will be equally impracticable to number his posterity, and then follow the words “Abraham believed in Here it is given as an old-testament proof of that which has been a little before asserted “that a man is justified by faith without the deeds of the law,” but because this doctrine would seem to make void the law, the apostle states this objection, then denies it with abhorrence, and introduces for his support Abraham’s justification before God, “if Abraham were justified by works he hath whereof to glory, but not before God; for what saith the scriptures? Abraham believed God, and it was counted unto him for righteousness.” In the letter to the christians of Galatia he aims to bring them back from depending on their obedience to the moral and ceremonial laws, to a reliance upon Christ for salvation, he declares that “by the works of the law no flesh shall be justified” in the sight of God; and that christians are “dead to the law,” “seek to be justified by Christ,” and “live by the faith of the Son of God.” He asserts “if righteousness come by the law then Christ is dead in vain.” He charges the Galatians with folly. After having heard, seen, and experienced the doctrines of the Gospel, its extraordinary and ordinary spiritual powers, to go back to dead works would argue something like fascination. And then to show that the Gospel mode of justification by faith was not peculiar to the Gospel he quotes from the book of Genesis these words; “Abraham believed God, and it was accounted to him for righteousness.” The apostle James reprehends such as profess to be believers and yet are not careful to maintain good works; such professions of faith are less credible than the fruits of holiness; “show me thy faith without thy works, and I will show thee my faith by my works.” Faith without works he pronounces to be dead, not merely inoperative, but destitute of a living principle. He then introduces Abraham’s example of offering up Isaac as a proof of his faith; this work being a manifest effect of his faith in God, justifies, in the sight of all men, his character as a believer, “and the scripture” he says “was fulfilled which saith Abraham believed God, and it was imputed unto him for righteousness.” The offering up of Isaac, having taken place several years after it had been said that “Abraham believed God,” was an undeniable evidence of the truth, and a fulfilment, of that scripture. Abraham’s faith here mentioned has been understood as implying both the act of believing God’s promises and his yielding to the call of God by emigrating, &c. But the apostle here contrasts faith with works, and denies a justification before God to be attainable by our obedience, consequently his introduction of Abraham’s justification by his good deeds would have destroyed his own argument. Others That the Lord Faith is the mind’s assent to external evidence; faith thus strictly considered as an act, is man’s act, as much so as any can be, and as the understanding at least in its application to the evidence must be accompanied by the consent of the will, here is every thing that is necessary to constitute a work, and accordingly it is commanded as a duty, the neglect of which is criminal. If it be thus that faith justifies the believer in the sight of God, then there is no propriety in saying we are not justified by works, and if it were possible still less in adducing the example of Abraham’s justification by that which was no more than a duty to prove that we cannot be justified by works, “Christ being the end of the law for righteousness to every one who believeth.” If man can be so justified boasting is not excluded he has whereof to glory. But the design of the apostle was to show that Abraham himself one of the holiest of men with all his good deeds, and implicit obedience to divine commands was not justified for his own holiness or godliness, for that is the opinion he is combating, but by what he calls faith. When the things which we are required to believe are of a spiritual nature, the “carnal mind” requires to be freed from its prejudices before it will “receive them,” and because supernatural aid is necessary to such minds and all naturally possess them, such “faith” must unquestionably be “the gift of God” in a sense higher than that of every other species of faith exercised under the support of Divine Providence. If faith is a gift of God it merits nothing for us, can never create an obligation on Divine justice for remuneration, and so can never be a justifying righteousness. In his epistle to the Galatians that which he terms a being “justified by faith” he also denominates a being “justified by faith in Christ” so that his justifying faith is not merely a belief of the truth of what God has spoken, but is connected in some manner with Christ, and that it is not the mere act of believing in Christ which is the ground of such justification is plain from this, that he expresses the same thing by the words, “being justified by Christ.” If it is true that we are justified by faith, and also justified by Christ, it must be meant in different senses, and to give effect to these words thus differently connected, it seems necessary to suppose the righteousness of Christ as the meritorious cause or ground of justification, and faith the instrumental. “To as many as received him to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to as many as believed on his name,” or at least as the concomitant of it, where all other requisites exist as well as grace for its production. It is not the holiness of his faith that is accounted for righteousness to him: faith is a holy duty but not more so than some others, and not so much so as love, “now abide faith, hope, love, and the greatest of these is love;” nor are christians ever said to be justified by love, joy, peace, patience, or by any other grace, except by faith. From whence it follows that it is not the holiness of faith for which the believer is justified, and yet that there is some property not common to any other grace or duty, which must be concerned in our justification; and no doubt it is because faith lays hold on him for whose sake alone we can be justified. Or faith may be put for its object, as the words fear, hope, joy, and love are; God is our fear, our hope, &c. “Thy faith hath saved thee,” it was not her faith, but its object, Christ’s power, that healed her. The seed which was promised embraced Christ, whose day Abraham saw afar off; so this faith had the Redeemer for its object. In the epistle to the Galatians there follow the quotation these words, “as many as are of faith are the children of Abraham,” these are called his spiritual seed, and believe in Christ, now if all who believe in Christ are thereby the children of Abraham, and Abraham their father or pattern of faith, his faith must have been of the same kind. There could have been little propriety in giving a faith of any other kind as a pattern to those who are to believe in Christ that they may be “justified by his blood.” 53.The quotations of Paul and James follow the lxx. in omitting the in. 54.Hammond. 55.Whitby. Macknight. 56.Macknight. 57.This opinion was propagated soon after the reformation, by Andr. Osiander, who lived a little before the middle of the sixteenth century. 58.This opinion was propagated soon after by Stancarus, in opposition to Osiander, whom Du Pin reckons amongst the Socinians, or, at least, that after he had advanced this notion, he denied the doctrine of the Trinity. [See Du Pin’s eccl. hist. sixteenth century, book iv. chap. 6.] 59.This is commonly called fiducia, and as such, distinguished from fides, by which the former is generally expressed. 60.In this respect faith is contra-distinguished from science; accordingly we are said to know a thing that is contained in an axiom, that no one, who has the exercise of his understanding, can doubt of, viz. that the whole is greater than the part; or, that a thing cannot be, and not be at the same time, &c. And every thing that is founded on a mathematical demonstration, is included in the word science; to which we may add occular demonstration. Now these things are not properly the object of faith, or the assent we give to the truth hereof, is not founded barely upon evidence, in which respect faith is distinguished from it; for which reason we call it an assent to a truth, founded on evidence. 61.Truth in the abstract is not the object of faith, but that which is true. The word of God when represented as the object of faith is not to be understood of words and letters, nor even of axioms and propositions, nor is the Divine veracity, though certainly confided in, the object of faith, or that which is assented unto. The promises which the old testament-believers had, and reposed in, were not the objects of faith, but the things which they saw afar off, and which were the ground of their rejoicing. When we are required to believe on Jesus Christ, it is not his human, not his Divine nature, not his person, nor even his mediatorial character which is the object of our faith; for any of these alone could be no ground of confidence of salvation, or hope, much less produce joy in the believer. Every thing essential to our salvation must be considered, as the object of our faith; the mercy of God, the love of Christ, the purpose and the act of offering, and accepting the sacrifice to Justice of our sins, and the warrant to us to fix our hope and trust in this atonement; the firm conviction of the truth of these things may be denominated faith. Yet this conviction, or free assent of the understanding is not the faith, which accompanies salvation; if we can suppose it possible, that there should not be a corresponding impression made upon the will and affections. With the heart man believeth unto salvation. In this expression the heart is not put for the intellectual, but moral powers, and must not be understood as if the will assumed the office, peculiar to the understanding, of judging of evidence; but only that the assent of the understanding must be of such a kind, and to such a degree, as to produce a decisive co-operation of all the powers of the man, both of soul and body, to be saved in the way, and by the means discovered. Such an effort for salvation supposes the bent, or bias of the mind to be inclined towards God, and his glory. And certain it is, that the work, or act of believing, depends so much upon the moral state of the man, that although he may assent to every article of faith, and desire an interest in the advantages of religion, he never believes with the heart in the sense above mentioned, until this charge has been wrought in him. On this account faith may well be denominated the work or gift of God, for he only, according to the scriptures can effect this change. Yet it is not because there is any defect in the evidence of these important truths; nor because of any natural, that is physical, defect of the intellectual powers of man, that he does not believe the Divine revelation; but because his affections are pre-occupied, and his inclinations directed into another channel, whereby he is unwilling to apply himself unto these truths, and is prejudiced against the holiness, which is required, and the self denial that is necessary to attain the blessings of salvation. 