‘aa 
 ( 
 usc] 
 a E 
 
DUKE 
 UNIVERSITY 
 
 DIVINITY SCHOOL 
 LIBRARY 
 
CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY: 
 
 TRANSLATED FROM THE LATIN 
 
 OF 
 
 BENEDICT PICTET, 
 
 PASTOR AND PROFESSOR OF DIVINITY IN THE CHURCH AND 
 UNIVERSITY OF GENEVA. 
 
 BY 
 
 \ 
 
 FREDERICK REYROUX, B. A. 
 
 PHILADELPHIA : 
 PRESBYTERIAN BOARD OF PUPLICATION. 
 
Div. S. 
 
 THE TRANSLATOR’S PREFACE. 
 
 Tuose who are in any measure conversant with the 
 theological works of the age of the Reformation, and of 
 that immediately succeeding it, cannot fail to bear testi- 
 mony to their value; as presenting the most accurate 
 and luminous views of divine truth, and as constituting 
 a sort of standard of reference and appeal in the present 
 age. Among these works, those of the divines who 
 flourished in the Reformed churches abroad, occupy a 
 distinguished place, and supply a fund of valuable infor- 
 mation on every branch of Christian Theology, properly 
 so called. Many of these productions were translated 
 into English immediately or very soon after they ap- 
 peared; but most of these translations being now out of 
 print, or copies of them very scarce, it is presumed that, 
 without depreciating the value of modern performances, 
 no mean service would be rendered to the Christian 
 public, if new translations were made of the most valu- 
 able, and in their own time, most popular, writings of 
 the divines in the continental churches. The volume 
 which is now presented to the public, claims attention 
 as a body of Christian divinity, more concise and per- 
 spicuous, and therefore more acceptable to general read- 
 ers, than similar productions of the same age and school. 
 While it preserves, to a considerable degree, the accu- 
 racy of method, so studiously followed in the writings 
 of that age, the author has, by the omission of formal 
 controversies, and, as far as possible, of the scholastic 
 terms in which such controversies were generally con- 
 ducted, rendered it a suitable work for Christian read- 
 ers in general, as well as for professed students of Chris- 
 tian theology. This design he probably had in view, 
 when he published a French edition of his work, as the 
 illustrious Calvin published his famous Institutes in the 
 same language, which wes that of their country. In 
 iii 
 
iv THE TRANSLATOR’S PREFACE. 
 
 giving the following edition to the public, the translator 
 has endeavoured to present it to the English reader in 
 as plain, perspicuous, and popular a style as possible; 
 he has fully and faithfully given the sense of his author; 
 he has, indeed, omitted a few passages in the original 
 work, either when (though very seldom the case) they ap- 
 peared to him a needless repetition; or when such pass- 
 ages consisted of quotations from the fathers or the hea- 
 then writers, more curious than useful,or when they 
 contained arguments rather subtle than solid; but these 
 instances are altogether very rare, and, it is presumed, 
 will not be of the slightest detriment to the original per- 
 formance.* In addition to the intrinsic excellence of this 
 work, it will perhaps be an interesting recommendation 
 of it to many readers, that its author may in some mea- 
 sure be regarded as the last of those illustrious and or- 
 thodox divines who presided over the church of Geneva, 
 and who contributed, by their indefatigable labours and 
 excellent writings, to render it the bulwark of the Refor- 
 mation in those parts. For shortly after his death, or to 
 use the words of a living writer, * scarcely had the ven- 
 erable Benedict Pictet been cold in his grave," when 
 that highly favoured church commenced her grievous 
 declension ; the pure and scriptural doctrines, taught by 
 Calvin, Beza, Diodati, and their successors, were ex- 
 changed for those crude and reckless attempts of human 
 speculation, which cannot be better comprehended than 
 under the modern and expressive name of Neology; and 
 thus Geneva took her place on the melancholy list of 
 those Christian Churches which have “departed from 
 the faith, and left their first love.” May a gracious God 
 speedily restore “the candlestick” to this, and to every 
 other place from which, in his mysterious providence 
 and righteous judgment, it has been taken away. On 
 the whole, it is hoped that this volume will form an ac- 
 ceptable manual of Christian knowledge to those Chris- 
 tian families and individuals who, believing and loving 
 the truth, as it is continually presented before them in 
 this age of privileges, are desirous of obtaining sound, 
 comprehensive, and intelligent views of the whole Chris- 
 tian system. 
 
 * He has also taken the trifling liberty of throwing several of the 
 shorter chapters into one, and comprehending them under one general 
 title, when they treated upon one and the same subject. 
 
. THE AUTHOR'S PREFACE. 
 
 Tue friendly reader will allow me to detain him a little, 
 while I explain the nature of the work I have under- 
 taken. But before I do this, it will not, perhaps, be un- 
 acceptable briefly to inquire, when that method of teach- 
 ing Theology, which we follow, commenced, and also 
 very briefly to relate the history of the Scholastic The- 
 ology. Every one knows that, in the first ages of the 
 Christian Church, the apostles and their successors 
 handed down to posterity the pure and unadulterated 
 doctrine which they had received from Christ, in a me- 
 thod and style adapted as much as possible to the com- 
 prehension of the vulgar; and in the instruction of can- 
 didates for baptism, made use of certain short forms, 
 containing the principal heads of Christian doctrine. 
 But this simple method of handling divinity gradually 
 fell into disuse, and another method was invented, which 
 was thought more subtle and refined; as appears from 
 the writings of Dionysius, the pseudo-Areopagite, in the 
 fourth or fifth century, and as would still more clearly 
 appear, if, besides the works of this author, concerning 
 the Celestial and Ecclesiastical Hierarchies, the Mystic 
 Theology, &c. we possessed others which have been 
 lost. In the eighth century, John of Damascus, called 
 Chrysorrhoas (i. e. golden-stream,) from his eloquence, 
 was the first among the Greek Fathers who reduced 
 Theology to some method, in his four books concerning 
 *the Orthodox Faith," in the first of which he treats of 
 God, the Trinity, the divine nature and attributes; in 
 the second, of the creation, and the various kinds of 
 creatures; in the third, of the incarnation of Christ, and 
 the hypostatical union of his two natures, of Christ's life, 
 deatb, and descent into hell; in the fourth, of Christ's 
 
 resurrection and ascension, of faith, and the sacraments, 
 v 
 
vi THE AUTHOR’S PREFACE. 
 
 &c. Inthe Latin church, Lanfranc, archbishop of Can- 
 terbury, the inventor of transubstantiation, is said to 
 have substituted a new method of Theology in the place 
 of the old, a.v., 1070. In the twelfth century, Peter 
 Abelard composed three books of “Introduction to The- 
 ology.” Then came Peter Lombard, bishop of Paris, 
 who composed four Books of Sentences, in which the 
 sum of Theology is collected from the writings of the 
 Fathers, especially of Augustine, and arranged in the 
 scholastic method. From this period, all that followed 
 Lombard’s method, doctrine, and authority, were called 
 the schoolmen, after the old name, though with a new 
 meaning.* But it is not my intention, nor do I think it 
 necessary to proceed any farther with the history of the 
 schoolmen. Let it be enough to have cited their names, 
 for, with the exception of a few among them, they ob- 
 scured rather than illustrated Theology; they corrupted 
 rather than expounded it; and therefore during the 
 times in which they flourished, to use the words of Cor- 
 nelius Mussus, *the sacred scriptures were neglected, 
 to the inconceivable injury of all.” Indeed no one can 
 sufficiently deplore the lot of the Christian church in 
 those ages, when süch barbarous words were used for 
 the explanation of Christian doctrines, and every thing 
 was so wrapped up in obscure questions, that a period 
 of nine years was not enough for the proper understand- 
 ing of the single preface of Scotus to Lombard, and 
 when the most futile and even impious questions were 
 discussed, to the neglect of scripture. "This was the rea- 
 son why the wisest Reformers of the church have entirely 
 banished the Scholastic Theology from its territories; 
 together with its curious, vain, and often impious ques- 
 tions, and devoted themselves entirely to the exposition 
 of God’s word. Nevertheless, after the example of the 
 schoolmen, or following rather the method of those who 
 teach the arts and sciences, they were willing to reduce 
 Theology to certain rules, and that with the greatest 
 propriety; but then the divinity which they taught, was 
 not derived from Aristotle and Plato, but from those 
 purer sources—the sacred writings. These divines, 
 
 * We have omitted the entire list of scholastic divines from the thir- 
 teenth to the fifteenth century, which is given by the author, together 
 with brief notices of some of their works. Among them are the well- 
 known names of Aquinas, Bonaventura, Duns Scotus, and our own Ba- 
 con and Bradwardine. 
 
THE AUTHOR’S PREFACE. vii 
 
 however, did not all follow the same plan, though the 
 result was the same, since they exhibited the same doc- 
 trines, defended the same truths, and confuted and over- 
 threw the same errors. 
 
 In imitation of their example, I now venture to set 
 forth a work on Christian Theology; not indeed that I 
 presume to compare such a performance as mine with 
 their immortal writings; for I have learned to form a 
 just and modest estimate of my own powers, nor have I 
 ever dreamed of such a reputation as that expressed by 
 the poet— 
 
 Os populi meruisse, et cedro digna locutus 
 Linquere nec scombros metuentia opuscula, nec thus.—PEns. 
 
 To have the praise of all, and leave behind, 
 A work deserving of immortal fame, 
 
 Nor one that fears to share the ignoble fate 
 Of meaner works. 
 
 Ihad no other design in view than to satisfy the wishes 
 of our studious youth, who, having eagerly gone through 
 the excellent system of controversial theology,* drawn 
 up by my revered uncle, and most beloved father in 
 Christ, the illustrious Turretine, earnestly requested that 
 they might have given to them a system of didactic 
 theology, in which controversies were left out, and the 
 truth simply and plainly taught. The same request was 
 made by persons of rank and piety, who are fond of reli- 
 gious subjects, and earnestly desire a further acquaint- 
 ance with them. I have thought it my duty to comply 
 with their wishes, remembering those golden words of 
 Lactantius, “If life is desirable to a wise man, then I 
 could wish to live for no other reason, than that Imay do 
 something worthy of life; something that may contri- 
 bute, if not to the art of speaking, (and in fact I possess 
 but a very inconsiderable vein of eloquence,) yet at 
 least to the art of living, which is the most necessary 
 and important; therefore I shall consider myself to have 
 lived long enough, and to have fulfilled the duty of man, 
 if my labours shall free any of my fellow creatures from 
 error, and direct them in the path to heaven.” 
 
 No one must look in this work for a finely-polished and 
 highly-wrought style. I can promise nothing of the 
 kind, and I can acknowledge it far to exceed my powers ; 
 
 * Which admirable system Pictet appears to have made his model. 
 
viii THE AUTHOR'S PREFACE. 
 
 indeed I had no thoughts of the press, while delivering 
 these pages to be noted down by my auditors. I have 
 aimed at a style that is plain and familiar, and have con- 
 sulted only perspicuity ; which if my readers shall think I 
 have attained, I shall be highly gratified, if otherwise, I 
 shall proportionably regret it. I have sometimes em- 
 ployed words not of the purest Latin, nor used by classic 
 authors, because understood by all; though I have ab- 
 stained, as far as I could, from using the barbarous ex- 
 pressions of the school-divines ; or, if at any time I have 
 been compelled to employ them (which is very seldom) 
 I have immediately explained them; for lam wellaware, 
 how unpopular the terms and distinctions of the school- 
 men are in the present age, and that their expressions 
 tend to make a style obscure rather than luminous. 
 
 Innumerable questions, discussed in larger common 
 places of divinity, have been left out, as being of little 
 importance, and rather curious than useful; many others 
 also, agitated among the divines of the day, have been 
 omitted, from that particular regard to peace, which I 
 have, and trust shall always have: if Ihave ever touched 
 upon them, I have done so in a manner which I hope, 
 and am even confident, will afford no ground of com- 
 plaint. Reasons and proofs we have given, according to 
 their weight, and not their number, and many we have 
 passed by, not always because we were dissatisfied with 
 those which we have not produced, but because we 
 were more satisfied with others, and considered these 
 sufficient, and were also afraid of wearying our readers. 
 We have sometimes quoted passages from the fathers, 
 for the sake of those who have commenced reading their 
 writings. We have also quoted from the heathens, and 
 not without just grounds, since Solomon employed not 
 only the Israelites, but also the Tyrians and Sidonians, 
 in building the temple of the Lord ; and Moses enriched 
 the tabernacle with Egyptian gold. Not indeed that we 
 imagine that heavenly truth, which shines,like a pure 
 virgin, in its own native loveliness, has any need of the 
 trappings, ornaments, and perfumes of heathen philo- 
 sophy, or that this spiritual sun has any occasion to bor- 
 row light from the dusky glare of carnal wisdom; but only 
 to make it clear, how consistent reason itself is with holy 
 scripture. 
 
 If at any time I dissent from some divines, I trust they 
 will not put a wrong construction on such a difference. 
 Men have always been allowed to differ without com- 
 
THE AUTHOR’S PREFACE. ix 
 
 promising friendship. I ardently desire their sacred 
 friendship: I bow to their learning; I admire their vir- 
 tues, and I constantly pray to Almighty God, that he 
 would long spare their lives for the good of the schools 
 and churches. I entreat all my readers to give a kind 
 and candid attention to the pages of this work, and if 
 anything is handled rightly, let them give praise to God, 
 if otherwise, let them pardon the writer. And now, fare- 
 well, indulgent reader, and commend me to God in your 
 prayers. 
 
os 
 
CONTENTS. 
 
 BOOK I. 
 
 OF THE EXISTENCE OF GOD AND HIS WORD. 
 
 CHAP. PAGE 
 I. Of the existence of God - - - E SN. 
 II. Of the natural knowledge of God — - - - =P on 
 Ill. Of the supernatural knowledge of God . - «108 
 IV. The word of God - - - - = - 94 
 V. The books of scripture - - - = - 96 
 VI. The divinity of the scriptures - . - - 33 
 VII. The inspiration of the scriptures - - - - Ai 
 VIII. Of the authority of the scriptures - - - z 14a 
 IX. Of the perfection of the scriptures - - - =) 849 
 X. Of the perspicuity of the scriptures - - - -- A 
 XI. The scriptures, the only rule of faith and practice - - $8 
 XII. Of the translations and apocryphal books — - - - 64 
 BOOK IL 
 
 OF GOD IN THE UNITY AND TRINITY. 
 
 I. Of the unity of God - 69 
 
 Il. Various names of God 
 III. Of the spirituality of God 
 IV. Of the omniscience of God - 
 
 V. Of the will and affections of God 
 VI. Of the justice of God - - 
 
 VII. Of the power and omnipresence of God 
 VIII. Of the eternity and other attributes of God 
 IX. Of the Trinity - - - 
 X. Of God the Father - - 
 XI. Of God the Son - - 
 XII. Of God the Holy Ghost : : 
 x 2 
 
 AREE 
 "eov ON pn 
 X NON T 3 CEQUR- As Sa Ta 
 £»-F 28 9.8.8 s * P S 9 
 co 
 @ 
 
xii CONTENTS. 
 
 BOOK III. 4 
 
 OF THE CREATION AND PROVIDENCE OF GOD. 
 
 CHAP. PAGE 
 I. Divine decrees - 
 II. Creation in general - 
 III. The works of creation 
 IV. Creation of angels - 
 V. Creation of man - 
 VI. T'he image of God in man 
 VII. The covenant of nature 
 VIII. Of Providence in general 
 IX. Objects and acts of Providence 
 X. Mode of divine Providence - 
 XI. Providence of God over sin - 
 XII. Of various passages of coe concerning ante pe 
 dence over sin - 150 
 
 Lo» Wah eg COE 
 POS I ET adt UL] od E] 
 oo 7! eo ' ee ee 
 Kg tw, scu sra ant 
 € 
 e 
 w 
 
 BOOK IV. 
 
 OF THE FALL. 
 
 I. Of the fall of angels - - - 167 
 IT. Of the fall edu parents - 170 
 III. Of sin 175 * 
 
 IV. The consequences of the jirst tran sgression 
 V. Of original sin z 
 VI. Of actual sin - E 
 VII. Of sin against the Holy Ghost " 
 VIII. Of man’s free-will in the state of sin - 
 
 E 
 
 E? $5. 9 ge 
 
 BOOK V. 
 
 OF THE DECREE OF GOD CONCERNING MAN'S SALVATION. 
 
 I Ofelection - ^ - 902 
 II. Of the immutability and certainty of election - - 906 
 III. Of the assurance of election - - - 909 
 IV. Of reprobation - - = - 212 
 V. Of the election and weprobation of angels - - = 914 
 VI, Of the right use of the above doctrines - . - $. 
 
CONTENTS. xiii 
 
 BOOK VI. 
 
 OF REDEMPTION BY CHRIST THE MEDIATOR. 
 
 CHAP. PAGE 
 I. The poorer of — for sin - - - 219 
 H. Of the law - - = - 225 
 IIL Of the preparatory nature of the law - - 232 
 IV. The different states of the church before Christ's coming - 235 
 V. Of Jesus Christ as the true Messiah E - 239 
 VI. Christ's assumption of human nature - - - 242 
 VII. Of the two states of Christ - - ^ - - 248 
 VIII. Of the conception and birth ef Christ - : - 250 
 IX. Of the life of Christ - - - 253 
 X. m0 the sufferings and death of Christ - - - 256 
 )f Christ's burial and descent into hell - - - 959 
 au the resurrection and ascension of Christ - - 262 
 XIII. )f the mediatorial office of Christ in general - - 968 
 XIV. O oO the prophetical office of Christ - - - - 271 
 XV. Of the mes d e of Christ - - - - 274 
 XVI. Of the kingly office of Christ - - - - 918 
 XVII. Of the covenant of grace  - . - - - 980 
 XVIII. Of the abolition of the law - - - - - 285 
 BOOK VII. 
 OF CALLING AND FAITH. 
 I. Calling in general - - - - . - 989 
 H. Outward calling - - - - - - 291 
 Il. Inward calling E - - - - - 993 
 IV. Faith - - . - - = - - 998 
 V. Perseverance of faith - - - - - - 305 
 VI. Assurance of faith - - - - . 307 
 BOOK VIII. 
 OF JUSTIFICATION AND SANCTIFICATION. 
 I. Justification in general - - - E - 310 
 Il. The justification of a sinner - - - - - 313 
 III. Adoption - . : E - - 320 
 IV. Christian liberty - - - E . 33 
 V. The justification of a righteous man - > - - 325 
 
xiv CONTENTS. 
 
 CHAP. PAGE 
 VI. Sanctification, and <a connexion with Justi . . 327 
 VII. Good works - - 5 - 330 
 VIII. The decalogue or moral law - - - - E - 334 
 IX. Repentance - ^ . - . - 341 
 X. Prayer and oaths - - : - - - 343 
 BOOK IX. 
 OF GLORIFICATION. 
 I. The state of the soul after death > E - » 348 
 Il. The resurrection of ihe dead - - . - - 350 
 III. The end of the world - - : - . - 354 
 1V. The last judgment - - - . . - 356 
 V. Hell and heaven - . . - - - 359 
 BOOK X. 
 OF THE CHURCH. 
 I. The word church, its Nego and cine 362 
 
 Il. The true church - 
 HI. The unity, holiness, and universality of the church 
 IV. The church, as visible and invisible - 
 
 V. Marks of the true church 3 
 VI. The Head of the church, and f Antichrist 
 
 VII. Ministers of the church 
 
 2 Ree ee RU EO 
 E 
 e 
 
 VIII. The power of the church - - 387 
 
 AS Of church synods and Spaiek =e - 390 
 
 ee magistrates - . 392 
 
 )f marriage - - - 395 
 BOOK XI. 
 
 OF THE SACRAMENTS. 
 
 I. Of the Sacraments in general - - . - 399 
 d Efficacy of the sacraments — - - - - 403 
 us the sacraments of the Old Testament - - - 406 
 )fbaptism  - - - - E . - 410 
 
 v. Of the Lord's supper - - 420 
 VI. Of various questions in di smile about the Lord's supper - 426 
 
CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY. 
 
 BOOK THE FIRST. 
 
 OF THE EXISTENCE OF GOD; AND OF HIS WORD. 
 
 ——.—— 
 
 CHAPTER I. 
 
 OF THE EXISTENCE OF GOD. 
 
 Since Theology is the doctrine which treats of God and 
 divine things, it must, first of all, be inquired,— Whether 
 a God really exists, that is, whether there be allowed to 
 exist a Being who is infinite, all-perfect, supreme, and 
 the cause of the existence of all other beings. I confess, 
 indeed, that this principle is so evident, that we ought 
 rather to take it for granted, than attempt to prove it; 
 but the treating of this subject is rendered necessary by 
 the infatuation of many persons, who labour to persuade 
 themselves and others that there is no Deity. Now men 
 of this character, or rather, I should say, these monsters 
 of men, may be refuted by many arguments. I shall 
 bring forth the principal arguments which appear to me 
 the most unexceptionable. 
 
 The first argument is drawn from the extensive, 
 goodly, and orderly fabric of the universe, and from the 
 beautiful harmony of all created things, destined, as 
 they are, to the use and service of each other ; all which 
 could have proceeded only from a most wise and perfect 
 Being, as every one must admit who is willing to exer- 
 cise his reason. For, to maintain that these things 
 were united by an accidental concurrence of atoms, or 
 indivisible particles, is to show a want, not merely of 
 
 B : 17 
 
18 OF THE EXISTENCE OF GOD. 
 
 understanding, but almost of sense itself ‘I cannot 
 conceive,’ says Cicero (De Nat. Deor. lib. IL) * why the 
 man who thinks this possible, should not also imagine 
 that, if innumerable forms of letters, whether of gold, or 
 of any other kind, should be thrown together into some 
 receptacle, there could be accidentally made out of these, 
 when shaken out upon the ground, annals capable of 
 being read; whereas I doubt whether chance could 
 effect any thing of the kind, even as far as a single 
 verse. But if a concurrence of atoms can produce a 
 world, why not a portico, a house, or a temple? which 
 would be less laborious, and indeed far easier. 
 
 The second argument is derived from this fact, that 
 all things in the world have, as it were, certain ends 
 which they keep in view, although those ends are not 
 always known to us. But who has so directed, or 
 indeed could possibly so direct, all things to certain 
 ends, but an all-perfect and infinite Being? It cannot 
 be said that every individual thing sets before itself 
 such ends, for we know that the greater part of them 
 are destitute of reason; and if some are capable of 
 design, yet they perform many things without design. 
 For not even man purposes within himself how he shall 
 digest his food, and distribute its parts through the differ- 
 - ent members of his body. Some cause, therefore, must 
 be laid down, which directs all these things. 'Tosay that 
 nature does all this, is absurd, unless by nature is meant 
 a substance or essence distinct from natural things, and 
 which is most wise and powerful, which, in fact, is God 
 himself. 
 
 The third argument is drawn from the consideration of 
 the matter of which the world is made, and of motion, which 
 has been given to matter. For matter is either eternal 
 and self-existent, or it was produced out of nothing by 
 another and a.supreme Being. "That it is not eternal or 
 self-existent, clearly appears from the very great absurd- 
 ity of ascribing to a most imperfect being or existence, 
 such as matter is, what is the greatest of all perfections, 
 namely, eternity and self-existence. If, on the contrary, 
 it was produced out of nothing, by another and a su- 
 preme Being, that Being can be no other than God, since 
 infinite power is necessary to produce any thing out of 
 nothing; which infinite power belongs to that Being 
 only, whom we call God. Again, either motion is of the 
 essence of matter, or some one has impressed motion upon 
 it. Now, that motion is of the essence of matter, no one, 
 
OF THE EXISTENCE OF GOD. 19 
 
 I think, in his senses will believe; at least no one will 
 maintain that such regular motion as that to which the 
 world owes its origin, essentially belongs to matter. 
 We must needs therefore confess that some Being im- 
 pressed motion upon matter, or, at least, directed motion 
 to the formation of a world, rather than a rude disordered 
 mass. Now every one, who is not wilfully blind, can 
 perceive that such a Being is no other than the all-per- 
 fect Being whom we call God. 
 
 The fourth argument is derived, not only from the 
 construction of the human body, admired by every one, 
 though enough by no one, but also from our soul; for it 
 is either eternal, or produced out of matter, or created 
 by some other Being. No one will now * say that it is 
 eternal. To say that it is produced from matter is most 
 absurd; for the effect is not more noble than its cause, 
 and who can believe that out of matter, which is ex- 
 tended, gross, and inanimate, there could have been pro- 
 duced a spiritual and thinking essence, one of so excel- 
 lent a nature, that it comprehends the whole universe in 
 its thoughts, beholds the present, remembers the past, 
 and looks forward to the future:—one, which invents 
 and cultivates so many arts, performs so many wonder- 
 ful things; which, not content with this world and sublu- 
 nary objects, aspires to God and to eternity, and runs 
 through heaven, and earth, and the seas, although lying 
 concealed ia a single corner of the world. Such an es- 
 sence then must have an author; but who it is, if it is 
 not God, no one can point out. Add to this the wonder- 
 ful union of the soul with the body, which union is so 
 close and intimate, that certain motions take place in the 
 body, in obedience to certain thoughts of the soul; and, 
 on the contrary, some thoughts take place in the soul, in 
 compliance with some motions of the body, although the 
 soul is ignorant in what way the members are set in 
 motion according to its will, and how it is that at the 
 motion of these members various thoughts are raised 
 within it. 
 