62.Faith, according to the beloved disciple John, and the great St. Paul, is the belief of the truth; the believing that Jesus is the Christ; or a giving credit to the record that God gave of his Son. These definitions are all of the same import, and are all divine. Being dictated by the Spirit of God, they cannot be contradicted by any, although some have glossed upon them, till they have brought in a sense diverse from the inspired writers. This faith, when it is real, as distinguished from that uninfluential assent to the gospel, which crowds, who hear it, profess to have, is an effect of the divine influence in us; hence it is said to be of the operation of God; and that it is with the heart man believeth unto righteousness. As the righteousness by which the sinner is justified, is the sole work of Christ for him, so this is the work of the Holy Ghost in him, and no less necessary in its proper place; it being that, without which a sinner cannot apprehend, receive, and rest upon Christ for eternal life. By faith, as before observed, he becomes acquainted with the glories of the character of Jesus, the fulness of grace in him, and the suitableness and perfection of his righteousness; in consequence of this faith, he admires the Saviour’s personal excellencies, flies to him, ventures all upon him, and rejoices in him. These, to speak plainly, are all so many effects of faith. The sinner must have a view of the Saviour’s excellency, before he will admire it. He must be persuaded, that Christ is the only safe refuge, before he will fly to him. He must know that there is in Christ sufficient matter of consolation, before he will rejoice in him. Of all these he is entirely satisfied by faith in the testimony of God: subsequent to which is his coming, or flying to him, trusting in, or venturing all upon him, rejoicing in him, &c. e. g. Joseph’s brethren heard that there was corn enough in Egypt; they believed the report: this was faith; upon this they went down for a supply. Doubtless this was an effect of their faith; for had they not believed the tidings, they would never have gone. So a sinner must believe that Christ is a full and complete Saviour, before he will run or fly to him. Sense of misery, and faith in his sufficiency, are the main stimulus. Or, I am sick, I hear of an able physician, I believe him to be so, upon which I apply to him: my application to him, and my belief of his character, are as distinct as any two things can be: my trusting my life in his hands, is an effect of my believing him to be an able physician. This distinction is obvious in the sacred writings, as well as in the nature of things. He that cometh to God, must believe that he is. Here is a manifest distinction between coming and believing. I apprehend that the same distinction should be observed, between believing in Christ, and receiving him. If so, it will follow, that “to receive Christ in all his offices, as a prophet, a priest, and a king,” is not properly faith, but an effect of it, and inseparably connected with it. It is certain that a man must believe that Jesus is the Christ, and that he sustains these offices, before he can or will receive him in this light. Christ came unto his own (meaning the Jews) but his own received him not. This refusing to receive him was not unbelief, but an effect of it. Hence should you be asked, why they did not receive him? The answer is ready, because they did not believe him to be the Christ. Nothing is more plain than that unbelief was the grand cause why they rejected him. On the other hand, nothing is more evident, than that receiving Christ, is an effect of believing in him. And should you ask the man who defines faith, “a receiving Christ in all his offices,” why he thus receives him? he himself will be obliged to observe this distinction; for the only just answer he can give you is, “because I believe he sustains them.” Thus we see that faith is entirely distinct from the righteousness which justifies; at the same time it is indispensably necessary, answering great and good purposes. Under its influence the sinner flies to Jesus, the hope set before him, and trusts his immortal interest in his hands, being perfectly satisfied with his adorable character. Faith is also the medium of peace and consolation. You may with equal propriety attempt to separate light and heat from the sun, as peace of conscience, and joy in the Holy Ghost, from the faith of God’s elect. The degree of Christian consolation may be greater or less, according to the strength and influence of faith. At one time the believer may have an inward peace and tranquility, which is exceedingly agreeable. At another time he may be favoured with what St. Paul calls joy unspeakable and full of glory. At another, guilt may rob him of his comfort, and separate between him and his God. Such are his exercises in the present state of things. But he is far from making a righteousness of his frames, feelings, or experiences. The distinction between these he well understands. The righteousness by which he expects to be justified, is the work of Christ alone; the faith by which he is enabled to receive it, is of the operation of God; the consolations that he enjoys are from this glorious Christ, in believing, or through faith: all as different as A, B, and C. His dependence for acceptance with God is neither on his faith nor experiences, but on Christ alone. At the same time he cannot conceive it possible, for a poor, wretched, undone sinner to be enabled to believe in Christ for eternal life, and not rejoice. A view of the glories of his person, and the fulness and freeness of his grace, cannot fail of introducing strong consolation. STILLMAN’S SERMONS. 67.Vide Vol. I. page 279, in note. 68.Vid. Turrett. Theol. Elenct. Tom. 2. Loc. 16. § 7. 70.See Whitby’s Disc. &c. page 541, in which he quotes Arrian, as giving the sense of Epictetus, Lib. 1. cap. 9. Lib. 3. cap. 5, 24, 26, 36, &c. 71.Vid. Cic. de natura Deorum, Lib. 2. Nullus unquam vir magnus fuit, sine aliquo afflatu divino. 72.See Gale’s court of the Gentiles. Book 3. chap. 1. and chap. 10. and Wits. de Occon. FÆd. 461-463. 73.See Vol. II. page 489. & seq. 74.Vid. G. J. Voss. de Hist. GrÆc. page 22. 75.See Gale’s court of the Gentiles, Part III. book 1, chap. 1, 2. which learned writer having, in some other parts of that work, mentioned several things that were praise worthy, in some of the philosophers, here takes occasion to speak of some other things, which were great blemishes in them; and, in other parts of this elaborate work, proves that those who lived in the first ages of the church, and were attached to their philosophy, were by this means, as he supposes, led aside from many great and important truths of the gospel; of this number Origen, Justin Martyr, and several others. And he further supposes, that what many of them advanced concerning the liberty of man’s will, as to what respects spiritual things, gave occasion to the Pelagians to propagate those doctrines that were subversive of the grace of God; and that the Arian and Samosatenan heresies took their rise from hence. See Part III. Book 2. chap. 1. 76.The natural knowledge of God and his goodness, gives some encouragement to guilty creatures to repent of their sins, and to return to God by a general hope of acceptance, though they had no promise of pardoning grace. And this was the very principle upon which some of the better sort of the Gentiles set themselves to practise virtue, to worship God, and endeavour to become like him. I do not say, that natural religion can give sinful men a full and satisfying assurance of pardon upon their repentance; for the deepest degrees of penitence cannot oblige a prince to forgive the criminal: but still the overflowing goodness of God, his patience and long-suffering, notwithstanding their sins, may evidently and justly excite in their hearts some hope of forgiving grace: and I think the words of my text cannot intend less than this, that God has not left them without witness, when he gave them rain from heaven, when he satisfied their appetites with food, and filled their hearts with gladness. What was it that these benefits of their Creator bore witness to? Was it not that there was goodness and mercy to be found with him, if they would return to their duty, and abandon their own ways of idolatry and vice. Surely, it can never be supposed, that the apostle here means no more than to say, that the daily instances of divine bounty in the common comforts of life, assured them, that God had some goodness in him, and blessings to bestow on their bodies; but gave them no hope of his acceptance of their souls, if they should return and repent never so sincerely. The Ninevites themselves, when threatened with destruction, repented in sackcloth and ashes; for, said they, Who can tell but God will turn and repent, and turn away from his fierce anger, that we perish not? Nor were they mistaken in their hope, for God saw their works, that they turned from their evil way, and he repented of the evil that he had threatened, Jonah iii. 5-10. And there is yet a more express text to this purpose, Rom. ii. 4. Despisest thou the riches of his goodness, and forbearance, and long-suffering, not knowing that the goodness of God leadeth thee to repentance? And if God leads us to repentance, by a sense of his goodness, surely he gives hope that our repentance shall not be in vain: and though, perhaps, I could not affirm it with boldness, and certainty by the mere light of reason, yet I may venture to declare, upon the encouragement of these scriptures, that if there should be found any sinner in the heathen world, who should be thus far wrought upon by a sense of the goodness of God, as to be led sincerely to repent of sin, and seek after mercy, God would find a way to make a discovery of so much of the gospel, as was necessary for him to know, rather than such a penitent sinner should be left under condemnation, or that a guilty creature should go on to eternal death in the way of repentance. Cornelius the Centurion, who feared God, who prayed to him daily, and wrought righteousness, according to the light of his conscience, had both an angel and an apostle sent to him, that he might receive more complete instruction in the matters of his salvation. Acts x. 1-6. and from 30-35.“ Dr. Watts. 222.It has been, perhaps correctly, asserted that repentance is neither a duty discoverable by the law of nature, nor the written law of God; because it is unfit, that a law, appointing death for the violation of its precept, should also discover to the culprit a way of escape from its own penalty incurred. But there existed purposes of mercy before the law was made; these have been revealed by a gracious Sovereign; the condition of men, as prisoners of hope possessing competent evidence of the compassion of the Lawgiver, points to repentance. Sacrifices in former ages discover not only a consciousness of guilt, but a glimmering hope at least, of pardon. It is possible that these were the offspring of tradition among the Gentiles, rather than the deductions of the light of nature. But in either way, sorrow for sin is a duty founded on the will of God. It is therefore a duty, perfectly reasonable, and expressly revealed on the sacred page. The strength to perform it is from the King of Providence and Grace. There is necessary in its production a discovery of guilt, liability to misery, and entire helplessness. The general belief, or profession of these truths, does not prove in event to be a cause adequate to produce a total change in a man’s views, pursuits, desires, aversions, labours, joys, and sorrows. There is necessary some deep sense, or strong conviction of guilt. This, with respect to its proximate cause, may originate in various ways; by reflecting on the Divine Sovereignty and Majesty; by a solemn contemplation of the excellency and loveliness of the moral perfection of Deity; by an affecting sight of his goodness and mercy to the individual in particular; by attending to the awful subject of Divine Justice, seen in the sufferings of Christ, or anticipated in the future judgment, and final sufferings of the damned. Such convictions are produced in great mercy to the individual, how dearly soever they cost him, whether the prostrated idols, on which the sensual affections were fastened, were companions, friends, relations, honour or wealth. Disease, approaching death, or any thing which shall dissolve the unhallowed attachment to earth, may by the Divine blessing produce this change, the glory of which will always really belong to Divine grace, which works unseen. The bitterness of such sorrows is sometimes extreme, when he who wounded alone can cure. The effects of it are subsequently salutary, both to deter from sin and to strengthen the party’s faith. The degrees of penitential sorrow are extremely various in different converts. He who has been convinced of gospel truths step by step, and has been in the same manner brought to the love and fear of God, and to a universal conscientiousness, may have grounds of peace and comfort equally safe, as he whose convictions have been the most sensible; for not their height but their fruits prove them to be genuine. 