 The fifth argument is taken from the agreement of 
 almost all nations, even the most barbarous, upon this 
 subject. For how is it that men of almost every country 
 in the earth, differing in education, customs, manners, 
 and habits, believe in any thing as a God, rather than 
 
 * That is, whatever the ancient philosophers may have maintained, 
 no one in these modern days will affirm it. 
 
20 OF THE EXISTENCE OF GOD. 
 
 believe in no God? and that the proudest of mankind 
 had rather bow down to wood and stone, than be with- 
 out any deity at all? * What nation is there,” says 
 Cicero, “or what race of men, which has not, without 
 any previous instruction, some idea of the gods? Now 
 that in which all men agree must necessarily be true.” 
 “If you go through the earth,” says Plutarch, “ you will 
 perhaps observe cities without walls, without letters, 
 sunk in the greatest ignorance; but we shall see not one 
 which does not worship the Deity. But even if, as some 
 assert, there are some nations to be found, among whom 
 no traces of religion are discovered, it ought not to seem 
 strange that barbarians, who have in some measure 
 thrown aside the human nature, and assumed a kind of 
 brutal wildness, have lost that which is peculiar to man. 
 Without understanding, there is no notion of a Deity, and 
 no sense of religion, and therefore these cannot apply to 
 the brutes, and consequently not to those who have 
 almost degenerated into brutes.” 
 
 The last argument may be sought from the power of 
 conscience, which is the inseparable attendant on crime 
 that has been, or is about to be, committed, and the feel- 
 ing of which cannot be blunted, nor its judgment be 
 avoided, nor its accusation eluded, nor its testimony cor- 
 rupted, nor its bail deserted; nothing being more tena- 
 cious than its grasp, nothing more bitter than its torment. 
 Whence is it that conscience is stung when a crime is 
 committed, even though no witnesses are present, and 
 no danger threatens from others? Whence is it that the 
 transgressor secretly trembles at his guilt, and is afraid 
 even of the most trifling noise? Nor is there any excep- 
 tion to this fact in the case of those who acknowledged 
 no superior on earth, and to whom their subjects did not 
 blush to offer incense as unto gods. Caligula, for exam- 
 ple—who, although no one is said to have carried his 
 contempt of Deity further than he did, yet trembled ex- 
 ceedingly when he heard the noise of thunder. Whence 
 all this, I ask, but from the consciousness of there being 
 some Judge, whom the offender, although he sees him not, 
 yet every where dreads? We wave other arguments, 
 which might be added: I shall only subjoin this remark, 
 that, while the atheistical doctrine gives a license to every 
 crime, the opposite doctrine influences men to the prac- 
 tice of every Christian and moral virtue. 
 
OF THE NATURAL KNOWLEDGE OF GOD. 21 
 
 CHAPTER II. 
 OF THE NATURAL KNOWLEDGE OF GOD. 
 
 From what has been said, it appears that we can, by the 
 power of nature, know God, and that God himself is the 
 author of this knowledge, both by that notion of himself 
 which he has engraven on the minds of all men, and by 
 the excellent works he has done, from the contemplation 
 of which it necessarily follows that God exists. Hence 
 it is that the natural knowledge of God may be consid- 
 ered in two points of view, as innate and acquired. The 
 innate notion of the Deity is that which is so peculiar to 
 man, that, as soon as he is capable of using his reason, 
 he cannot avoid very often thinking of God, and is not 
 able entirely to reject the thoughts of him, although he 
 sometimes may attempt it. The acquired notion is that 
 which is drawn from the careful observation of created 
 things. 
 
 Both these notions are mentioned in the scriptures. 
 Paul alludes to the innate when he declares that the 
 Gentiles have “the work of the law written on their 
 hearts, their conscience also bearing witness, and their 
 thoughts, in the meanwhile, accusing, or else excusing, 
 one another." (Rom. xi 15.) For this work of the law, 
 written on their hearts, is that innate notion of which we 
 speak. It is said to be written on the hearts, not on 
 tables of stone, as the law of Moses. The same apostle 
 speaks of the acquired notion, when he says, *the invis- 
 ible things of him from the creation of the world are 
 clearly seen, being understood by the things that are 
 made, even his eternal power and godhead." (Rom. i. 
 20.) The Psalmist also,— the heavens declare the glory 
 of God, and the firmament sheweth his handy work." 
 (Psalm xix. 1.) To this also may be referred the words 
 of Job, * Ask now the beasts, and they shall teach thee; 
 and the fowls of the air, and they shall tell thee, &c.” 
 (Job xii. 7—9.) The very heathens acknowledged this. 
 Aristotle,—if indeed he is the author of the Book upon 
 the World,—declares that, As the soul by which we live 
 is discovered by its works, so the Deity, who is invisible 
 to every mortal nature, is seen by his works. Who is 
 
22 OF THE NATURAL KNOWLEDGE OF GOD. 
 
 there so infatuated, says Cicero, who, looking up to hea- 
 ven, does not perceive that there are deities, and imagines 
 that chance cun effect those things which are made with 
 so much understanding, that no one, by any power of ^ 
 can apprehend their order and revolution? And i 
 odorus Siculus is to be credited, Zaleucus, the pea 
 of the Locrians, enacted a law, which obliged the citi- 
 zens to acknowledge a deity from the contemplation of 
 the heavens. 
 
 Both these kinds of knowledge are a great proof of 
 God's goodness to man, whom he would not leave alto- 
 gether without any knowledge of himself, in order that 
 they might render unto him, when known, the tribute of 
 love, praise, thanksgiving, worship, and obedience. At 
 the same time they form a bond of society, and prevent 
 men from becoming a prey to each other. They are also 
 an incentive to seek after a clearer revelation, and are 
 sufficient to leave every one, who abuses his natural 
 light, without any excuse. This also is the source from 
 which all civil laws have been derived, although they 
 have frequently contracted much corruption from the 
 impurity of the channels through which they have 
 passed. 
 
 This knowledge of God, together with those common 
 notions, makes up a system of natural theology, of which, 
 if any one should desire an abridgment, and should 
 wish to inquire how much knowledge the Gentiles were 
 able to derive from the dictates of reason, and from the 
 works of creation and providence, we may reply, that 
 the Gentiles were capable of attaining the following 
 truths—That there is a God, and but one God—that God 
 is none of those things which are visible and corruptible, 
 but some being very far superior to them—that he is just, 
 good, powerful, and all-wise—that God is the creator of 
 the universe—that the world is governed by his provi- 
 dence, as Cicero and several others acknowledged—that 
 he is eternal and happy—that he must be worshipped 
 and praised—that rectitude and honesty are to be prac- 
 tised—that parents ought to be honoured, and that we 
 should not do to any one else what we would not have 
 done to ourselves—that all men ought to endeavour to 
 propitiate God's favour—that the soul is immortal, and 
 that there is a judgment to come, (the Druids, according 
 to Cesar, believed in the soul’s immortality, which also 
 was the opinion of Plato)—that those who do evil actions 
 are worthy of death. (Rom. i. 32.) 
 
OF THE SUPERNATURAL KNOWLEDGE OF GOD. 23 
 
 CHAPTER III. 
 OF THE SUPERNATURAL KNOWLEDGE OF GOD. 
 
 Tuat, besides this natural knowledge of God, another 
 revelation of a supernatural kind was necessary, was 
 not unknown to the heathens themselves; among whom 
 it was a received opinion, that, in addition to reason, 
 man needed a kind of divine wisdom. For those who 
 introduced among them religious rites and ceremonies 
 before unknown, would not have found it necessary to 
 pretend that they had conferences with divinities, as 
 Lycurgus with Apollo, Minos with Jupiter, Numa with 
 Egeria, and many others, had not all men been per- 
 suaded that the right mode of worshipping the Deity 
 must be drawn from a revelation of him. 
 
 There are two principal arguments which prove the 
 necessity of a divine revelation. First, the imperfection 
 of natural knowledge, which was insufficient either for 
 the true knowledge, or for the true worship, of God, and 
 which could not, in any way, comfort the human mind 
 against the fear of death, and under the consciousness 
 of sin, because it could not point out the mode of satis- 
 fying the divine justice, and propitiating the divine fa- 
 vour; hence the heathen who possessed this knowledge 
 are described by Paul as * without hope and without 
 God in the world." (Eph. ii. 12.) The second argument 
 is drawn from the great corruption of mankind since 
 the fall, their speedy forgetfulness of God and blindness 
 in divine things, their propensity to all kind of error, 
 and especially to the invention of new and false religions. 
 Ifthere were any among the heathen, who worshipped 
 the one God, there were far more who worshipped innu- 
 merable deities, even all kinds of creatures, from the 
 grass of the field to the stars of the sky, not even except- 
 ing such animals as wolves, dogs, and crocodiles. Nay, 
 they often knew not to what deity they were paying 
 homage; whence that common form which they used 
 in their addresses to a deity, whoever thou art; and in 
 the Capitol at Rome, there was a sacred shield, with this 
 inscription, 7'o the genius of the city, whether male or 
 female. And Vossius, in his treatise on Idolatry ex- 
 
24 OF THE WORD OF GOD. 
 
 cellently compares the case of the heathen to that of the 
 blind man recorded in the ninth chapter of John; for, 
 as the latter beheld the Son of God, and yet knew not 
 that he was the Son of God, so the former beheld God 
 in his works, and yet closed their eyes against his real 
 nature and perfections. A second revelation, therefore, 
 was necessary, in which God might not only cause to 
 be known, in a clearer manner, his own perfections, 
 which he had revealed in the first, but also discover new 
 perfections, and especially reveal * the mystery of god- 
 liness." 
 
 This supernatural revelation was made through the 
 medium of the word; for, after God had used mute 
 teachers to instruct mankind, he opened his own sacred 
 lips: and after he had, *at sundry times, and in divers 
 manners, spoken unto the fathers by the prophets, in 
 these last days” he has condescended to “speak unto us 
 by his Son.” (Heb. i. 1.) Thus also David, having re- 
 presented the heavens “ declaring the glory of God, and 
 the firmament shewing his handy work,” proceeds to 
 make mention of the word; “The law of the Lord,” he 
 says, “is perfect, converting the soul.” (Psalm xix. 1, 7.) 
 Now, that theology, a system of which we are here 
 framing, contains the body of revealed doctrine, and is 
 called supernatural to distinguish it from that which is 
 natural. But although the two systems differ from each 
 other in the mode of revelation, in the number of things 
 revealed, in their perspicuity and effects, yet are they in 
 strict harmony, and render each other mutual service; 
 for, as Tertullian observes, God hath sent nature before 
 as an instructress, purposing to send revelation after, in 
 order that, as a disciple of nature, thou mayest more 
 easily hearken to revelation. 
 
 CHAPTER IV. 
 OF THE WORD OF GOD. 
 
 Tue word was a very suitable means of revealing God, 
 and instructing men, to whom he had given the faculty 
 
OF THE WORD OF GOD. 23 
 
 of hearing and reasoning, and one which bestows great 
 honour on mankind; for what more honourable than to 
 be favoured with an address from the Deity? Now this 
 word was not at first committed to writing, on account 
 of the longevity of the patriarchs, the small number of 
 mankind, and the frequency of divine manifestations. 
 But after the human race began to multiply, and to 
 spread through different parts of the world; when Satan 
 walked abroad with his innumerable devices and wiles, 
 and robbed men of the truth with the greatest ease, be- 
 cause it was not yet recorded in letters, from which it 
 could be drawn and appealed to, and falsehood refuted ; 
 God, taking pity on the human race, was pleased to 
 commit his word to writing. By this means the truth 
 could be more easily preserved, and transmitted to later 
 generations, for “the gift of letters is truly divine,” as 
 Quintilian remarks, and it could also not so easily be 
 corrupted, or at least could be more easily and success- 
 fully rescued from corruptions. By this means also, there 
 was no necessity for the truth to be repeated and 
 restored by continually new revelations, and thus a 
 certain and fixed rule of faith was established. With 
 the same design, we know that the edicts of kings 
 or people were either engraved on brass, or inscribed 
 on public records. 
 The Almighty condescended to establish and sanction 
 this mode of revealing himself to men, by his own ex- 
 -ample, when, with his own finger, he wrote the deca- 
 logue on tables of stone, and afterwards, through Moses 
 and the other prophets, continued this method of pre- 
 serving and propagating the truth. Thus he commanded 
 Moses, saying, ** Write this for a memorial in a book;” 
 and again, * Write thou these words, for after the tenor 
 of these words 1 have made a covenant with thee, and 
 with Israel" (Exod. xvii 14; xxxiv. 27.) The same 
 command may be seen in Isaiah viii. 1; Jer. xxx. 2; 
 Hab. ii.2. The case was the same under the New Tes- 
 tament; for, after the only-begotten Son of God had 
 lrawn forth the mysteries of the kingdom of heaven from 
 the bosom of the Father, and revealed them unto men, 
 he was pleased to commit them to writing, by the in- 
 strumenta'ity of the apostles; and this he did, not only 
 by commanding them to *teach all nations," which 
 could not always have been done by word of mouth, as 
 they had to instruct the most distant and also future 
 generations, as well as ME own, but also by expressly 
 
26 OF THE BOOKS OF SCRIPTURE. 
 
 enjoining them to write, as he said to John, * What thou 
 seest, write in a book, &c.; write the things which thou 
 hast seen,” &c. (Rev. i. 11, 19,) and by influencing them 
 to write, and suggesting to them, by inspiration, what 
 they were to write. And here we may well admire the 
 wisdom of God. While the church was in its infancy, 
 the Lord instructed it by word of mouth, which is the 
 most simple mode of revelation, in the same way as 
 nurses teach their children. Afterwards, when it was 
 in its childhood and youth under the law, he taught it 
 both by word of mouth and by writing, as boys and 
 youth are instructed both from the lips of a master, and 
 by the reading of books. At length, when arrived at . 
 maturity under the gospel, the church was confined to 
 the scripture, as adult persons may derive their instruc- 
 tion from books by their own understandings. 
 
 Not all the apostles wrote, nor was it necessary; it 
 was enough for some of them to write what was ap- 
 proved by the rest; nor is it to be wondered at, that those 
 holy men chiefly adopted the epistolary method, it being 
 the general custom in that age to convey instruction by 
 letters. Thus the rescripts of the emperors were con- 
 veyed by letters, and this simple mode of instruction 
 was suited to the gospel, that the cross of Christ might 
 not be made of none effect by the enticing words of 
 man’s wisdom; and indeed no other mode of writing 
 was so adapted to a speedy propagation of the gospel. 
 
 CHAPTER VY. 
 
 OF THE BOOKS OF SCRIPTURE. 
 
 Havine considered the reasons for which the word of 
 God has been committed to writing, we must now as- 
 certain where that record is to be found. Shall we 
 seek it among the heathens? No book of theirs is met 
 with which can be accounted divine. All is uncertain, 
 fabulous, full of superstition and idolatry. Shall we look 
 for it among the Mahomedans? They have the Koran, 
 we confess: hut that book is hardly worthy of a man in 
 
OF THD BOOKS OF SCRIPTURE: 27 
 
 his senses; and whatever good is in it, has entirely been 
 derived from the Jews and Christians. Truly no where 
 else must the word of God be sought for but in the books 
 of the Old and New Testament, as will be proved here- 
 after. We will first speak of the books of the Old Testa- 
 ment. These are the books which God delivered to the 
 Jewish people; they are divided by the Jews into the law, 
 the prophets, and the hagiographa, (i. e. sacred writings,) 
 a distribution intimated by our Lord under the names of 
 “ Moses, the prophets, and the Psalms." (Luke xxiv. 44.) 
 The law contains the Pentateuch (i. e. five books,) viz. 
 Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, and Deuteronomy. 
 The author of these books is universally believed to be 
 Moses, the son of Amram, and great-grandson of the 
 patriarch Levi; although in them are to be found the 
 names of certain places unknown in Moses's time, and 
 other things which appear to have been added by Ezra, 
 or some other sacred writer. 
 
 The first book is called Genesis, because it records 
 the origin of all things, and contains the history of 2369 
 years. The second is called Exodus, because it com- 
 mences with the deliverance of the oppressed Israelites, 
 and their departure from Egypt into the promised land 
 of Canaan; it comprises the history of 149 or 145 years. 
 The third is named Leviticus, because it describes the 
 laws imposed on the posterity of Levi, who formed the 
 priesthood. The fourth is called Numbers, because it 
 contains an account of the census of the Israelites made 
 by Moses and Aaron; it comprehends a period of 39 
 years. The fiffh is called Deuteronomy, because it is, 
 as it were, a repetition of the law, and embraces a period 
 of two months, or one month and a few days. 
 
 The Prophets are distinguished as the former and the 
 latter. The former are Joshua, the Judges, Ruth, the 
 two books of Samuel, and two of the Kings; the latter 
 are Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezekiel, Daniel, Hosea, Joel, Amos, 
 and the rest down to Malachi. The first book of the 
 former prophets is called Joshua, as it contains the his- 
 tory of the exploits of that great leader, after the death 
 of Moses, whom he is supposed to have succeeded about 
 A. M. 2050, or 2554. This book was not entirely written 
 by Joshua, since many things are related in it which 
 happened after his death. It is not even certain that 
 Joshua himself was the writer of the book, although it 
 appears to have been composed out of his records, (Josh. 
 xxiv. 26.) It contains the history of about twenty-five 
 
* 
 
 28 OF THE BOOKS OF SCRIPTURE. 
 
 or twenty-seven years. The second book is called 
 J'udzes, because it gives the ecclesiastical and civil his- 
 tory ofthe Israelites under the thirteen judges, from the 
 time of Joshua to that of Eli, embracing a period of 288 
 or 299 years. It is uncertain who was the author of this 
 book. The Jews think it was Samuel, others Ezra. 
 The government of these Judges was different from that 
 of kings in these particulars. It was an extraordinary 
 office, like the Roman dictatorship; those who bore it 
 acted under the immediate influence of the Spirit. 'The 
 succession of these offices was not immediate or con- 
 tinued; and they were put into their office by divine 
 appointment. The third book is Ruth, an appendix to 
 the book of Judges, with which some of the Jews join it, 
 though others place it among the Hagiographa. It con- 
 tains the history of Ruth, whose name therefore it bears, 
 and who lived in the time of Eli, according to some; in 
 that of Eliud or Shamgar, according to others; or, as 
 most think, in the age of Gideon. The author is uncer- 
 tain; said to be Samuel, or Ezra, or some other. 'l'he 
 book was put into the canon for the purpose of preserv- 
 ing, in a connected form, the genealogy of Christ. The 
 fourth book is the first and also the second of Samuel, 
 called by the Greek and Latin interpreters the first and 
 second Kings. It contains the history of events in the 
 times of Eli, Samuel, Saul, and David, for the space of 
 120 years and upwards. There is a dispute about the 
 author. It is probable that Samuel wrote a history of 
 his own times and those of Eli; that Nathan and Gad 
 composed annals of the events which took place under 
 the reigns of Saul and David; and that afterwards some 
 divinely inspired person, either Ezra or some other, re- 
 duced them into order, and gave both books the name 
 of Samuel. The fifth book is the first and also the second 
 of the Kings, (called by the Greek and Latin interpreters 
 the third and fourth) containing the history of the kings 
 of Judah and Israel for about 440 years. 
 
 The latter prophets are distinguished, as the greater 
 and the lesser; the greater are four, including Daniel, 
 contrary to the wishes of the Jews. The first is Isaiah, 
 who lived unto the reigns of Uzziah, Jotham, Ahaz, 
 Hezekiah, and as some think, Manasseh, by whom the 
 Talmudists say he was sawn asunder. He began to 
 prophesy about 4.c. 780. The second is Jeremiah, who 
 began to prophesy in the reign of Josiah, about a. c. 650 
 or 620. He prophesied, first in Judea, then in Egypt, 
 
OF THE BOOKS OF SCRIPTURE. 23 
 
 after Zedekiah was carried captive into Babylon. Thus 
 he prophesied for at least forty-three years. The third 
 is Ezekiel, who prophesied in Chaldea, whither he had 
 been carried captive, about 4.c. 600 or 590. He is said 
 to have prophesied about twenty years. The fourth is 
 Daniel, who prophesied during the captivity, at the same 
 time as Ezekiel, or, as some think, a little before him. 
 The Jews improperly strike him out of the list of the 
 prophets, though a testimony is borne to him as a pro- 
 phet, and one of the greatest of prophets, not only by 
 Josephus, but also by Ezekiel, (Ezek. xxviii. 3,) and 
 by Christ, (Matt. xxiv. 15,) and by some Jews tlem- 
 selves, which testimony is confirmed by his wonderful 
 predictions of the changes in the church and the com- 
 monwealth, both before and after the Messiah's appear- 
 ance, under the Babylonians, Persians, Greeks, and Ro- 
 mans, and especially under Antiochus. 
 
 The minor prophets are twelve innumber. The first 
 is Hosea, who prophesied in the days of Uzziah, Jotham, 
 Ahaz and Hezekiah, for sixty years, about a.c. 800 or 
 820. The second is Joel, who, as some think, lived un- 
 der Josiah about 4. c. 650, but, according to others, was 
 cotemporary with Hosea or with Jonah. The third is 
 Amos, who flourished under Uzziah, or Jeroboam IL, 
 about a.c. 780. The fourth is Obadiah, the age of whose 
 prophecy is unknown. The Jews think him to be the 
 same that is mentioned (1 Kings xviii. 3, 4,) in the days 
 of Ahaz. Some think he lived 4. c. 785. The fifth is Jonas, 
 who lived under Jeroboam IL, king of Israel, about a. c. 
 835, 800, or 785. The sixth is Micah, under Jotham, 
 Ahaz, and Ahaziah, cotemporary with Isaiah and Hosea. 
 The seventh is Nahum, whom some make cotemporary 
 with Isaiah ; others place him in the reign of Jehoiachim, 
 others of Manasseh; by some he is placed before, by 
 others after, the captivity. The eighth is Habakkuk, 
 whose age is also uncertain, perhaps under Manasseh, or 
 under Josiah. The Jews consider him to be the son of the 
 Shunamite, from the Hebrew word, which is found in 2 
 Kings iv. 16. The ninth is Zephaniah, cotemporary 
 with Jeremiah in the days of Josiah. The tenth is Hag- 
 gai, who prophesied after the captivity, in the second 
 year of Darius, about a.c. 515 or 510. Jerome records 
 it as the opinion of some, that he was an angel concealed 
 under a human form. The eleventh is Zechariah, 
 whose prophecies began a the second year of Darius, 
 
 * 
 
30 OF THE BOOKS OF SCRIPTURE. 
 
 and who is considered by most persons to be the son of 
 Barachias, whose death Christ mentions (Matt. xxiii. 
 35.) The last is Malachi, concerning whom there is 
 much dispute, some believing him to be Esdras, others 
 an angel: he prophesied long after the completion of the 
 second temple. 
 
 The Hagiographa are—1. The Chronicles, which re- 
 late the histories omitted in the other historical books, 
 or else more fully repeat and enlarge upon the accounts 
 contained in the rest; the author is uncertain ; probably 
 several prophets wrote the book.—IJL The book of 
 Esther, of which, not Ezra, but rather Mordecai was 
 the author. It is however doubtful ; for some ascribe it 
 to Joachim, the priest, and that too, after the Babylohish 
 captivity, under Darius Hystaspis.—IlL. Ezra, which 
 relates the events that took place in the church from the 
 first. year of Cyrus to the seventh year of Artaxerxes. 
 Ezra wrote as some think, about a. c. 468, or sooner, 
 according to others.—IV. Nehemiah, which describes the 
 rebuilding of Jerusalem, and also the reformation of the 
 people after their return from captivity. It is called by 
 the Jews the second book of Ezra, since it made up one 
 volume with the book of Ezra. It contains.a history 
 from the twentieth year of Artaxerxes to the end of 
 the Persian monarchy under Darius Codomannus.—V. 
 The Psalms of David, so called because most of them 
 were written by him. Others are ascribed to Solomon, 
 Asaph, Heman and Ethan. Some are thought to bave 
 been composed since the captivity. Eighty-two have 
 the name of David prefixed; twenty-five are without 
 any inscription.—VI. The Proverbs, a book make up of 
 the sentences of Solomon, with the exception of some 
 chapters. Solomon himself arranged them in order, or 
 one of the prophets after his time, (Prov. xxv. 1.)—VII. 
 Ecclesiastes, of which Solomon was also the author, is a 
 kind of sermon on repentance; and so far is it from 
 denying the immortality of the soul, as some profane 
 persons allege, that the whole book tends to the con- 
 firmation of this truth.—VIII. The Song of Songs, or 
 Canticles, ascribed to Solomon, the subject of which is 
 both the typical, and the true Solomon, i. e. Christ.—IX. 
 Job, the author of whichis uncertain. Some say it was 
 Moses, others one of Job’s friends, or Job himself; 
 others say it was some writer about the times of David 
 and Solomon.—X. The Lamentations of Jeremiah, which 
 are usually added to his prophecies. Thus far concern- 
 
OF THE BOOKS OF SCRIPTURE. 3l 
 
 ing the books of the Old Testament; for no more are 
 reckoned by the Jews, who are our librarians. 
 