77.Grace here is put for repentance, and not the immediate influence on the soul. 223.?e?es??. 78.?????. 79.The word is ?ata?t?sa?; which signifies to give them an internal disposition or fitness for the performance of the duties which they were to engage in, Heb. xiii. 21. 80.It is a true observation which some have laid down in this known aphorism, Nemo repente fit turpissimus. 81.See Whitby’s discourse, &c. page 463. 82.See Vol. I. Page 469. 83.See Vol. I. page 481, and page 135-138. 84.See Vol. II. page 170, 171. 85.See Vol. I. page 477, & albi passim. 86.See Vol. I. page 437. 88.See Vol. II. page 473-479. Quest. lv. 90.The words are ?? d??ata? aa?ta?e??. 91.See Whitby’s Discourse, &c. Page 67, 68, 463. 93.See several other scriptures, in which ? is taken adversatively, Matt. xxiv. 35. Gal. i. 7. Rev. ix. 4. 94.See Vol. II page 333-335. 95.It is a known maxim in logic, Suppositio nihil ponit in esse. 96.?a? ?p?ste???ta?. 97.It is certain, that the particles t??, ???, and others of the like import, are often left out, and the defect thereof is to be supplied in our translation: Thus it is in Job xxxiii. 27. where the Hebrew word, which might have been rendered and he shall say, is better rendered and if any say, &c. and in Gen. xlviii. 2. instead of he told Jacob, it is better rendered one told Jacob, or somebody told him; and in Mark ii. 1. t??, which is left out in the Greek text, is supplied in the translation, in which we do not read it after days, but after some days. See Nold. Concord. Partic. Page 41, 42. in which several texts of scripture are produced to the same purpose, and among the rest, this in Heb. x. 38. which we are at present considering as what ought to be rendered if any one draw back. In this and such like instances we may observe, that the verb personal has an impersonal signification, or that which is properly active is rendered passively; so Eccl. ix. 15. ???? ?? is not rendered and he found in it, &c. but now there was found in it; many other instances of the like nature are to be observed in the Hebrew text in the Old Testament; and sometimes this mode of speaking is imitated by the Greek text in the New. I might also observe, with respect to the scripture under our present consideration, that the learned Grotius observes that t?? ought to be supplied, and consequently the text ought to be rendered as it is in our translation, if any man draw back, which he observes as what is agreeable to the grammatical construction thereof, without any regard to the doctrine we are maintaining, with respect to which, he is otherwise minded. 98.To give countenance to this sense of the word impossible, they refer to some scriptures, in which it does not denote an absolute impossibility of the thing, but only that if it comes to pass it will be with much difficulty. Thus it is said, Acts xx. 16. that the Apostle Paul hasted, if it were possible for him to be at Jerusalem the day of Pentecost; where his making haste argues that the thing was not in itself impossible, but difficult. And Rom. xii. 18. we are exhorted, if it be possible, as much as in us lieth, to live peaceably with all men; which shews that it is hard indeed so to do; nevertheless, we are to use our utmost endeavours to do it, which does not argue that the thing is in itself altogether impossible. And there is another scripture they bring to justify this sense of the words in Matt. xix. 23-26. in which our Saviour’s design is to shew the difficulty of a rich man’s entering into the kingdom of heaven, which he compares to a camel’s going through the eye of a needle; by which very few suppose, that the beast, so called, is intended, but a cable-rope, which is sometimes called a camel; thus the Syriack And a learned writer observes, that the Jews, in a proverbial way, express the difficulty of a thing by that of a cable-rope’s passing through the eye of a needle, See Buxt. Lex. Talmud. Pane 1719. and Bochart Hiero. Part. 1. Lib. 2. Cap. 3. And by needle is not meant that which is used in working, but an iron, through which a small rope may be easily drawn; though it was very difficult to force a camel or cable-rope through it; therefore they suppose our Saviour is not speaking of a thing which is absolutely impossible, but exceeding difficult; and this may be inferred from his reply to what the disciples objected, who then can be saved, when he says, with men this is impossible, but with God all things are possible. And to apply this to the scripture under our present consideration, they suppose that the apostle, when he speaks of the renewing of those persons to repentance, does not intend that which is absolutely impossible, but that it cannot be brought about but by the extraordinary power of God, with whom all things are possible. 99.The ancient Syriac is ????? the modern is the same word, which is literally ?a???? a camel, not ?a???? a cable. This Eastern proverb is now well established. Vide Campbell, Clarke, &c. 100.We do not find the word used in that sense till the second century, by Justin Martyr [Vid. ejusd. Dial. 2.] and Clemens Alexandrinus [in PÆdag. Lib. 1. cap. 6.] and therefore we are not altogether to take our measures in explaining the sense of words, used in scripture, from them, who sometimes mistake the sense of the doctrine, contained therein. However, if we take the word in this sense, it does not militate against our argument, since a person may be baptized, who is not in a state of grace and salvation. 103.There seems to be an hendyadis in the apostle’s mode of speaking. By the heavenly gift we are to understand extraordinary gifts, which are called the Holy Ghost elsewhere, Acts xix. 2. because they were from the Holy Ghost as effects of his power, and wrought to confirm the gospel dispensation, which is called the world to come, Heb. ii. 6. and therefore they are styled the powers of the world to come. 107.The word ad?????, though it be sometimes used to signify such as are rejected as objects of God’s hatred, as in Heb. vi. 8. and consequently is inconsistent with the character of believers; yet, in other places it may be taken according to the grammatical construction thereof, as opposed to d?????; which signifies persons approved, 2 Tim. ii. 15. and so it signifies a person whose conduct is blame-worthy, or whose actions are not to be approved of; and this may be applied to some who are not altogether destitute of faith, though they are not able to vindicate themselves in all respects as blameless. That the apostle uses the word in this sense here, seems probable from the application he makes of it to himself; it is said, ver. 3. Ye seek a proof of Christ speaking in me, d????? ??te?te; and verse 6. he says, I trust that ye shall know that we are not reprobates; so we render the words e?p??? de ?t? ???se?e ot? he?? ??? ese? ad?????; but it would be more agreeable to what is said in verse 4. if we should render them, I trust that ye shall know that we are not disapproved, or that ye shall find a proof of Christ speaking in us: and in verse 7. he farther says, I pray to God, not that we should appear approved. ??? i?a he?? d????? fa??e?, that is, I am not so much concerned about your finding a proof of Christ speaking in us; but that ye should do that which is honest, q. d. I am more concerned for you than myself, though we be as reprobates, he?? de w? ad????? ?e? that is, whether you think we have a proof of Christ’s speaking in us or no, or his approving us in the course of our ministry, my great concern is, that you may be approved; so that it is plain the apostle uses the word ad?????, as signifying disapproved; and therefore as it is applied to those he speaks of in verse 5. the meaning is this; you seek to know whether we are approved of God as ministers; therefore I would advise you to examine yourselves, whether you be in the faith, and to prove your ownselves: and if you know not yourselves, you are in this respect blame-worthy, or to be disapproved; especially because you seem to have been negligent as to the duty of self-examination. Whether he who is diligent in the exercise of this duty, and yet cannot apprehend that he is in a state of grace, be, in this respect to be disapproved or no, it is certain, that he who is a stranger to himself, because of the neglect hereof, is disapproved. 108.Vide Bellamy’s Works, 3 Vol. p. 81-83. 110.Reflecting as mirrors, or beholding as by mirrors. 111.Vid. Dauberi orat. Funeb. ad front. & Hor. Noviss. ad calc. Tom. 3. Riveti operum: in which he is represented as saying, Nolite mei causa dolere, ultima hÆc momenta nihil habent funesti; corpus languet quidem, at anima robore & consolatione plena est, nec impedit paries iste intergerinus, nebula ista exigua, quo minus lucem Dei videam. Atq; exinde magis magisque optavit dissolvi & cum Christo esse. Sufficit mi Deus exclamabat subinde, sufficit, suscipe animam meam: Non tamen moram impatienter fero. Expecto, credo, persevero, dimoveri nequeo, Dei Spiritus meo spiritui testatur, me ex filiis suis esse. O amorem ineffabilem! id quod sentio, omnem expressionem alte transcendit. Veni Domine Jesu, veni, etenim deficio, nan quidem impatiens Domine, sed anima mea respicit te ut terra sicca. Preces & votum, ut Deus Paradisum aperiret, & huic fideli servo suo faciem suam ostenderet; his verbis supplevit; cum animabus justorem sanctificatis; Amen, Amen. Exinde lingua prÆpedita verbo affirmare; mox ad vocem adstantium, ipsum jam visione Dei frui, annuere; paulo post sub mediam decimam matutinam placide in Domino obdormiit. 112.See Fleming’s Fulfilling of the Scripture, in fol. Part 1. page 287. 113.See Dr. Goodwin’s Works, Vol. 5. in his life, page 19. 114.See the Memoirs of the Life of Mr. Halyburton, Cap. 6. 115.See this argument improved by Mr. Fleming, in his Fulfilling of the Scripture, Edit. in Fol. page 394, & seq. in which he takes several remarkable passages out of Melchoir Adam’s Lives, and gives several instances of that extraordinary communion which some have had with God, both in life and death; whose conversation was well known in Scotland; so that he mentions it as what is a matter undeniably true: and he relates other things concerning the assurance and joy which some have had; which has afforded them the sweetest comforts in prisons and dungeons, and given them a foretaste of heaven, when they have been called to suffer death for Christ’s sake. 117.See Vol. II. page 151. 118.Sequela naturÆ. 119.Before this there was what some call temperamentum ad pondus, which was lost by sin; and a broken constitution, leading to mortality ensued thereupon. 120.See Dr. Bates on Death, chap. ii. 121.Vid. Sueton. in Vit. Jul. CÆs. Talia agentem atq; meditantem mors prÆvenit. 