 'The books ofthe New Testament, which were written 
 by the evangelists and apostles for the instruction of 
 Christians, are twenty-seven in number; five historical, 
 fourteen of Paul's epistles, seven epistles of the other 
 apostles, and one prophetical book, viz. the Revela- 
 tion. Of the historical books, the first is the gospel 
 of Matthew, which is thought by some to have been 
 written in the thirty-ninth or forty-first year of the 
 common era; by others, in the forty-eishth. Whether 
 he wrote in Hebrew, or in Greek, is disputed by the 
 learned. He is said to hàve travelled into Ethiopia in 
 Asia, and there to have suffered martyrdom in the city 
 of Naddaver, or according to others, in Hierapolis in 
 Parthia. The second is the gospelof Mark, who wrote 
 about the year 43, or long after; not in Latin, as some 
 think, but in Greek; for the subscription of the Syriac 
 gospel, which runs thus, Here ends the holy gospel of 
 the preaching of Mark, who spoke and preached in Latin 
 at Rome, is of no authority. It is uncertain what kind 
 of death he died; for it is a fabulous narrative which 
 some rccord, of his being seized by his persecutors, 
 while engaged in his sacred office, and dragged along 
 with a rope round his neck, till he yielded up his soul to 
 God. The third is the gospel of Luke, the helper of 
 Paul, and a physician, not a painter, although wonderful 
 stories are related by some concerning his skill in paint- 
 ing; he wrote as some maintain, about the year 53 or 56, 
 or as others, in the year 53. He is supposed to have lived 
 84 years, andto have been buried at Constantinople; some 
 say he was martyred in Bithynia ; others that he died at 
 Ephesus, or at Rome, not long after Paul's first release 
 from prison. Nicephorus relates that he was hanged upon 
 anolivetree. The fourth is the gospel of John, written 
 about the end of the first century, whether in the Isle of 
 Patmos, or after his return, is doubtful; the latter is 
 more probable. There are various accounts of the 
 author, many of which are uncertain, some false. The 
 Jifth is the Acts of the Apostles, written by Luke 
 about the year 58; it contains the history of twenty- 
 eight years. 
 
 Of the fourteen epistles of Paul, the following appears 
 to be the order. The first and second to the 7'hessalo- 
 nians were written in the year 49, or, as others think, 
 52 or 54, either at Athens, according to the common sub- 
 
. 
 
 32 OF THE BOOKS OF SCRIPTURE. 
 
 scription, or at Corinth. The epistle to the Galatians 
 was written in the year 53, or 56, or 59, either at Rome, ac- 
 cording to the subscription, or at Antioch, or at Ephesus; 
 and the first epistle to the Corinthians the same year either 
 at Philippi, or at Ephesus. The second epistle to the Cor- 
 inthians came out a little after, perhaps at the commence- 
 ment of the year 60; whether from Macedonia, or from 
 Philippi, or from Ephesus, is uncertain. The epistle to the 
 Romans is thought to have been written in the year 60, 
 after those to the Corinthians, or as some think, in the year 
 54 or 58. The epistles to the PAilippians, to Philemon, to 
 the Ephesians, and to the Hebrews are supposed to have 
 been written during his first imprisonment at Rome. 
 We reckon the epistle to the Hebrews among Paul's 
 epistles; and this is unanswerably proved by the cele- 
 brated Spanheim, both from the passage in 2 Peteriii.14, 
 15, and the testimony of the Greek fathers, such as 
 Justin, Ireneus, Clemens Alexandrinus, Origen, Basil, 
 Chrysostom, and many others, who have all agreed in 
 ascribing this epistle to Paul; and also from the testi- 
 mony of many Latin fathers, from the phraseology, and 
 the peculiar art of Paul in applying the prophetic ora- 
 cles; from the method which is usual with the apostle; 
 from the salutation, and the signature with his own hand 
 according to his custom (2 Thess. iii. 17), also from the 
 * bonds," which he mentions (Heb. x. 34) and which he 
 frequently alludes to in other epistles, and from the cir- 
 cumstance of the author writing from Italy, and men- 
 tioning Timothy, all which things apply to Paul; and, 
 finally, from the consideration that to no one is the 
 epistle ascribed with greater likelihood of truth. The 
 epistle to the Colossians, the first to Timothy, and that 
 to T'itus, are supposed to have been written between his 
 ' first and second imprisonment ; and in his last imprison- 
 ment, a little before his death, the second epistle to 
 Timothy was written at Rome, in the year 64. Con- 
 cerning the times, in which the other epistles of Peter, 
 James, John, and Jude, were written, nothing certain 
 can be said. "The book of Revelation is thought to have 
 been written in the year 95. 
 
 9. These then are the books of which the written 
 word of God consists, as the Jews believe, if the ques- 
 tion relates to the books of the Old Testament; and as 
 Christians believe, if the question relates to those of the 
 New Testament also; for, although there was for some 
 time a doubt concerning some of the latter, as concern- 
 
OF THE DIVINITY OF THE SCRIPTURE BOOKS. 33 
 
 ing the second epistle of Peter, that of James, of Jude, 
 and the second and third of John, that to the Hebrews, 
 and the Revelation, yet it is certain there was not this 
 doubt universally, nor always. One remark must be 
 added, viz. that at first the books of the Old Testament 
 were written in Hebrew, except some chapters in the 
 Chaldee dialect, in Daniel and Ezra, and also Jeremiah 
 xi ; the books of the New Testament, in Greek, because 
 this Janguage was the most known among the nations, 
 whom God was pleased to call, more known than the 
 Latin itself; for, as Cicero observes, While the Latin 
 
 ge was confined to its own territories, (small 
 enough) the Greek was understood by almost all nations. 
 
 CHAPTER VI. 
 OF THE DIVINITY OF THE SCRIPTURE BOOKS. 
 
 Tuus far we have seen, in what books the word of God 
 is believed to be found; but, because it might be 
 doubted whether they are really divine, as they are 
 accounted to be, we must now establish the truth of this 
 point. In order to do this, we must examine those 
 marks or characters, which we conceive ought to exist 
 in books divinely inspired, and by which a divine work 
 can be distinguished from one merely human ; we must 
 then ascertain whether these characters are applicable 
 to the books enumerated in the former chapter, only 
 premising these two observations ;—first, that we must 
 not separate one character from the other, for any one 
 of these characters might be discovered in a human 
 writing ; secondly, that it is not necessary for ail these 
 characters to be found in each book. Now the attentive 
 inquirer will find the following marks or characters of 
 the divine origin of any writing. 1. To speak nothing 
 but the truth. 2. To revea] those mysteries, which 
 cannot proceed from the human mind, which yet are in 
 strict harmony with the natural ideas God has impressed 
 on the mind. 3. To direct our thoughts and our wor- 
 ship wholly to the true God. 4. So to instruct the mind, 
 
934 OF THE DIVINITY 
 
 as to satisfy and set at rest the most insatiable desire 
 after knowledge. 5. To teach men by the most holy 
 precepts to love God above all things, and to renounce 
 every species of iniquity. 6. To be always consistent 
 with itself, and to exhibit no contradiction. 7. To teach 
 those things, which calm all the passions of the mind, 
 and fill it with indescribable peace and joy, bringing it 
 into such subjection, that it is compelled under a sweet, 
 yet most powerful influence, to obey the laws of God. 
 8. To predict those things, which no human being could 
 foreknow, and which were fulfilled in due time. If the 
 book in which all these characters exist, is not divine, I 
 know not what can be divine; we will now see whether 
 such marks exist in the books of the Old and New 'T'es- 
 tament. 
 With respect to the first character, it is easy to shew, 
 that there is nothing in these books, which is not most 
 true. For if there were anything, the truth of which 
 might be doubted, it would be certainly the stories re- 
 lated by Moses, or by the apostles. But that these 
 stories are authentic we may prove in the following 
 manner. To begin with Moses—if his stories are false, 
 he must have been avery great impostor, deserving uni- 
 versal hatred; for it is not likely that he was deceived 
 by any other person. But that he was not an impostor 
 is proved, first, because it can hardly be conceived how 
 so great and shameful an impostor could, for the purpose 
 of favouring his artful design, have invented a most 
 sacred and excellent law, from which other laws have 
 borrowed whatever good they possess. Again, we can- 
 not conceive that he would have forged events, the false- 
 hood of which all could have proved; for he relates 
 things which took place in the presence of 600,000 men, 
 who could have easily convicted him of lying. Nor can 
 it be conceived, how it is, that not a single person out of 
 so many, of whom the greater part often rose against 
 Moses in rebellion, ever accused him of this imposture, 
 or at least ever assailed his memory after his death. 
 Moreover we cannot understand, what design he could 
 have in view in forging these things, since he was en- 
 tirely free from the desire of gain, or glory, indeed so in- 
 genuous, as not to conceal his own faults. If he wrote 
 what was false, how could there remain so long among 
 the Jews the very records of the facts related by Moses, 
 such as the manna, which was kept in a golden urn, 
 Aaron's rod, the brazen serpent, the tables of stone on 
 
OF THE SCRIPTURE BOOKS. 35 
 
 which the law was written, the ark of the covenant, 
 besides the feasts commeinorative of various events, and 
 many other things? Lastly, we may add the testimo- 
 nies of the heathens, who have not ventured to refuse to 
 Moses the praise of being a veracious writer. Nor is 
 there any foundation for believing, that the Israelites 
 united with Moses in his imposture, in order to gain 
 great glory to the nation. For, if they had thus united 
 ‘with Moses, why did they not blot out of his books those 
 things, which they must have seen would brand the 
 nation with disgrace, viz. their frequent rebellions, and 
 very grievous sins? Again, would a people so “ stiff- 
 necked," have so readily submitted to the intolerable 
 yoke of a very severe law, which punished the least 
 transgression, if they had really believed that it was a 
 mere figment of Moses, and had not been convinced of 
 his divine calling, and of the truth of his assertions ? 
 There can be no doubt as to the testimony of the 
 apostles also; for, in the fist place, no one can imagine 
 them to have been deceived, since they do not testify of 
 facts which took place long before their own times, or in 
 any other part of the world, and which they might have 
 heard from the uncertain report of others; but those, in 
 which they had the evidence of their own senses, and 
 that too, not once or twice only, but for many days; 
 not in a slight or cursory manner, but for a continuance 
 of time, during which they sometimes doubted and hesi- 
 tated, till they were fully persuaded ofthe truth. Again, 
 the question was not about difficult matters, in which 
 simple and illiterate people might easily have been mis- 
 taken; but about facts before their eyes—such as the 
 resurrection of Christ, with whom they had so often 
 associated. Lastly, it cannot be said that their faculties 
 were deranged, for they exhibit no signs of derange- 
 ment; the very contrary is shown, both in their words 
 and in their actions. Secondly ‘+ is not conceivable, 
 that the apostles wished to deceive mankind ; their whole 
 life proves them incapable of any fraud, the enemies of 
 our religion being judges. Neither can we imagine 
 what good they could have proposed to themselves by a 
 fraud. Those who lie expect some advantage from 
 lying; for to deceive for the mere sake of deceiving, is 
 hardly human. Now the apostles could expect nothing 
 during life, but what mankind usually dread, namely, 
 poverty, exile, torments, death itself, and infamy after 
 death. Nor is it at all likely, that they would have con- 
 
36 OF THE DIVINITY 
 
 sented to endure so many evils for the sake of a lie. For 
 a man to suffer for error, which he believes to be truth, 
 is not strange; but for a man to suffer for error, know- 
 ing it to be error, is hardly credible. It is also incredible, 
 that not one of them, or of their disciples, should have 
 confessed the imposture before their judges in the 
 prospect of death. It is incredible that so many holy 
 precepts should have been given by men so wicked, if 
 they had been really impostors. It is still more incre- 
 dible, that they should have willingly died for Christ, 
 who, if he had not risen, must have wofully deceived 
 them. Nor must we omit the miracles which these same 
 apostles wrought to confirm their doctrine. Moreover, 
 if the apostles had wished to deceive, they would have 
 accommodated themselves to the temper of the people 
 whom they addressed; they would have used “entic- 
 ing words," and carefully avoided whatever might pre- 
 judice those with whom they had to deal Yet the 
 apostles did not at all act in this manner. They spoke 
 things contrary to the carnal taste; they inveighed 
 against the depraved habits of mankind; they boldly 
 assailed the traditions of the Jews and the religion of the 
 heathens ; they would not allow the gospel to be mixed 
 up with Jewish ceremonies; they did not aim at any 
 smoothness and elegance of words, but adopted the 
 most simple style of speaking. Who can imagine that 
 such men wished to deceive us? Finally, be it observed, 
 that the apostles could not have deceived, even had they 
 wished it, since they relate those things of which there 
 must have been innumerable witnesses. Let this be 
 enough to prove that the first mark or character of 
 divinity truly applies to the books of the sacred writers. 
 