124.The belief of a separate state is very ancient. Cicero and Seneca have asserted, that all nations believed the immortality of the soul. Yet we know there were not only individuals, but sects who were exceptions. Saul the first king of Israel believed that the soul survived the death of the body, or he would neither have made laws against necromancers, nor have applied to one in his distresses. If Samuel was raised, it is a fact, directly in point, but the words though express, are probably an accommodation to the sentiments of men. The son of Sirach who lived two hundred years before Christ, says that Samuel prophesied after he was dead. (Ecclus. c. 46. v. 20.) And Josephus in his account of the life of Saul, shows his belief to be that Samuel actually arose. The same feats of apparitions which the disciples had, still exist with the common people, and are proofs that they entertain the same sentiment. Some of the Pharisees, who are represented as believing a separate state, thought souls might return to other bodies. This was the opinion of Josephus with respect to the virtuous; and also of those Jews, who supposed that Jesus was Elijah or Jeremiah; but the question of the disciples, whether a man had been born blind for his own sins, implies a possibility of a return also of the wicked into other bodies. Nevertheless the prevailing opinion of the Pharisees was of a separate state; otherwise Paul’s professing their sentiments, which must have been known to him, was disingenuous; nor, if they had known the difference, would they have protected him. The approbation of the multitude when he proved the doctrine from the words of Jehovah to Moses at the bush, (Matt. xxii. 32.) and the parable of Lazarus and the rich man, evince that the common opinion was such. This subject, has been enlightened, not first brought to light, through the Gospel, but plainly asserted: this day shalt thou be with me in paradise. At home in the body, and absent from the Lord, absent from the body, and present with the Lord, is descriptive but of two states. The desire to depart to be with Christ, shows an immediate expectation. And otherwise it cannot be said that the spirits of just men are made perfect. The Jews, Greeks, and Romans assigned the Heaven to the gods, earth to men, and under the earth (????, ad??, inferi) to the dead. The passages “the spirit shall return to God,” and “the spirit of a man goeth upwards” are not exceptions, for then they would prove that the evil, as well as the good, went to heaven. That the spirit is disposed of by God, and that the spirit of a man survives the death of the body, seem to be all that is respectively implied. Samuel was believed to come out of, and return to his place under the earth; and Saul was to be with him, below the earth; but, possibly, in a different apartment. Thus Abraham and Lazarus were in sight of, and only divided from the man in torments by a gulph. Under the gospel the place of separate saints is represented to be in Heaven. Heaven had been always assigned to God among the Jews, and even the heathens thought it the most honourable place: Virgil assigned it to CÆsar. Jesus declared he came from thence, and would return thither; and for the comfort of his disciples, told them, he would prepare a place for them, and take them to himself. They saw him actually ascend. He is to come from thence, and to bring them with him to judgment. This change of representation implies no contradiction, for pure spirits are not confined to place. Our souls are connected with our bodies, and therefore go and come with, or rather in them. But when the connexion is broken, the soul cannot be said to be in one place more than another, except as it is occupied with material objects. It can attend to one thing only at once, and therefore when in, it cannot be out of the body, and must be wherever occupied, but not in any place, except concerned with material objects. The infinite Spirit had no connexion with space in all the eternity which preceded creation; since time began as every thing is known and supported by him, he is said to be in all places. But the idea of place is not necessary to our conceptions of Spirit. To speak of the planets as the residence of spirits, and to talk of souls flying through the visible Heavens in quest of paradise is idle. If all souls must ascend to Heaven, from India they go in a direction opposite to our course thither. There is no sun nor moon enjoyed by saints in glory; the Lord is their light. And spiritual bodies are not flesh and blood, nor belly, nor meats; nor corruptible nor mortal; but fit for the society of spirits. The soul at death is discharged from the prison of these bodies, and not confined to place. It receives new faculties, which entertain it with more than substitutes for the sensations it had in the body; it obtains a perception of light more vivid than in dreams, and permanent. It enjoys the discernment, society, and communion of other Spirits; the presence of God and the Redeemer; and progresses in the knowledge and love of God, and so in holiness and happiness forever. 125.Vid. Senec. Epist. 117. Cum de animarum immortalitate loquimur, non leve momentum apud nos habet consensus hominum, aut timentium inferos, aut colentium. Utor hac persuasione publica. Et. Cic. Tusc. Quest. Lib. 1. permanere animos arbitramur consensu nationum omnium; qua in sede maneant, qualesque sint ratione discendum est. 126.In PhÆd. 127.Vid. Alcin. de doct. Plat. Cap. xxv. ??t?????t?? de f?s? t?? ?????? ?t? s?f?t?? e?e? t?? ????, ae? e?e??ssa? ?a? a?t??. 128.Vid. Strab. Geog. Lib. xv. ?a?ap?e?s? de ?a? ?????, ?spe? ?a? p?at?? pe?? te af?a?s?a? ?????, ?a? t?? ?a?? ad? ???se??, ?a? a??a t??a?ta, pe?? e? t?? ?a?a?a? ta?ta ?e?e?. 129.Vid. Diog. Laert. in Vit. Thal. 130.Vid. Cic. Tusc. QuÆst. Lib. 1. 131.Vid, Hom. Iliad. 23. lin. 65. & seq. ???e d? ep? ???? ?at??????? de?????, ?a?t? a?t? e?e??? te ?a? ?ata ?a?? e????a, ?a? f????. ?a? t??a p?? ???? e?ata est?. St? d? a?? ?pe? ?efa???, ?a? e? p??? ???? ?e?pe?. In which, after he had killed Hector, he addresses himself to his friend Patroclus, signifying that he had done this to revenge his death; upon which, the poet brings in Patroclus as appearing to him. 132.Vid. Odys. Lib. xi. lin. 575. & seq. in which he speaks of the punishment of Tityus and Tantalus. In this, as well as many other things, he is imitated by Virgil. See Æneid. Lib. vi. lin. 595, & seq. 133.See this argument managed with a great deal of learning and judgment by Mede, in his apostasy of the latter times, who proves that the gods whom the heathens worshipped, were the souls of men deifyed or cannonized after death, from many of their own writers, chap. iv. and Voss. de orig. &c. idol. Lib. 1. cap. xi, xii, xiii. who refers to Lanct. Lib. 1. de fals. Relig. cap. v. his words are these; Quos imperiti, & insipientes, tanquam Deos & nuncupant, & adorant, nemo est tam inconsideratus, qui non intelligat fuisse mortales. Quomodo ergo, inquiet aliquis, Dii crediti sunt? Nimirum quia reges maximi, ac potentissimi fuerunt, ob merita virtutum suarum, aut munerum, aut artium repertarum, cum chari fuissent iis, quibus imperitaverunt, in memoriam sunt consecrati. Quod si quis dubitet, res eorum gestas, & facta, consideret: quÆ universa tum poetÆ, tum historici veteres, prodiderunt. Et August. de Civ. Dei, Lib. viii. cap. v. Ipsi etium majorum gentium Dii, quos Cicero in Tusculanis, tacitis nominibus videtur attingere, Jupiter, Juno, Saturnus, Vulcanus, Vesta, & alii plurimi, quos Varro conatur ad mundi partes, sive elementa transferre homines fuisse produntur. Et Cic. Lib. 1. de nat. Deor. Quid, qui aut fortes, aut potentes viros tradunt post mortem ad Deos pervenisse; eosq; ipsos quos, nos colere, precari, venerariq; soleamus? 134.Some have wondered how the Sadducees could deny angels, and yet receive the five books of Moses, in which there is so frequent mention of the appearance of angels; and it might as well be wondered how they could make any pretensions to religion, who denyed the immortality of the soul; but as to both these, it may be said concerning them, that they were the most irreligious part of the Jewish nation. To make them consistent with themselves, is past the skill of any who treat on this subject. Some suppose that they understand all those scriptures that speak concerning the appearance of angels, as importing nothing else but a bodily shape, appearing for a time, and conversing with those to whom it was sent, moved and actuated by the divine power, and then disappearing and vanishing into nothing. 135.In PhÆd. 136.His words are these; ?e?? de ?? ed??e t??t? e? e?? ??? ???e??, p?????????te??? ?e e??a? ????? s?at??? a??a t?de ad???? pa?t?, ? p???a d? s?ata ?a? p???a??? ?atat???asa ? ????, t? te?e?ta???, s?a ?ata?ep??sa ??? a?t? ap?????ta? ?a? ? a?t? t??t? ?a?at??, ????? ??e???? epe? s?a ? e?e? ap????e??? ??de? pa?eta?. 137.?p??e??? de ??? e????ta? ep? ae???? p?a?a, ad???? pa?t? p??? ? t? ?e?. 138.Vid. ejusd. moral. Lib. iii. cap. ix. 139.Vid. Diog. Laert. in Vit. Zen. ??? ????? eta ?a?at?? ep?e?e??, f?a?t?? de e??a?; upon which occasion Cicero says, That though they assert that they shall continue a great while in being, yet they deny that they shall exist for ever. Vid. ejusd. in Tusc. QuÆst. Lib. 1. Stoici usuram nobis largiuntur, tanquam cornicibus; diu mansuros animos ajunt; semper negant. 140.Et ibid. Ea quÆ vis, ut potero, explicabo, nec tamen quasi Pythius Apollo certa ut sint, & fixa quÆ dixero, sed ut homunculus unus e multis, probabilia conjectura sequens; ultra enim quo progrediar quam ut verisimilia videam, non habeo; which Lactantius observes, speaking of him as in doubt about it. Vid. Lactant. de Vit. Beat. Lib. vii. § 8. And elsewhere he says, in Lib. de Amicitia. Sin autem illa vetiora, ut idem interitus sit animorum, & corporum, nec ullus sensus maneat: Ut nihil boni est in morte, sic certe nihil est mali; & in Lib. de Senect. Quod si in hoc erro, quod animos hominum immortales esse credam, libenter erro: Nec mihi hunc errorem, quo delector, dum vivo, extorqueri volo. Sin mortuus, ut quidam minuti philosophi censent, nihil sentiam; non vereor, ne hunc errorem meum philosophi minuti irrideant: Quod si non sumus immortales futuri, tamen extingui hominem suo tempore, optabile est. 141.Epist. 102. Credebam opinionibus magnorum virorum rem gratissimam promittentium, magis quam probantium. 143.The doctrines of the immortality of the soul, and of the resurrection of the body equally rest upon the will and word of God. But when viewed with the eye of natural reason, they have been deemed to possess very unequal grounds of probability. The properties of matter and of mind are so very different, they have been distinguished by almost all. If the mind be not matter, no argument for its extermination can be drawn from the dissolution of the body; and as its materiality has never been shown, no premises have been found from which its death can be inferred. Some wise men who had not the scriptures, have indeed withholden their belief; but the reason is discernible, they have demanded proofs which the God of nature has not vouchsafed; and their rejection of the preponderating evidence of probability, argues weakness and fastidiousness. The resurrection of the body has been held to be impossible. If so, the impossibility should either consist in the absolute incapacity in the dead body to be raised; but this it does not, for death can only reduce the body to its first element, and the dust which has been a body is not any more unfit to be reanimated, than it was to receive life in the first instance; or it must be owing to some detect of wisdom or power, or of both in him, who should raise the body; but God is unchangeable, and in all respects as able to raise him from the dead, as to create man at the first; and there is no contradiction implied in the thing, which should prevent the exertion of his power; a resurrection is therefore possible. The usual arguments for its probability drawn from analogy to the return of day, of spring, of vegetation, &c. are not conclusive. But those drawn from the resurrection of Christ, from the identity of man considered as a compound from the removal of moral evil, from which natural evils arise, from the earnest expectation of animal nature for a better condition, and from the perfection of the future state, seem to raise a presumption which is probable; yet these are not appreciated by the natural man; hence the world has so generally denied a resurrection of the body. The testimony of the Holy Spirit on both points has been always the same, but not with equal lustre. Jesus Christ explicitly affirmed both, and brought his proofs from the old testament, pressed them as motives of comfort or terror to saints and sinners, and so connected their truth with that of his own character, that every thing which proves the latter, is a proof of the former. Not only did his actually raising the dead, and arising himself, prove that the dead shall rise, but every prophecy accomplished in him, and every miracle wrought by him and his apostles, the continuance of his church, the purity of his system of doctrines, the doctrines of election, redemption, justification, regeneration and perseverance, as well as the express declarations on this subject, both in the old and new testament, all form a solid mass of evidence upon which the hopes of the Christian may firmly rest. 145.See Dr. Edward’s exercit. Part II. on 1 Cor. iii. 15. who, to give countenance to this opinion, produces two scriptures, viz. Mark xiv. 54. and Luke xxii. 56. where the word f??, is put for fire; from whence he supposes, that f?? and p??, are used promiscuously. 