 The second character of divinity, namely, to reveal 
 those mysteries which cannot proceed from the human 
 mind, though in perfect harmony with natural ideas, 
 peculiarly belongs to the books of both Testaments. 
 For they teach mysteries which never could have been 
 discovered by human, or angelic reason, as those of the 
 Trinity, the incarnation and satisfaction of Christ, the 
 resurrection of the dead; which mysteries, although 
 they exceed the comprehension of human reason, yet 
 are in perfect harmony with it; since the mystery of a 
 plurality of persons in one essence is necessarily con- 
 nected with the work of our redemption through the in- 
 carnation of an infinite person. This work of redemp- 
 tion is closely connected with the necessity of a satisfac- 
 
OF THE SCRIPTURE BOOKS. 37 
 
 tion to divine justice, which reason acknowledged; 
 therefore all nations offered sacrifices. The necessity 
 of satisfaction agrees with the universal corruption of 
 mankind, of which all are sensible, and which reason 
 cannot deny. To which it may be added, that these 
 books are the original source from which all these mys- 
 teries are derived, sothat no one can assert that they 
 are found originally in any human book. 
 
 The third character of divinity, namely, to direct our 
 thoughts and our worship wholly to the glory of the 
 true God, cannot be denied to the sacred books; for 
 what other tendency have their instructions, than to 
 make us lay aside all idolatry, superstition, and self- 
 confidence, and worship God alone, trust in him, love, 
 worship, and serve him, with the deepest humility, be 
 wholly dependent on him, be resigned to his will, 
 and refer ourselves, and every thing belonging to us, to 
 his glory ? 
 
 The fourth character is, so to instruct the mind, as to 
 set at rest the most insatiable desire after knowledge. 
 How exactly this mark distinguishes the sacred books, 
 will plainly appear from considering the truths they 
 lay down. They teach us the origin of the world and 
 its creatures, the nature and works of God, his attributes 
 and providence, his counsels and decrees (as far as it 
 concerns us to know them), the origin and extent of 
 human misery, the adequate remedy for it, the true way 
 to happiness, the state of the soul after death, and other 
 subjects of this kind. What is there, we ask, necessary 
 to be known, which we cannot find in these books? 
 
 The fifth character is derived from the holiness of the 
 precepts, and is also clearly discernible in these books; 
 for they prescribe duties towards God and man of the 
 most sacred kind, such as far surpass any thing to be 
 found in the laws, precepts, or sayings, of any lawgiver 
 or philosopher. For what can be of a holier character, 
 than to enjoin upon men to deny themselves, and devote 
 themselves wholly to God, to cut out the very root of 
 their vices, and to abstain from every carnal lust, from 
 * all appearance of evil" Mere men would never have 
 thought of forbidding inward lust; for Paul confesses 
 that he should never have known it to be sin, had not 
 the law forbidden it. From this fifth mark, it is very 
 plain that the devil cannot be the author of these books. 
 His craft and cunning do not suffer him to forge books 
 contrary, and even paar to the genius of his king- 
 
38 OF THE DIVINITY 
 
 dom ; he prefers having subjects who resemble him, and 
 not those who are enemies to him. 
 
 The sixth character, namely, to be always consistent, 
 and to exhibit no contradictions, will equally apply to 
 these books ; for although so many of them were written 
 by authors in different. ages, yet is there a wonderful 
 agreement among them,—an invincible proof, that the 
 same Spirit is the author of all these books. 
 
 The seventh character is toteachthose things which calm 
 all the passions of the soul, and fill it with peace and joy, 
 &c. No one will hesitate to acknowledge this mark in 
 the sacred books, if he only consider that they reveal the 
 method of appeasing the wrath of God, of pleasing him, 
 and of obtaining from him eternal life; and that they 
 comfort us under every thing which disturbs, torments, 
 and perplexes the human mind, whether the troubles of 
 life, the fear of death, or the consciousness of guilt. To 
 this seventh mark we may add another, namely, the in- 
 fluence of these books in the conversion of men ; for tney 
 make so deep an impression on their minds, that, how- 
 ever deeply the seeds of wickedness take root in them, 
 they are so greatly changed, as to hate sin, and practise 
 holiness. Thus Paul declares(1 Thess. ii. 13.) that * the 
 word of God effectually worketh in those that believe." 
 And for this reason it is compared by the sacred writers 
 to fire, to a hammer, to a two-edged sword, and to seed. 
 Jer. xxiii. 99. Heb. iv. 12. 1 Pet. i. 23. Thus also justly 
 observes Lactantius: What they (that is, the philose- 
 phers) thought must be done at the call of nature, but yet 
 could neither do themselves, nor ever saw done by amy 
 philosophers, is alone accomplished by this heavenly doc- 
 trine, which alone is wisdom, &c. Give me a man, who 
 is angry, slanderous, licentious, and, by a very few words 
 of God, I will make him as quiet as a lamb, &c. 
 
 The eighth and last character is, to predict events, 
 which no “mortal could foreknow, and which were fulfilled 
 in due time. This character shines forth in these books: 
 for who does not know the predictions concerning the 
 possession of Canaan by the Israelites, the Babylonish 
 captivity, the four monarchies, the birth, death, resurrec- 
 tion, and ascension of Christ, the calling of the Gentiles, 
 the outpouring of the Spirit, the destruction of Jerusalem, 
 and numberless other events, which could have been 
 predicted by God only? 
 
 The above proofs of the divinity of the scriptures re- 
 ceive additional strength, first, from the wonderful pre- 
 
OF THE SCRIPTURE BOOKS. 39 
 
 servation of them up to the present time, notwithstand- 
 ing the rage of their most powerful enemies, who aimed 
 at their destruction. The books of the Egyptian mys- 
 teries, of the Druidical ceremonies, and the Sybilline 
 verses, with innumerable other records, have been en- 
 tirely lost; the Scripture alone has been preserved: nor 
 has the infatuated rage of Antiochus, or the fury of 
 Decius and Dioclesian, or the versatile impiety of Julian, 
 or the virulent writings of Porphyry, Lucian, or Celsus, 
 been able to destroy it. Secondly, from the majesty and 
 simplicity of their style, which are everywhere conspicu- 
 ous—in their narratives, exhortations, threatenings, pro- 
 mises, and even in their very controversies. It would be 
 acting very foolishly to cavil at the simple and unadorned 
 style of the sacred books, which contain many expres- 
 sions not so pure and elegant, and such as would be ac- 
 counted solecisms by the grammarians. For the Spirit 
 of God, as one elegantly observes, passes by, as beneath 
 him, the petty laws of grammarians, and will not allow 
 himself to be tied down to the rules of art. Thirdly, from 
 the number of martyrs who have sealed the truth with 
 their blood, whose patience cannot be ascribed toa 
 gloomy resolution, or to any barbarous custom, like that 
 of those who throw themselves headlong down at the 
 sound of instruments, or to the desire of glory, but to 
 the divine help; and therefore their constancy was united 
 with the greatest piety, meekness, humility, and other 
 virtues. Lastly, the truth of the Scripture is confirmed 
 from the extraordinary propagation of the Christian 
 faith through the world, by the instrumentality of mean 
 and ignorant men, free from all suspicion of falsehood, 
 unfurnished with any powers of Greek or Roman elo- 
 quence, using persuasion only, without any advantages 
 of power, or assistance from arms, in the midst of danger 
 and death, and in opposition to the very gates of hell. 
 To all this we must add, that the above marks or cha- 
 racters are never found united in any other books than 
 the Scriptures, and therefore are sufficient to convince the 
 gainsayers. In this view of the divinity of the Scripture 
 we are confirmed by the testimony of the Scripture itself, 
 which declares that it is “ given by inspiration of God.” 
 (2 Tim iii. 16.) 
 
 Thus far we have proved the Scripture to be divine 
 from the various marks of divinity which it bears; yet 
 we must not imagine that even these marks can be 
 clearly understood, without the aid of Him who im- 
 
40 OF THE DIVINITY OF THE SCRIPTURE BOOKS. 
 
 pressed them on the Scripture, and who is the author of 
 the Scripture, viz. the Holy Spirit, of whose nature and 
 operations we shall treat hereafter. If indeed the un- 
 derstanding of man were clear as when he was first 
 created by God, or if he were as sharp-sighted in divine, 
 as he is in human things, the simple examination of 
 those marks, and the simple reading of the Scripture, 
 would be sufficient to convince him that itis divine: but 
 man is so blind in spiritual matters, and labours under 
 so many preconceived notions, that, as Augustine ob- 
 serves, it is necessary for his eyesight to be cured, before 
 he can behold the Sun of righteousness ; as it is not enough 
 for a blind man, that the sun darts his beams over the 
 world, if his organ of sight be not restored. Hence it 
 is, that there are so many who have not been persuaded 
 of the divinity of the Scriptures by these marks, though 
 so often placed before their eyes. Now in what manner 
 the Spirit persuades us of the divinity of the Scripture, 
 will be shown, after we have treated of the nature and 
 operations of the Spirit. Thus much we may observe 
 for the present, that the Spirit does not effect this through 
 any voice of which we can hear the sound, as if he 
 should say, This book is divine. For there is no Chris- 
 tian who can boast of having heard any such voice; 
 and if such a thing should happen, it might be doubted, 
 whether it proceeded from God, or from an angel of 
 darkness transforming himself into an angel of light, or 
 from some other cause. Nor does the Spirit persuade 
 us by proposing any new reasons, for this idea savours 
 of enthusiasm: but by rendering us attentive, and divert- 
 ing from us all other objects which distract the mind ; so 
 that attentively contemplating these marks of divinity, 
 we are persuaded from them that the Scripture is divine. 
 The Spirit also performs this work by allaying the pas- 
 sions, and subjugating the motions of the flesh, by filling 
 our souls with the greatest delight, while engaged in 
 reading the word, and by doing other things, the secret 
 of which it is not strange that we should be ignorant of, 
 since the dealings of God with us are inscrutable. In 
 this manner we believe that the Spirit enlightens, con- 
 vinces, and converts; thus we may conceive how so 
 many thousands of men were converted to Christ in the 
 first ages of the gospel. 
 
 This Spirit is not given to all, as we well know; nor 
 have all those to whom it is given, an equal measure of 
 it granted to them. Hence it is, that not all the sacred 
 
OF THE INSPIRATION OF THE SCRIPTURES. 4l 
 
 books have at all times beer equally received by Chris- 
 tians as canonical, for certain books have been rejected 
 by some, which have been received by others. Still 
 there is no true believer who does not receive such a 
 measure of the Spirit as enables him to, understand what 
 is necessary to salvation. And here it is to be remarked, 
 that many persons, who, by the aid of the Spirit, per- 
 ceive the scriptures to be divine, yet cannot clearly ex- 
 press the marks of their divinity. Divine truth. with its 
 peculiar light and excellence, so powerfully affects the 
 spiritual senses of many, as not to suffer them to remain 
 in ignorance of it, and produces an assurance quite suf- 
 ficient to tranquillize the conscience. In other words, 
 when a man perceives that he finds in scripture every 
 thing, which can satisfy the lawful desires of his soul, 
 and contribute to his happiness, he immediately feels and 
 acknowledges the scripture to be divine, though he may 
 not be able to describe clearly the reasons for so doing. 
 'The case of such Christians is the same as that of a rus- 
 tic, who is forced into admiration at the sight of an ex- 
 quisitely beautiful picture, though he cannot tell the 
 cause of such admiration; or of a man, who, listening to 
 an harmonious concert of voices, feels the greatest plea- 
 sure, though he cannot clearly describe the cause of it. 
 We need only add one remark, viz. that the testimony 
 of the Holy Spirit tends to the confirmation of every in- 
 dividual believer, but cannot be made use of for the con- 
 viction and conversion of others; for it is experienced 
 only by the faithful, in whom the Spirit dwells; and 
 therefore he would be acting ridiculously, who should 
 think to persuade others that the scripture is divine, 
 because he himself has been taught this by the Holy 
 Spirit. 
 
 CHAPTER VII. 
 OF THE INSPIRATION OF THE SCRIPTURES. 
 
 From what has been said concerning the divinity of the 
 
 scriptures, it will abundantly appear, what we ought to 
 
 say of their inspiration. No one will deny this, who 
 
 attends to the following arguments. The sacred books 
 4* 
 
42 OF THE INSPIRATION 
 
 contain a great number of prophecies, which could not 
 nave proceeded from the prophets, or the apostles, had 
 they not been influenced by the Holy Spirit. In these 
 books many things are recorded, which, although they 
 were past at the time they were written, no one could 
 have known, had not the omniscient God condescended 
 to reveal them. These books also teach many things 
 too sublime, and too far exceeding human comprehen- 
 sions, to have been the fictions of the most subtle genius, 
 much less of unlettered apostles. These books also were 
 written for the purpose of being a perpetual rule of faith 
 and practice, which they could not be, if the apostles 
 had written any thing without the influence, or, at least, 
 without the direction, of the Holy Spirit, and if they had 
 committed any error in their writing. Moreover it is to 
 the last degree improbable, that Galilean fishermen, or 
 publicans, wrote so many excellent things without the 
 guidance of the Spirit. Christ also promised to the 
 apostles the Holy Spirit, to “ guide them into all truth,” 
 (John xvi. 13,) and it would be impious to say, that the 
 Saviour of men did not perform his promises. Once 
 more; the apostles themselves, whom no sane person 
 will call impostors, declared that they preached and 
 wrote under the influence of the Holy Ghost. * We 
 thank God without ceasing, because when ye received 
 the word, which ye heard of us, ye received it, not as 
 the word of men, but, as it is in truth, the word of God." 
 (1 Thess. ii. 13.) * Now we have received not the spirit 
 of the world, but the Spirit which is of God, that we 
 might know the things that are freely given to us of 
 God, which things also we speak, not in the words 
 which man's wisdom teacheth, but which the Holy 
 Ghost teacheth." (1 Cor. ii. 12,13.) “Who hath known 
 the mind of the Lord, that he may instruet him? But 
 we have the mind of Christ." (i Cor. ii. 16) “If any 
 man think himself to be a prophet, or spiritual, let him 
 acknowledge, that the things I write unto you are the 
 commandments of the Lord." (1 Cor. xiv. 37.) On this 
 last passage we must observe, that there were at that 
 time men, who had the gift of discerning spirits. Now 
 Paul subjects himself to their examination. Add (1 Cor. 
 vii. 40.) “I think, also, that I have the Spirit of God ;" 
 where we must take notice that this is said in the same 
 chapter, in which the apostle had said, that he had taught 
 something, not the Lord, (verse 12) meaning, that on 
 
OF THE SCRIPTURES. 43 
 
 this particular subject Christ had not expressly laid 
 down any thing before his ascension to heaven. 
 
 But that the whole subject may be properly under- 
 stood, several things are to be noticed. First, it is not 
 necessary to suppose, that the Holy Spirit always dic- 
 tated to the prophets and apostles every word which 
 they used. Nevertheless those holy men wrote very 
 many things under the immediate suggestion of the 
 Spirit, such ds prophecies. Hence Paul says, * Now the 
 Spirit speaketh expressly ;” (1 Tim. iv. 1,) and many 
 other things. Again: they wrote some things in which 
 there was no need of the Spirit’s suggestion; such as 
 those things with which they were already acquainted, 
 which they had seen and heard, or those which related 
 to their own private affairs. Yet they wrote nothing 
 without the Spirit either inspiring them, or influencing 
 them to write, or directing them, solas not to suffer 
 them, while writing, to commit even the least error or 
 mistake. Hence it ought not to appear strange to us, 
 if we hear the apostles drawing conclusions from what 
 they had either seen or heard by revelation; as when 
 Peter, after what he had heard from Cornelius, and 
 learned from the vision of the sheet, thus expressed him- 
 self, * Of a truth I perceive that God is no respecter of 
 persons ;" (Acts x. 34.) which conclusions, however, they 
 did not draw except under the guidance and direction 
 of the Holy Spirit, which prevented them from erring. 
 Neither is it strange, if we see in the sacred books forms 
 ofexpression merely human: for although we may say 
 that the Holy Spirit uses such forms from mere conde- 
 scension to us, yet perhaps he allowed the apostles to 
 adopt their customary style of speaking. 
 
 From what has been advanced, we cannot draw the 
 inferences which follow: first, that the apostles knew 
 all things as soon as they were baptized with the Holy 
 Ghost on the day of Pentecost; we do not imagine this; 
 hence it is not strange, if Peter, before Cornelius's bap- 
 tism, did not know of the calling of the Gentiles; for the 
 Spirit increased the knowledge of the apostles as the 
 circumstances of the times, and the improvement of the 
 church, required. Secondly, that the apostles were en- 
 tirely free from sin; for this was not needful, but it was 
 altogether needful that they should not fall into the least 
 error in that doctrine, which was to be the rule of faith 
 and practice. Therefore it is not strange that Peter 
 should do any thing deserving Paul's censure, as in the 
 
44 OF THE AUTHORITY 
 
 matter of his unseasonable compliance, out of regard to 
 the Jews. (Gal. ii.) Thirdly, that the Holy Spirit re- 
 vealed to the apostles whatever they might wish to 
 know, though it were not necessary to be known; hence 
 it is no wonder, that, in their relation of some historical 
 facts, they do not accurately show the time in which 
 they took place, but say that such an event occurred 
 about such a time; thus Luke (iii. 23) gbserves that 
 Jesus, when he was baptized, was “about thirty years 
 of age.” 
 
 CHAPTER VIII. 
 OF THE AUTHORITY OF THE SCRIPTURES. 
 
 Havine proved the divinity and inspiration of the scrip- 
 ture, we next consider its authority. Now this is no- 
 thing else but the dignity and right of the sacred books, 
 whereby they claim our faith in whatever they hold forth 
 as necessary to be believed, and our obedience in what- 
 ever they prescribe to be done, or to be left undone. 
 For having been proved to be of God, and not of men, 
 or of the devil, the necessary consequence is, that they 
 have supreme authority over us. For who would deny 
 that to be authoritative which is divine? Now the scrip- 
 ture derives its authority from God only, who is the 
 author of it. If then I am asked on what ground I be- 
 lieve the scripture to be divine, I can only reply, ** Be- 
 cause of the marks and characters which I behold in it, 
 and by which it proves itself to be of God, and not be- 
 cause of any other testimony." As if any one should 
 ask me why I believe the sun to be bright, or sugar 
 sweet, or the rose fragrant, I should reply, Because I 
 see the sun's rays, I taste the sweetness of sugar, and I 
 smell the fragrance of the rose. We must reason con- 
 cerning the scripture, which is the first principle of faith, 
 in the same way as concerning the principles of other 
 sciences, which do not derive their authority from any 
 other source, but are known of themselves, and prove 
 their own truth. The same may be said of God's word, 
 which is the law and edict of our heavenly Sovereign, 
 
OF THE SCRIPTURES. 45 
 
 as is said of human laws, which do not derive their au- 
 thority from the subjects on whom they are imposed, or 
 from those who have the charge of announcing them to 
 the people, but only from the sovereign, who enacted 
 them. But, lest any one should say that the scripture 
 does indeed possess authority in itself, as proceeding 
 from God, but does not obtain that authority in relation 
 to us, except through the testimony of the church, we 
 shall prove that the scripture does not derive its author- 
 ity from the church,* by the following arguments: first, 
 if this be the case, divine authority will be subject to 
 human, and we shall believe God merely on the testi- 
 mony of man; but this would be absurd; therefore it is - 
 absurd to say that the testimony of the church gives au- 
 thority to the scripture. Now we know that the testi- 
 mony of the church is but the testimony of man, for it 
 consists of mere men, who are not divinely inspired. 
 Secondly, if the authority of scripture be suspended on 
 the testimony of the church, then it will be only a human 
 faith, by which we believe the divinity of the scripture; 
 the latter idea is absurd, therefore the former is absurd 
 also. Now the testimony of the church can produce 
 only a human faith, because that only is divine faith 
 which rests on divine authority, whereas the authority 
 of the church is merely human, unless it can be proved 
 to be under the infallible guidance of the Holy Spirit, 
 which cannot be proved of any church since the times 
 of the apostles, who alone, together with the prophets, 
 were exempt from error. And to believe only with a 
 human faith that the scripture is divine is absurd, be- 
 cause then there would be nothing certain in religion, 
 and nothing on which the mind could securely depend 
 without any doubt. Thirdly, if the judgment of the 
 church does already suppose the divine authority of 
 scripture, then the authority of the latter will not depend 
 on the former. Now the church is persuaded of the di- 
 vinity of scripture, either with or without grounds. The 
 latter idea is absurd even to think of; if then the former 
 is correct, there could be no other grounds than the 
 marks of divinity which appear in the scriptures, and 
 which thereby gain them authority with the church; 
 thus the authority of scripture is at once recognized to 
 
 * The writer here attacks the opinion of the Papists, who mamtain 
 that the authority of the scripture over us depends on the testimony of 
 the church. : 
 
46 OF THE AUTHORITY 
 
 be prior and superior to the judgment of the church. 
 Fourthly, if the authority of the church depends on the 
 scripture itself, then it is absurd to make the authority 
 of the latter depend upon the former. Now it is clear 
 that no other church can be acknowledged as the true 
 church, but that which is “ built upon the foundation of 
 the prophets and apostles,” (Eph. ii. 20,) i. e. upon the 
 scripture. Nor can it be ascertained that any church is 
 a true church, except first of al] it be proved, that that is 
 divine and true which the church holds to be such, since 
 it is the belief of the truth to which the church owes its 
 existence as a church. Now, we cannot know whether 
 that be true which the church receives as true, except 
 by weighing it in the balances of the scripture. More- 
 over it will be evident, that the authority of the church 
 is subject to the authority of scripture, if we consider 
 that the authority of the apostles themselves was by them 
 subjected to that of the scripture, and surely the author- 
 ity of the church in any age cannot be greater than that 
 of the apostles. But that these holy men did subject 
 their authority to that of God’s word, is clear from the 
 words of Peter, declaring that the “ word of prophecy” 
 (that is the scriptures of the Old Testament) is * surer" 
 than the testimony of the apostles, who were “eye wit- 
 nesses of Christ’s majesty,” and heard the voice from 
 heaven. (2 Pet. i. 16—20.) And also from the words of 
 Paul, “though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any 
 other gospel unto you than that which we have preached 
 unto you, let him be accursed.” (Gal. i. 8.) 
 
 To all this we may add, that there is no church which 
 has such clear evidences of its own authority, as the 
 scripture has of its own divinity, and common sense 
 teaches us that no authority of any councils, or of any 
 men, can be equal to that of God speaking in his word, 
 or be put in competition with the writings of Moses, of 
 the prophets, and the apostles. From all these argu- 
 ments it is plain, that the authority of the sacred books 
 is not to be suspended on the testimony of the church. 
 