146.???p??. Sinus, a bosom, coast, or haven. 147.Vid. Tertull. Apologet. Cap. xlvii. Et si paradisum nominemus, locum divinÆ amÆnitatis recipiendis sanctorum spiritibus destinatum, materia quadem igneÆ illius ZonÆ segregatum. 148.See Whitby in loc. 149.See also his notes on Luke xxiii. 43. 150.Vid. Hoornbeck Socin. Confut. Tom. III. Lib. v. Cap. 1. who quotes some passages out of several Socinian writers, among whom I shall only mention what is said by two of them, with whom several others of their brethren agree herein. Vid. Socin. in Epist. v. ad Volkel. Tantum id mihi videtur statui posse, post hanc vitam, animam, sive animum hominis non ita per se subsistere ut prÆmia ulla pÆnasve sentiat; vel etiam ista sentiendi sit capax, quÆ mea firma opinio facile potest colligi ex multis quÆ a me dicuntur, &c. Et Smalc. in Exam. Error. Pag. 33. Animam vel spiritum hominis post mortum aliquid sentire, vel aliqua re perfrui, nec ratio permittit nec scriptura testatur: ut enim corpus sine anima, sic etiam anima sine corpore, nullus operationes exercere potest; & perinde sic ac si anima illorum nulla esset, etiamÆ suo modo sit, quia scilicet nullius rei sensum habeat, aut per se voluptate aliqua frÆ possit. And elsewhere the same author is so hardy as to term the contrary doctrine no other than a fable, in Lib. de Dei filio, Cap. vi. Pag. 43. Quod vern de vita animarum disserit, hoc instar fabulÆ est, &c. Spiritum hominis ad Deum redire testatur sacra scriptura, at eum vivera vita, ut ait Smiglecius, spirituum, & vel aliquid intelligere, vel voluptate frui hoc extra, & contra scripturam dicitur. 151.See Locke’s Essay concerning human understanding, Lib. ii. Chap. 1. § ix. to the xix. 153.“By affirming, that the grain produced from the seed sown, is not the very body which is sown, the apostle I think insinuates, that the body to be raised is not numerically the same with the body deposited at death, but something of the same kind formed by the energy of God. Having such an example of the divine power before our eyes, we cannot think the reproduction of the body impossible, though its parts be utterly dissipated. Farther, although the very numerical body is not raised, yet the body is truly raised, because what is raised, being united to the soul, there will arise in the man thus completed, a consciousness of his identity, by which he will be sensible of the justice of the retribution which is made to him for his deeds. Besides, this new body, will more than supply the place of the old, by serving every purpose necessary to the perfection and happiness of the man in his new state. According to this view of the subject, the objection taken from the scattering of the particles of the body that dies, has no place; because it does not seem necessary, that the body to be raised, should be composed of them. For the scripture no where affirms, that the same numerical body is to be raised. What it teaches is; that the dead shall be raised.” Dr. Macknight. 154.This is reported in a very fabulous manner, and is reckoned no more than an idle tale by Pliny, who mentions it among other stories of the like nature. Vid. Plin. Nat. Hist. Lib. vii. Cap. lii. Animam AristÆi etiam visam evolentem ex ore, in Proconneso, corvi effigie, magna quÆ sequitur fabulositate. This is also mentioned as a fable by Origen. Vid. Origin. Lib. iii. Contr. Cels. 155.Vid. Plin. Nat. Hist. Cap. lii. Reperimus inter exempla Hermotimi Clazomenii animam relicto corpore, errare solitam, vagamq; e loginquo multa annunciare, quÆ nisi a prÆsenti nosci non possent; but by the following words he speaks of him as not dead, but in a kind of deliquium; corpore interim semianimi; but yet it was given out by many, that he died and rose again very often. This Lucian himself laughs at as a foolish tale. Vid. Lucian. Enc. Musc. 156.Vid. Plat. de Repub. Lib. x. 157.Vid. Euseb. PrÆparat. Evang. Lib. xi. Cap. xxxv. It is mentioned by Plutarch, Symp. Lib. ix. Cap. v. 158.Macrobius speaking concerning it, in Somn. Scip. Lib. 1. Cap. 1. represents Cicero as being under a great concern, that this story of Er was ridiculed, by many who did not stick to say, Visum fuisse Erem, vitam effundere, animamq; recipere, quam revera non amiserat. See more to this purpose in Hust. Demonst. Evang. Prop. ix. Cap. cxlii. 159.See a late learned writer, Hody on the resurrection of the same body; who refers to several places in Heathen writers, of whom some believed it; others exposed it as fabulous, Pag. 13-16. 160.Thus Pliny, who a little before related several stories of persons raised from the dead, notwithstanding calls the doctrine of the resurrection, puerile deliramentum. Vid. Ejusd. Nat. Hist. Lib. vii. Cap. lv. and elsewhere he speaks of it as a thing in its own nature impossible; and therefore concludes it to be one of those things which God cannot do. Lib. ii. Cap. vii. Ne Deum quidem posse omnia, nec mortales Æternitate donare, aut revocare defunctos. And Minutius Felix. Vid. Ejusd. Octav. Cap. xi. brings in an Heathen, who was his friend, railing at it, without any decency, as though it was no better than an old wives fable; and the principal argument he produces, is, because he supposes it impossible for a body that was burnt to ashes, to spring up into life again. And Celsus, speaking concerning the impossibility of God’s doing any thing contrary to nature, reckons this among those things. Vid. Orig. Contr. Cels. Lib. v. Page 240. and says, the hope hereof is more worthy of worms than men and styles it an abominable, as well as an impossible thing, which God neither can nor will do. 161.??astas??. 162.Vid. Volkel. de vera relig. Lib. iii. Cap. xi. Apparet promissionem vitÆ sempiternÆ in prisco illo foedere factam minime fuisse. And in a following part of this chapter, wherein he professedly treats on this subject, he adds; QuÆ apertis luculentissimisq; verbis ut in nova scriptura fieri videamus, hoc Dei beneficium nobis polliceantur. Ex quorum munere, hoc de quo agimus, nequaquam esse hinc patet, quod antequam Christus illud explicaret, nemo unquam extitit, qui vel suspicari auderet, tale quid illo comprehendi. 163.Vid. Joseph. de Bell. Jud. Lib. ii. Cap. vii. ?a? ?a? e???tsa? pa? a?t??? ?de d??a f?a?ta e? e?a? ta s?ata, ?a? t?? ???? ?? ????? a?t???, &c. 164.See Dr. Hody on the resurrection, &c. Page 56-59. 165.See Bishop Pearson on the Creed, Artic. 11. who observes, from their writings, that because, in the formation of man, mentioned in Gen. ii. 7. Moses uses the word ?????, and in the formation of beasts, verse 19. the word ????, the former having two jods, the latter but one: Therefore the beasts are made but once, but man twice; to wit, once in his generation, and the second time in his resurrection. And they strangely apprehend a proof of the resurrection to be contained in the malediction, Gen. iii. 19. Dust thou art, and unto dust thou shalt return, q. d. thou art now dust while thou livest; and, after death, thou shalt return unto this dust, that is, thou shalt live again, as thou, dost now: And those words in Exod. xv. 1. then sang Moses and the children of Israel; they render he shall sing, viz. after the resurrection in the life to come, and from thence infer this doctrine, which could afford but very small satisfaction to the Sadducees, while they omitted to insist on other pregnant proofs thereof. 166.See Vol. II. Heb. and Talmud. Exercit. on John iv. 25. wherein he says, that they pretend to prove it from Deut. xxxi. 16. where God says to Moses, Thou shalt sleep with thy fathers, and rise again; which is an addition to, as well as a perversion of the text; which says, the people shall rise up and go a whoring, &c. and Page 541, and 787. he represents them as proving it from Josh. viii 30. where it is said, that Joshua built an altar unto the Lord; which they translate, he shall build an altar; supposing this to be after the resurrection: And from Psal. lxxxiv. 4. Blessed are they that dwell in thy house, they will be still praising thee, they suppose is meant of their praising God after the resurrection. See many other absurd methods of reasoning to the same purpose, referred to by him in the same place. 167.Macab. vii. 9, 11, 14, 23, 29. 168.Thus Josephus Jacchiades, referred to by Witsius in Symb. Exercit. xxvi. § 41. in explaining that famous text in Daniel xii. 2. says, Et tunc fiet miraculum resurrectionis mortuorum: Nam multi dormientium in terra pulverulenta expergiscentur, hi ad vitam Æternam, qui sunt sancti; illi vero ad opprobria & detestationem Æternam; qui sunt impii. Quorum resurrectionis causa est, ut impii fateantur palam, suam fidem esse falsam, & eos qui ipsis fidem habuerint, prosecutos fuisse vanitatem atque evanuisse, ipsique agnoscant suos majores falsitatem possedisse. And Menasseh Ben Israel, de Resurr. mort. Lib. ii. Cap. viii. proves it from the same scripture. More to the same purpose may be seen in Dr. Hody on the resurrection, Page 72. & seq. who quotes several of the Talmudical writers, as signifying their belief of this doctrine; and especially Pocock in Maimon. Port. Mos. Cap. vi. who produces a multitude of quotations to the same purpose; in which some assert this doctrine without proof, others establish it by solid arguments, and some mix a great many absurd notions with it, which we shall, at present, pass over. 169.Vid. Tertull. de Resurrect. Carn. Cap. xxx. Non posset de ossibus figura componi, si non id ipsum, & ossibus eventurum esset. 170.Vid. Hieron. in Ezek. xxxvii. Nunquam poneretur similitudo resurrectionis, ad restitutionem Israelitici populi significandam, nisi staret ipsa resurrectitio, & futura crederetur; quia nemo de rebus non extantibus incerta confirmat. 171.Vid. Menasseh Ben Isr. Lib. 1. de Resurrect. Cap. ii. § 4. Hic textus expressus est. & infallibilis quo sine omni dubio resurrectio probatur. 172.Vid. Hieron. Epist. 61. ad Pammach. de error. Joh. Hieros. Quid hac prophetia manifestius? Nullus tam aperte post Christum, quam iste ante Christum de resurrectione loquitur. 173.The words are put in the form of an interrogation, which sometimes argues a strong negation, but not always, since here it seems to imply a concession that he should live again. 174.Vid Minut. Fel. in Octav. § 33. Vide adeo quam in solatium nostri resurrectionem futuram omnis natura meditatur Sol demergit, & nascitur; astra labuntur, & redeunt; fiores occidunt, & reviviscunt; post senium arbusta frondescunt semina non nisi corrupta revirescunt; ita corpus in sepulchro ut arbores in hyberno occultant virorem, ariditate mentita. Expectandum nobis etiam corporis ver est, &c. 175.See his Exposition on the Creed, Artic. xi. and Tertull. de resur. Carn. cap. xii. Aspice nunc ad ipsa qunq; exempla divinÆ potestatis: dies moritur in noctem, & tenebris usquequaq spelitur. Funestatum mundi honor, omnis substantia deusgratur. Sordent, silent, stupent cuncta; ubiq; justitium est, quies rerum. Ita lux amissa lugetur; & tamen rursus cum suo cultu, cum dote, cum sole, eadem & integra & tota universo orbi reviviscit, interficiens mortem suam noctem, rescindens sepulturam suam tenebras, hÆres sibimet existens, donec & nox reviviscat, cum suo & illa suggestu. Redaccenduntur enim & stellarum radii, quos matutina successio extinxerat. Reducuntur & siderum absentiÆ, quas temporalis distinctio exemerat. Redornantur & specula lunÆ quÆ menstruus numerus adtriverat. Revolvuntur hyemes & Æstates, & verna, & autumna, cum suis viribus, moribus, fructibus. Quippe etiam terrÆ de coelo disciplina est, arbores vestire post spolia, flores denuo colorare, herbas rursus imponere, exhibere eadem quÆ absumpta sunt semina; nec prius exhibere quam absumpta: mira ratio: de fraudatrice servatrix: ut reddat, intercipit: ut custodiat, perdit: ut integret, vitiat e ut etiam ampliet, prius decoquit. Siquidem uberiora & cultiora restituit quam exterminavit. Revera foenore interitu, & injuria usura, & lucro damno: semel dixerim universa conditio recidiva est. Quodcunq; conveneris, fuit: quodcunq; amiseris, nihil non iterum est. Omnia in statum redeunt, quum abscesserint. Omnia incipiunt, quum desierint. Ideo finiuntur, ut fiant. Nihil deperit, nisi in salutum. Totus igitur hic ordo revolubilis rerum, testatio est resurrectionis mortuorum. Operibus eam prÆscripsit Deus ante, quam literis: viribus predicavit ante, quam vocibus. PrÆmissit tibi naturam magistram, submissurus & prophetiam, quo facilius credas prophetiÆ, discipulus natura: quo statim admittas, quum audieris, quod ubiq; jam videris; nec dubites Deum carnis etiam resuscitatorem, quem omnium noris restituorem. Et utiq; si omnia homini resurgunt, cui procurata sunt porro non homini, nisi & carni, quale est ut ipsa depereat ut totum, propter quam & cui nihil deperit? Et Vid. ejud. apologet cap. xlviii. in which he proves the resurrection of the body from the possibility of that being restored to a former being, with the same ease that it was made out of nothing; and shews how God has impressed upon this world many testimonies of the resurrection; and then he adds, Lux quotidie intersecta resplendet, & tenebrÆ, pari vice decedendo succedunt, sidera defuncta vivescunt, tempora, ubi finiuntur, incipiunt, fructus consummantur, et redeunt. Certe semina non nisi corrupta et dissoluta foecundius surgunt, omnia percundo servantur, omnia de interitu reformantur. Tu homo tantum nomen, si intelligas te, vel de titulo Pythix discens, dominus omnium momentum et resurgentium, ad hoc morieris, ut pereas? 176.This is what they generally intend by that aphorism, a privatione ad habitum non datur regressus. 177.See Hody on the resurrection, &c. Pag. 205-208. 178.Vid. Plat. in Cratyl, who brings in Socrates as gravely punning on the word s?a, q. d. s?a, sepulchrum; and supposing that this name, was given to denote that the soul suffers punishment for its faults, by being detained or shut up in prison. And Seneca speaks to the same purpose: corpus hoc, animi pondus, & poena est, permanente illo urgetur, in vinculis est. Vid. Sen. Epist. 65. 179.Vid. Orig. in Loc. supra citat. 180.Beneficium pluviÆ ad omnes spectare, resurrectionem mortuorum ad justos tantum. 181.The words are, ??’? ?????, multi ex dormientibus. Now it is certain that ????, is often translated a multitude, or multitudes, and signifies the same with ???, or the Greek word t? p?????, as in Gen. xvii. 5. Psal. cix. 30. and in several other places. But the principal difficulty lies in the sense of the particle Mem, which is prefixed to the following word; and is generally supposed to be taken distributively; and accordingly the sense must be, Many, that is, a great number, or part, taken out of them that sleep, shall awake; though, I am apt to think, that the prefix Mem here, is not taken distributively; but denotes the following word to be in the Genitive case, as Lamed and Beth often do; and if so, the words may be rendered, The multitude of them that sleep, shall awake; that is, the whole number of them that sleep shall awake; and so it is the same with what is mentioned by our Saviour in the text but now referred to; all that are in their graves shall come forth, and be disposed of in a different way, as he particularly expresses it; which contains the sense of the prophet’s prediction in this place. There is a scripture, in which the word many plainly signifies t? p?????, the multitude, or all mankind: thus the apostle speaks, Rom. v. 15. of many, as being dead by the offence of one, and by one man’s disobedience, many being made sinners; which none, who allow all the world to have fallen in Adam, will suppose to be taken in any other sense. See other instances of the like nature in Glas. Phil. Sacr. Lib. v. Tract. 1. Cap. xv. 182.Vid. Poc. Not. Misc. in Maimon. Port. Mos. Cap. vi. who treats largely on this subject, and gives an account of the opinions of several Rabbinical writers concerning this matter; which renders it needless for me to refer to particular places. 183.Vid. Whitby in 1 Cor. xv. 44, 50. If by the bright and shining body, which this author speaks of, he intends that it shall be invested with some rays of glory in the heavenly state, as many others suppose: this, I think, none will deny since it agrees well with what the apostle says concerning the body’s being made like to Christ’s glorious body, and also what the prophet Daniel says, chap. xii. 2. concerning their shining as the brightness of the firmament, and as the stars; or, as our Saviour says, Matt. xiii. 43. They shall shine as the sun in the kingdom of their Father. 184.We often read in Heathen-writers, of Æacus, Minus and Rhadamanthus, as appointed to pass a judgment on every one at death, fix them in their respective places of residence, and determine their rewards and punishments. These are generally supposed to have lived about Moses’s time, and are commended for the exercise of justice, and making laws, some of which they are supposed to have received from heaven; and as the reward hereof, have the honour, of being judges of men at death, conferred upon them. Some have been ready to conclude that the account which the Heathen give of these three famous law-givers and judges, is nothing else but a corruption of a tradition which they had received concerning Moses, the great law-giver to the Israelites, set forth by different names, with several things fabulous added thereunto. They who have a mind to see a very learned and critical disquisition on this subject, may consult Huet Demonst. Evang. Prop. iv. § 9-13. And as for the variety of punishments which these judges inflicted, the lakes and rivers of fire to which they are condemned, see Plato’s account thereof, translated by Eusebius, in PrÆp. Evang. Lib. xi. Cap. xxxvii. who thinks that some things mentioned by him, bear a resemblance to the punishment of sin, which we read of in scripture, which he supposes he received by tradition, from some that were acquainted with divine revelation, as he did many other things which he speaks of in his writings. 185.See Vol. II. Quest. LVI. 186.Matt. xxiv. 31. This is the most common sense of those words; and how far soever they are supposed, by some, to be taken in a figurative sense, for the preaching of the gospel throughout the whole world, after the destruction of the Jewish state, which some have supposed, is principally intended by what is mentioned in the foregoing verses; yet most conclude that several things in this account of Christ’s glorious appearance, are not without some allusion, at least to what shall be more eminently accomplished, when he shall come to judgment. 187.CurcellÆus in Dissert. de necessit. cognit. Christ. § vi. 188.Of this opinion were some among the Papists, and particularly Cornelius a Lapide, Vid. ejusd. comment in Loc. who describes it as a place situate at the foot of the mount of Olives, in or near the place where our Saviour was in his agony betrayed and delivered by Judas, into the hands of his enemies. Therefore this will be, according to him, the fittest place for him to execute judgment upon them, and to appear in this triumphant and glorious manner, in order thereunto. And this is mentioned by many Jewish writers, who maintained it. Thus the author of the Chaldee Paraphrase on Canticles viii. 5. speaks to this purpose, that the dead shall be raised, and the mountain of Olives shall be cleft, and all the dead of Israel shall come out from thence; and that the just, who died in the captivity, and consequently were not buried in or near that place, shall come through the caverns of the earth, that they may here arise to judgment. And several Rabbinical writers give into this chimera, which is also mentioned in both the Talmuds. And many of the modern Jews, as is observed by some late travellers into the holy land, are so fond of burying their dead in or near this place, that they might not have far to come under the earth, when they rise from the dead, and must appear here at the day of judgment, that they pay a certain sum of money for the privilege of burying their dead therein. See Hody on the resurrection, Page 70, 71. 189.See his works, Lib. iii. Comment. apocal. page 662. and his remains, chap. xi. page 748. in which he is followed by some others, and the learned Gale, in his court of the Gentiles, Part I. Book iii. chap. vii. Page 78. speaks of some Jewish writers as maintaining, that the world shall continue 6000 years; and from thence to the 7000th shall be the day of judgment. And he also mentions this as an opinion which Plato had received by conversing with some of them; and concludes, that this is the great Platonick year, which is mentioned by him, and his followers. 190.See this largely insisted on by Dr. Goodwin, in his works, Vol. III. Book xiii. His critical remarks in chap. ii. seem very just, viz. that ap? is causal here, as well as in many other scriptures which he refers to: and his strongest argument to prove that it is to be taken so in this verse, is, because, as he observes, ap? must be applied to the glory of his power, as well as to his presence; so that if it denotes a separation from the one, it must also denote a separation from the other; whereas no one supposes that this punishment consists in a separation from the power of God, but that it is to be considered as the effect thereof. 191.Or, shall God, who justifieth? 192.Vid Wits. in Symb. Exercit. 22. § 18-20. 193.See Vol. I. Page 286 194.What speech can be without atmosphere, and without flesh? 195.God is an infinite being. This also is a principle established by both natural and revealed religion. The soul of man is finite, and, to whatever perfection it may be advanced, it will always continue to be so. This is another indisputable principle. It would imply a contradiction to affirm, that an infinite Spirit can be seen, or fully known, in a strict literal sense, as it is, by a finite spirit. The human soul, therefore, being a finite spirit, can never perfectly see, that is, fully comprehend, as he is, God, who is an infinite spirit. The proposition in our text, then, necessarily requires some restriction. This inference arises immediate from the two principles now laid down, and this second consequence furnishes another ground of our reflections. But, although it would be absurd to suppose, that God, an infinite spirit, can be fully known by a finite human spirit, yet there is no absurdity in affirming, God can communicate himself to a man in a very close and intimate manner proper to transform him. This may be done four ways. There are, we conceive, four sorts of communications; a communication of ideas; a communication of love; a communication of virtue, and a communication of felicity. In these four ways, we shall see God, and by thus seeing him as he is, we shall be like him in these four respects. We will endeavour by discussing each of these articles to explain them clearly; and here all your attention will be necessary, for without this our whole discourse will be nothing to you but a sound, destitute of reason and sense. The first communication will be a communication of ideas. We shall see God as he is, because we shall participate his ideas; and by seeing God as he is, we shall become like him, because the knowledge of his ideas will rectify ours, and will render them like his. To know the ideas of an imperfect being is not to participate his imperfections. An accurate mind may know the ideas of an inaccurate mind without admitting them. But to know the ideas of a perfect spirit is to participate his perfections; because to know his ideas is to know them as they are, and to know them as they are is to perceive the evidence of them. When, therefore, God shall communicate his ideas to us, we shall be like him, by the conformity of our ideas to his. What are the ideas of God? They are clear in their nature; they are clear in their images; they are perfect in their degree; they are complex in their relations; and they are complete in their number. In all these respects the ideas of God are infinitely superior to the ideas of men. 1. Men are full of false notions. Their ideas are often the very reverse of the objects, of which they should be clear representations. We have false ideas in physic, false ideas in policy, false ideas in religion. We have false ideas of honour and of disgrace, of felicity and of misery. Hence we often mistake fancy for reason, and shadow for substance. But God hath only true ideas. His idea of order is an exact representation of order. His idea of irregularity exactly answers to irregularity; and so of all other objects. He will make us know his ideas, and by making us know them he will rectify ours. 2. Men have often obscure ideas. They only see glimmerings. They perceive appearances rather than demonstrations. They are placed in a world of probabilities, and, in consideration of this state, in which it has pleased the Creator to place them, they have more need of a course of reasoning on a new plan, to teach them how a rational creature ought to conduct himself, when he is surrounded by probabilities, than of a course of reasoning and determining, which supposes him surrounded with demonstration. But God hath only clear ideas. No veil covers objects; no darkness obscure his ideas of them. When he shall appear, he will communicate his ideas to us, and they will rectify ours, he will cause the scales, that hide objects from us, to fall from our eyes; and he will dissipate the clouds, which prevent our clear conception of them. 3. Men have very few ideas perfect in degree. They see only the surface of objects. Who, in all the world, hath a perfect idea of matter? Who ever had perfect ideas of spirit? Who could ever exactly define either? Who was ever able to inform us how the idea of motion results from that of body; how the idea of sensation results from that of spirit? Who ever knew to which class space belongs? It would be very easy, my brethren, to increase this list, would time permit; and were I not prevented by knowing, that they, who are incapable of understanding these articles, have already in their own minds pronounced them destitute of all sense and reason. But God hath perfect ideas. His ideas comprehend the whole of all objects. He will communicate to us this disposition of mind, and will give us such a penetration as shall enable us to attain the knowledge of the essence of beings, and to contemplate them in their whole. 4. Men have very few ideas complex in their relations. I mean, their minds are so limited, that, although they may be capable of combining a certain number of ideas, yet they are confounded by combining a greater number. We have distinct ideas of units, and we are capable of combining a few: but as soon as we add hundred to hundred, million to million, the little capacity of our souls is overwhelmed with the multitude of these objects, and our weakness obliges us to sink under the weight. We have a few ideas of motion. We know what space of body, to which a certain degree of velocity is communicated, must pass through in a given time: but as soon as we suppose a greater degree of motion, as soon as we imagine an augmentation of velocity to this greater degree; as soon as we try to apply our knowledge of moving powers to those enormous bodies, which the mighty hand of God guides in the immensity of space, we are involved in perplexity and confusion. But God conceives infinite combinations. He will make us participate, as far as our minds can, his ideas; so that we shall be able to give a large expanse to our meditation without any fear of confusing ourselves. 5. In fine, the ideas of mankind are incomplete in their number. Most men think, there are only two sorts of beings, body and spirit; and they have also determined, that there can be only two. A rash decision in itself: but more rash still in a creature so confined in his genius as man. But the ideas of God are complete. He knows all possible beings. He will make us participate this disposition of mind, and from it may arise ideas of myriads of beings, on which now we cannot reason, because now we have no ideas of them. A communication of ideas is the first way, in which God will make himself known to us. This will be the first trait of our resemblance of him. We shall be like him, for we shall see him as he is. The second communication of God to a beatified soul is a communication of love. We cannot possibly partake of the ideas of God without participating his love. To participate the ideas of God is to possess just notions. To possess just notions is to place each object in the rank, that is due to it; consequently, we shall regard the chief being as the only object of supreme love. What is necessary to answer the idea, that an upright soul forms of the lovely? The lovely object must answer three ideas: the idea of the great and marvellous; the idea of the just; and the idea of the good: and, if I may venture to speak so, of the beatifying. Now, it is impossible to know God without entertaining these three ideas of him alone; consequently it is impossible to know God without loving him. And this is the reason of our profound admiration of the morality of the gospel. The morality of the gospel is the very quintessence of order. It informs us, no creature deserves supreme love. It makes this principle the substance of its laws. Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind, Matt. xxii. 37. How worthy of supreme love will this God appear, how fully will he answer the idea of the great and the marvellous, when we shall see him as he is! He will answer it by his independence. Creatures exist: but they have only a borrowed being. God derives his existence from none. He is a self-existent being. He will answer our idea of the magnificent by the immutability of his nature. Creatures exist: but they have no fixed and permanent being. They arise from nothing to existence. Their existence is rather variation and inconstancy than real being. But God, but I the Lord, says he of himself, I change not, Mal. iii. 6. the same yesterday, to-day, and for ever, Heb. xiii. 8. He is, as it were, the fixed point, on which all creatures revolve, while he is neither moved by their motion, shaken by their action, nor in the least imaginable degree altered by all their countless vicissitudes. He will answer the idea of the great and marvellous by the efficiency of his will. Creatures have some efficient acts of violation: but none of themselves.—But go back to that period, in which there was nothing. Figure to yourselves those immense voids, which preceded the formation of the universe, and represent to yourself God alone. He forms the plan of the world. He regulates the whole design. He assigns an epoch of duration to it in a point of eternity. This act of his will produces this whole universe. Hence a sun, a moon, and stars. Hence earth and sea, rivers and fields. Hence kings, princes, and philosophers. He spake, and it was done; he commanded, and it stood fast. The heavens were made by the word of the Lord, and all the host of them by the breath of his mouth, Psal. xxxiii. 9. God, then, perfectly answers our idea of the grand and the marvellous. He answers also the idea of the just. It was he, who gave us an idea of justice or order. It was he, who made the greatest sacrifices to it. It was he, who moved heaven and earth to re-establish it, and who testified how dear it was to him by sacrificing the most worthy victim, that could possibly suffer, I mean his only Son. Finally, God will perfectly answer our idea of the good and the beatifying. Who can come up to it except a God, who opens to his creatures an access of his treasures? A God, who reveals himself to them in order to take them away from their broken cisterns, and to conduct them to a fountain of living waters, Jer. ii. 13. A God, whose eternal wisdom cries to mankind, Ho, every one that thirsteth, come ye to the waters, and he that hath no money, come ye, buy and eat, yea come, buy wine and milk without money, and without price. Wherefore do ye spend money for that, which is not bread? and your labour for that, which satisfieth not? Hearken diligently unto me, and eat ye that, which is good, and let your soul delight itself in fatness. Incline your ear, and come unto me; hear, and your soul shall live. Isa. lv. 1-3. We cannot, then, know God without loving him. And thus a communication of ideas leads to a communication of love. But this communication of love will render us like the God, whom we admire. For the property of love, in a soul inflamed with it, is to transform it in some sort into the object of its admiration. This is particularly proper to divine love. We love God, because we know his attributes; when we know his attributes, we know, we can no better contribute to the perfection of our being than by imitating them, and the desire we have to perfect our being will necessitate us to apply wholly to imitate them, and to become like him. Let us pass to our third consideration. The third communication of God to a beatified soul is a communication of his virtues. To love and to obey, in Scripture-style, is the same thing. If ye love me, keep my commandments, is a well-known expression of Jesus Christ, John xiv. 15. He, who saith I know him, and keepeth not his commandments, is a liar, and the truth is not in him, is an expression of our apostle, 1 John ii. 4. This is not peculiar to the love of God. To love and to obey, even in civil society, are usually two things, which have a very close connexion. But, as no creature hath ever excited all the love, of which a soul is capable, so there is no creature, to whom we have rendered a perfect obedience. It is only in regard to God, that there is an inseparable connexion between obedience and love. For when we love God, because we know him, we are soon convinced, that he cannot ordain any thing to his creature but what is useful to him; when we are convinced, he can ordain nothing to be performed by his creature but what is useful to him, it becomes as impossible not to obey him as it is not to love ourselves. To love and to obey is one thing, then, when the object in question is a being supremely lovely. These are demonstrations; but to obey God, and to keep his commandments, is to be like God. The commandments of God are formed on the idea of the divine perfections. God hath an idea of order; he loves it; he follows it; and this is all he ever hath required, and all he ever will require of his intelligent creatures. He requires us to know order, to love it, to follow it. An intelligent creature, therefore, who shall be brought to obey the commandments of God, will be like God. Be ye perfect, as your Father, which is in heaven, is perfect, Matt. v. 48. Be ye holy, for I am holy, 1 Pet. i. 16. Every man, that hath this hope in him, purifieth himself even as he is pure, 1 John iii. 3. These precepts are given us here on earth, and we obey them imperfectly now; but we shall yield a perfect obedience to them in heaven, when we shall see him as he is. Here, our apostle affirms, Whosoever sinneth, hath not seen him, neither known him, ver. 6. that is to say, he who suffers sin to reign over him, doth not know God; for if he knew God, he would have just ideas of God, he would love him; and, if he loved him, he would imitate him. But in heaven we shall see, and know him, we shall not sin, we shall imitate him, we shall be like him, for we shall see him as he is. Lastly, the fourth communication of the Deity with beatified souls is a communication of felicity. In an economy of order, to be holy and to be happy are two things very closely connected. Now we are in an economy of disorder. Accordingly, virtue and felicity do not always keep company together, and it sometimes happens, that for having hope in Christ we are, for a while, of all men most miserable, 1 Cor. xv. 19. But this economy of disorder must be abolished. Order must be established. St. Peter, speaking of Jesus Christ, says, The heavens must receive him until the times of the restitution of all things, Acts iii. 21. When all things shall be restored, virtue and happiness will be closely united, and, consequently, by participating the holiness of God we shall participate his happiness. Sayrin. 196.“It may be asked, Is there no reason or nature of things? Yes; as certainly as there are things. But the nature and reason of things, considered independently of the divine Will, or without it, have no more obligation in them, than a divine worship considered independently of, and without any regard to the existence of God. For the Will of God is as absolutely necessary to found all moral obligation upon, as the existence of God is necessary to be the foundation of religious worship. And the fitness of moral obligations, without the Will of God, is only like the fitness of a religious worship without the existence of God. And it is as just to say, that he destroys the reason of religion and piety, who founds it upon the nature and existence of God, as to say, he saps the foundation of moral obligations, who founds them upon the Will of God. And as religion cannot be justly or solidly defended, but by shewing its connexion with, and dependance upon, God’s existence; so neither can moral obligations be asserted with strength and reason, but by shewing them to be the Will of God. It may again be asked, Can God make that fit in its self, which is in its self absolutely unfit to be done? This question consists of improper terms. For God’s Will no more makes actions to be fit in themselves, than it makes things to exist in, or of themselves. No things, nor any actions, have any absolute fitness, and in themselves. A gift, a blow, the making a wound, or shedding of blood, considered in themselves, have no absolute fitness, but are fit or unfit according to any variety of incidental circumstances. When therefore God, by his Will, makes any thing fit to be done, he does not make the thing fit in its self, which is just in the same state considered in its self, as it was before; but, it becomes fit for the person to do it, because he can be happy, or do that which is fit for him to do, by doing the Will of God. For instance, the bare eating a fruit, considered in its self, is neither fit nor unfit. If a fruit be appointed by God for our food and nourishment, then it is as fit to eat it, as to preserve our lives. If a fruit be poisonous, then it is as unfit to eat it, as to commit self-murder. If eating of a fruit be prohibited by an express order of God, then it is as unfit to eat it, as to eat our own damnation. But in none of these instances is the eating or not eating, considered in its self, fit or unfit; but has all its fitness, or unfitness, from such circumstances, as are entirely owing to the Will of God. Supposing, therefore, God to require a person to do something, which, according to his present circumstances, without that command, he ought not to do, God does not make that which is absolutely unfit in itself, fit to be done; but only adds new circumstances to an action, that is neither fit nor unfit, moral nor immoral in itself, but because of its circumstances. To instance, in the case of Abraham required to sacrifice his son. The killing of a man is neither good nor bad, considered absolutely in its self. It was unlawful for Abraham to kill his son, because of the circumstances he was in with regard to his son. But when the divine Command was given, Abraham was in a new state; the action had new circumstances; and then it was as lawful for Abraham to kill his son, as it was lawful for God to require any man’s life, either by sickness, or any other means he should please to appoint. And it had been as unlawful for Abraham to have disobeyed God in this extraordinary command, as to have cursed God at any ordinary calamity of providence.— Again, it is objected, If there be nothing right or wrong, good or bad, antecedently and independently of the Will of God, there can be no reason, why God should will, or command one thing, rather than another. It is answered, first, That all goodness, and all possible perfection, is as eternal as God, and as essential to him as his existence. And to say, that they are either antecedent or consequent, dependent or independent of his Will, would be equally absurd. To ask, therefore, whether there be not something right and wrong, antecedent to the Will of God, to render his Will capable of being right, is as absurd, as to ask for some antecedent cause of his existence, that he may be proved to exist necessarily. And to ask, how God can be good, if there be not something good independently of him, is asking how he can be infinite, if there be not something infinite independently of him. And, to seek for any other source or reason of the divine Goodness, besides the divine Nature, is like seeking for some external cause, and help of the divine omnipotence. The goodness and wisdom, therefore, by which God is wise and good, and to which all his works of wisdom and goodness are owing, are neither antecedent, nor consequent to his Will.—” Human reason. 197.See Quest. xvii. 198.It is a known maxim in the civil law, Cessante capacitate subditi non cessat obligatia. 199.Thus the word ????, is derived from ???, didicit, or viam monstravit. 200.Vid. Cov. Hist. lit. Tom. I. Page 30. 201.Vid. Aug. de HÆres. Cap. liv. where speaking of Eunomius, he says, Fertur etiam usque adeo fuisse bonis moribus inimicus, ut asseveraret, quod nihil cuique obesset, quorumlibet perpetratio ac perseverantia peccatorum, si hujus quÆ ab illo docebatur, fidei particeps esset. 202.See Slled. Comment. de Stat. Relig. & Repub. Lib. xii. 203.See a particular account hereof in Lev. xi 15. Chapters. 204.The former of these are generally styled the Elicit acts of religion, the latter the Imperate. 205.To this the poet’s observation might well be applied, Tantum religio potuit saudere malorum! Lucet. de Nat. Rer. Lib. 1. And that human sacrifices were offered, appears from what we read of the king of Moab, who took his eldest son, that should have reigned in his stead, and offered him for a burnt-offering, 2 Kings iii. 27. 206.Satan knew the state of the armies, and wished to drive Saul to despair. 207.Vid. Jos. Antq. Lib. II. Cap. 5. 208.See more of this in Vol. I. Page 226. 210.See Vol. I. Quest. iv. 211.Quest. xi. 212.?a???s?a. 213.If they appeal to God in an irreverent manner, they are a violation of this commandment. If they be not appeals to him, they are in fact, an application to him without any knowledge of him, and this is Atheism. 214.“The devoting of a seventh Part of Time in a holy manner to the Lord, belongs unchangeably to the moral nature and obligation of the fourth Commandment, which is transferred in the New Testament, from the seventh to the first day of the week. (See John xx. 26. and Acts xx. 7.) To this it may not be amiss to add the judicious note of Mr. Kennicott in his dissertation on the oblations of Cain and Abel, p. 184, 185, where he says, ‘The sabbath, or weekly day of holiness, might well be called a sign to the Jews;’ for the Jewish sabbath was a sign, as being founded on a double reason, the second of which (the Egyptian deliverance) evidently distinguished that people from all others, and was therefore as a sign constantly to remind them of the particular care of heaven, and what uncommon returns of goodness they were to make for so signal a deliverance. But there is great reason to believe, that the sabbath of the Israelites was altered with their year, at their coming forth from Egypt; and a short attention to this point may not be here improper, the case then seems to be this. At the finishing of the creation, God sanctified the seventh day; this seventh day, being the first day of Adam’s life, was consecrated by way of first-fruits to God; and therefore Adam may reasonably be supposed to have began his computation of the days of the week with the first whole day of his own existence; thus the sabbath became the first day of the week; but when mankind fell from the worship of the true God, they first substituted the worship of the sun, in his place, and preserving the same weekly day of worship, but devoting it to the sun, the sabbath was called Sunday; for that Sunday was the first day of the week, and is so still in the east, is proved by Mr. Selden (Jus. Nat. and Gent. Lib. 3. Cap. 22.) Thus the sabbath of the Patriarchs continued to be the Sunday of the idolaters, till the coming up of the Israelites out of Egypt; and then, as God altered the beginning of their year, so he also changed the day of their worship from Sunday to Saturday; the first reason of which might be, that as Sunday was the day of worship among the Idolaters, the Israelites would be more likely to join with them, if they rested on the same day, than if they were to work on that day, and serve their God upon another. But a second reason certainly was, in order to perpetuate the memory of their deliverance on that day from Egyptian slavery; for Moses, when he applies the fourth Commandment to the particular cases of his own people, Deut. v. 15, does not enforce it, as in Ex. xx. 11. by the consideration of God’s resting on that day which was the sabbath of the Patriarchs; but binds it upon them by saying, Remember that thou wast a servant in Egypt, and that the Lord thy God brought thee out thence through a mighty hand, and by a stretched-out arm; therefore the Lord thy God hath commanded THEE to keep this SABBATH-DAY. Allowing then the preceding observations, we immediately see, how the sabbath naturally reverted to Sunday, after the abolition of Judaism without any express command for the alteration. To which he adds a quotation from Bp. Cumberland, (Orig. Gent. Antiq. p. 400.) which speaks of the Gentiles, as called, after Christ’s time into the same universal church with the Patriarchs; and another from Justin Martyr, ??? de t?? ????? ?e?a? ????? pa?te? t?? s??e?e?s?? p????e?a epe?d? p??t? est?? ?e?a, e?? ? ?e?? t? s??t?? de t?? ???? t?e?a?, ??s?? ep???se ?a? ??s??? ???st?? ? ?ete??? s?t?? t? a?t? ?e?a e? ?e???? a?est?. Apol c. s. 89. The purport of which is, that all Christians generally assembled for religious worship on the Sunday; because it is the first day in which God finished the creation of the world; and on the same day of the week, Jesus Christ, our Saviour, rose from the dead.” Guyse. 215.Vid. Athanas. Hom. de Semente. 216.Vid. Ignat. Epist. ad Magn. And much more to the same purpose may be seen in a learned book, intitled Dies Dominica, in cap. iii. & alibi passim. 217.?? t? ?? t?? sa?t??. On the first from the Sabbath; so the Jews named the days of the week. 218.?at? ?a? sa?t??. 219.Vid. Ignat. Epist. ad Magnes. 220.Vid. Just. Mart. edit. a Grab. Apol. 1. § 87, & 89. It may be observed, that that Father is not alone in his calling it Sunday; for Tertullian [Adv. Gent. Cap. xvi.] calls it so. And Jerom says it may be so called, because the Sun of Righteousness arose with healing in his wings; but it is generally called the Lord’s day; and that not only by others, but by the same Fathers; except in their apologies for the Christian religion against the Heathen, they used the word in compliance with their mode of speaking. But that which is more strange, and savours a little of affectation, is, that Justin, and some other of the Fathers, should chuse to use a circumlocution, instead of Friday, as he calls it, the day before Saturday. And Ignatius, [in Epist. ad Trall.] calls it parasceva, or, the preparation for the Sabbath, as the Jews did; and IrenÆus calls it the day before the Sabbath, [in Lib. v. adv. Her. Cap. xxiii.] which the learned Grabe supposes to be for this reason; that they might shew how much they detested the name of Venus, to whom Friday was dedicated by the Heathen. And they ought to have been as cautious of using the word Sunday, since that was not only dedicated to the Sun. But some took occasion from thence, to asperse the Christians, as though they had worshipped the Sun; which Tertullian, in [Apol. adv. Gen. Cap. xvi.] is obliged to exculpate them from. 221.Dominicum agere, or celebrare, was a phrase well known in that age, in which many Christians were put to death, upon their being examined, and boldly professing that they observed the Lord’s day; and the assemblies, in which all the parts of public worship were performed on that day, were generally called Synaxes.
|
|