 We must not, however, imagine that this testimony 
 is of no use at all; on the contrary, we believe it has no 
 small weight in influencing the minds of men. The 
 office of the church in respect to the scripture includes 
 many duties. We maintain that it is the business of the 
 church to preserve this divine Testament with the strict- 
 est fidelity, like a notary, with whom are deposited the 
 writings of any contract or agreement; to point out the 
 
OF THE SCRIPTURES. 47 
 
 sacred books, and to lead men, as it were, to them, as 
 John the Baptist pointed out Christ to the Jews; to open 
 the true and genuine sense of scripture, and to interpret 
 it; to distinguish fictitious and spurious from the sacred 
 and genuine writings, the canonical from the apocryphal 
 books; to vindicate the word from the cavils and cor- 
 Tuptions of its adversaries; to proclaim, like a herald, 
 the doctrine contained in it. For these reasons the 
 church is called * the pillar and the ground of the truth,” 
 (1 Tim. iii. 15;) not indeed because the truth derives its 
 authority from the church, but because the church pro- 
 claims the truth, exhibits it to the world, preserves it 
 pure and uncorrupt, and defends it against the accusa- 
 tions of Satan and the world. For if there were no 
 church, and no godly pastors who by their preaching 
 rescued the truth from obscurity and oblivion, errors, 
 impostures, superstitions, and corruptions, of every kind, 
 would immediately prevail. Now in the above passage 
 there may be an allusion to the pillars or “scaffolds” (2 
 Chron. vi. 13) on which kings were accustomed to sit, 
 when they performed any act of solemnity ; which pillars 
 supported the kings, and shewed them forth to the peo- 
 ple, but did not give any additional authority to them. 
 According to this allusion, Paul may represent the truth 
 as a queen, sitting on the church as upon a throne or 
 pillar, so that she may be seen by all. Or there is an 
 allusion to those pillars before the halls or courts of jus- 
 tice, on which the laws and decrees of magistrates were 
 hung up, and to which programmes or edicts were affix- 
 ed, so that they might become known to all men. Thus 
 Demosthenes relates, that in a very ancient temple of 
 Bacchus. near a stone altar, there was a pillar, on which 
 was written out a certain law concerning the king's 
 marriage; and, according to Athenceus, upon a pillar in 
 the temple of Hercules was suspended a certain decree 
 of Alcibiades. Thus Paul terms the church the pillar of 
 the truth, because the truth being as it were hung upon 
 it, is made known to all. Lastly, the allusion may be to 
 those pillars among the heathen, in which the images of 
 their deities were seen, their oracles inscribed, and near 
 which their statues were placed. Thus the apostle 
 might intend to oppose to these pillars of falsehood, error, 
 and fable, the true church, which exhibits not the images 
 of false gods, but the true and most lively image of the 
 true “God manifest in the flesh ;" in which are set forth 
 no fables, but the ** great mystery of godliness,” and on 
 
48 OF THE AUTHORITY OF THE SCRIPTURES. 
 
 which are read no ambiguous oracles of Apollo, but the 
 most certain oracles of the living God. And here we 
 may remark, that those who excelled others in sanctity 
 of life, and clearness of doctrine, were called by the an- 
 cient fathers, pillars, and foundations of the truth ; thus 
 Chrysostom calls the apostles, towers and pillars, and 
 Ignatius, the pillars of the world. - 
 
 From what has been said therefore, it is plain that the 
 church has indeed various duties to perform in regard to 
 the scripture, but that the authority of the latter does 
 not at all depend upon the former; for whatever the 
 church does in relation to the word, goes no farther, than 
 that we may be said to believe by means of, but not be- 
 cause of the church, as it was by means of the Samari- 
 tan woman, that her fellow-citizens believed Christ. 
 For the church performs for us the same service, as that 
 woman performed to her countrymen; for as she con- 
 ducted the Samaritans to Jesus, and they, having be- 
 come acquainted with him, received him on account of 
 himself, not on account of the Samaritan woman, as they 
 themselves declare, (John iv. 42,) so the church conducts 
 us to the scripture, and puts it into our hands, but as 
 long as we stop here, our faith is merely human, or 
 rather a step towards faith, than faith itself, until we ex- 
 amine into the scripture, and embrace it for its own sake. 
 Let us follow those, says Augustine, who first invite ue 
 to believe what we are not yet able to understand, in order 
 that, having been enabled by faith itself, we may come to 
 understand what we believe, when it is no longer men, but 
 God himself who inwardly illuminates and strengthens 
 our minds. If indeed the church should add to, or take 
 away from, or make any change whatever in, the com- 
 mandments which she hath received from the Lord, her 
 sin would be as great, as that of a notary who should 
 fraudulently alter a will, or of a herald who should pro 
 claim a fictitious edict, or of a governor who should 
 forge a royal sign-manual. Several other observations 
 we must defer till we come to treat of the church. I 
 will only add a saying of Innocent III. the Roman pontiff, 
 The judgment of God is always founded upon the truth, 
 which neither deceives, nor is deceived ; but the judgment 
 of the church sometimes follows opinion, which is often 
 found to deceive and to be deceived. 
 
OF THE PERFECTION OF THE SCRIPTURES. 49 
 
 CHAPTER IX. 
 
 OF THE PERFECTION OF THE SCRIPTURES. 
 
 We must now proceed to show that the scripture con- 
 tains all things necessary to salvation, consequently, 
 that it must be perfect. Now this is proved by the fol- 
 lowing arguments. First, that must be perfect which 
 reveals every thing that can make us wise unto salva- 
 tion, and furnish the pastors of the church completely 
 for their office; now this the scripture does, as Paul 
 testifies, (2 Tim. iii. 15, 16,) who, addressing Timothy, 
 who had known the holy scriptures from a child, de- 
 clares: that they “are able to make us wise unto salva- 
 tion,” and then adds, “all scripture is given by inspira- 
 tion of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, 
 for correction, for instruction in righteousness; that the 
 man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto 
 all good works.” Here the scripture is declared to be 
 profitabie not only for some things, but for all things, for 
 instruction in the truth, conviction of error, correction 
 of evil, and direction in what is good; it is pronounced 
 able to make the man or minister of God perfect, and 
 completely furnished for every part of his office, and 
 every man wise unto salvation. Secondly, that must be 
 perfect, to which nothing must be added, and from which 
 nothing must be taken away: now God declares con- 
 eerning his word, “Ye shall not add unto the word 
 which I command you, neither shall ye diminish aught 
 from it.” (Deut. iv. 2, and xii. 32.) From this passage 
 the argument is still more powerful, because the ques- 
 tion is only concerning the law, and the books of Moses; 
 and therefore, if God at that time desired the people to 
 be content with the rule which he had given them, as 
 being a sufficiently plain revelation according to that 
 age of the church, must we not believe the present 
 scripture to be perfect, since it hath pleased God to re- 
 veal his will more fully and clearly by the prophets and 
 the apostles? And is it not the height of presumption 
 to add to or diminish from it? They who do so may 
 justly be afraid of the curse denounced by John 
 upon him, who “adds m or *takes away from, the 
 
50 OF THE PERFECTION 
 
 words of the book," (Rev. xxii. 18, 19,) at least they can 
 
 not escape the divine reproof, * Add thou not unto his 
 words, lest he reprove thee, and thou be found a liar," 
 (Prov. xxx. 6.) The apostle Paul also confirms this 
 argument, by pronouncing a curse upon those, even if 
 they were angels, who should * preach any other gospel 
 than that which he had preached.” (Gal. i. 8.) But the 
 force of the whole argument will be better understood 
 by observing, that the prophets and apostles taught 
 every thing necessary to salvation, and declared “all- 
 the counsel of God,” (Acts xx. 20, 27,) and that they 
 committed to writing all those things necessary to sal- 
 vation, which they preached, as is proved from the cir- 
 cumstance of their pronouncing accursed those who 
 should dare to preach any other thing than what they 
 themselves were preaching, which they would not have 
 ventured to do, if they had not committed their preach- 
 ing to writing; since otherwise it could not be clearly 
 ascertained, whether that which others preached were 
 really contrary to the apostolic preaching. The apostles 
 moreover declare that they write for this end, that men 
 might believe, and by faith obtain eternal life, (John xx. 
 3l. 1John v. 13.) Now if they had not written all things 
 that were necessary for salvation, they could not have 
 brought men thereby to eternal life. Nor is it likely 
 that the apostles omitted necessary things, since they 
 committed to writing so many things which were not 
 necessary, and that for the purpose of more fully in- 
 structing us. The third argument for the perfection of 
 the scripture is this: if it were imperfect, it would be 
 so, either because God was unwilling that all things 
 necessary to salvation should be written, or because the 
 apostles were unwilling to write them, although God 
 had commanded them. The latter idea no one will as- 
 sert; the former cannot be maintained; for no reason 
 can be adduced, why God should have wished only a 
 part of the things needful] to salvation to be written, and 
 the other part to be left to the uncertain tradition of 
 men. 
 
 Let these arguments be sufficient, and every one who 
 attentively reads the scripture will be abundantly con- 
 vinced, that it contains all those things which can pro- 
 duce faith, hope, and obedience, and consequently, which 
 are necessary to salvation. But here we must attend to 
 the following considerations. There are some things 
 necessarv fo salvation which are naturally known to 
 
OF THE SCRIPTURES. 5l 
 
 all, as the existence of God, the immortality of the soul, 
 &c., it is not necessary that these truths should be pro- 
 fessedly taught in the scriptures. They must be taken 
 for granted, and not proved, although they are found 
 and confirmed in scripture; because, though they ought 
 to be known to us by nature, yet we must confess that 
 some of them are obscure, and appear doubtful to some 
 persons. Again, all things necessary to salvation are 
 not taught in scripture in express words, nor was it 
 needful; but some are expressly laid down, others are 
 deduced by fair and legitimate inferences. Neither is it 
 necessary, that scripture should contain expressly the 
 refutation of all heresies; for as right is an index both 
 of itself, and of wrong, errors are easily refuted from the 
 establishment of the truth. Further, the perfection of 
 Scripture has not been always the same with respect to its 
 degree, for revelation increased according to the different 
 ages of the church, not in regard to the substance of the 
 truth, but in regard tothe clearer manifestation of them. 
 Moreover, the perfection of Scripture by no means ex- 
 cludes the ministry of the church, or the work of the Holy 
 Spirit in conversion ; for whatever pastors teach by word 
 of mouth, is substantially drawn from scripture, and the 
 work of the Spirit is nothing but the impression on our 
 hearts of the doctrine delivered in the scripture. A rule 
 is not the less perfect, because the hand is required to 
 apply it. This perfection also is confined to those things 
 which are necessary to salvation, for it was not God’s 
 design, in giving us the scriptures, to make us philoso- 
 phers, or mathematicians, or physicians, &c. Lastly, 
 among the things necessary to salvation, we are not to 
 reckon every single thing which may, in some way or 
 other, be connected with religion, and every thing which 
 has been said or done by Christ and the inspired writers. 
 For it cannot be denied, that many things were done 
 and said by the Lord Jesus while on earth, which are 
 not recorded in scripture or in any other book, and that 
 there are many means or helps to religion, which relate 
 to ecclesiastical ceremonies, and which are left to the 
 prudence of ecclesiastical rulers. 
 
 This perfection of the scripture is clearly recognized 
 by the fathers. The words of Tertullian are very plain, 
 Since Christ, he says, we have no need of curiosity, nor 
 since the gospel, of inquiry: when we believe, we want 
 nothing more to believe; for we believe this first, viz. that 
 there is nothing more which we ought to believe. He 
 
52 OF THE PERFECTION 
 
 says, in another place, against Hermogenes, Let Hermo- 
 genes and his school show us that “rr 1s WRITTEN ;” if it 
 is not written, let him fear that wo denounced on those 
 who add to, or take from the book. To the same effect 
 speak Cyprian, Basil, Chrysostom, Jerome, Augustine, 
 and others. I will only subjoin a remark of Thomas 
 Aquinas, We must not believe the successors of the apos- 
 tles, except as far as they declare to us those things 
 which the latter have left behind themin their writings. 
 
 It may now be inquired, whether no place be left for 
 tradition, since the scripture is perfect? To understand 
 this question rightly, the meaning of the word must be 
 explained. Now it is sometimes taken for any doctrine 
 which is communicated, either by word, or by writing, 
 as when Paul says to the Thessalonians, * Hold the tra- 
 ditions which ye have been taught, whether by word, or 
 our epistle,” (2 Thess. ii. 15.) Sometimes it means that 
 doetrine which is taught by word of mouth, though it 
 is afterwards committed to writing, as Paul says to 
 the Corinthians, “I have received of the Lord that which 
 also I delivered unto you.” (1 Cor. xi. 23.) For the 
 doctrine of the Lord’s Supper, of which it is here treat- 
 ed, which Paul had taught by word of mouth, was af- 
 terwards committed by him to writing. The word is 
 also taken for any doctrine not written; thus Christ 
 (Matt. xv. 3,) asks the Jews, * Why do ye transgress the 
 commandment of God through your tradition ?” 
 
 And here it will not be amiss to observe, that the Jews 
 boasted much of their traditions, and placed the oral on 
 an equal footing with the written law, maintaining that 
 both were given to God by Moses. Moreover some of 
 them carry their regard for traditions to such a length, 
 that they not only brand those who adhere to the scrip- 
 tures only, with the name of Karaite heretics, but even 
 are not ashamed to assert, that to study the sacred books 
 is to lose time. Let it be further observed, that some 
 traditions are doctrinal, that is, relating to faith or to 
 manners; others are historical and ritual, i. e. relating 
 to rites and ceremonies. 
 
 Having thus far premised, we must observe that we 
 are not to reject every thing which goes by the name 
 of tradition ; otherwise the scriptures must be rejected, 
 which are sometimes called traditions. Weare not to 
 condemn every thing which is taught by word of mouth, 
 for the very contents of the scriptures were first pro- 
 claimed, and are to this day proclaimed, by word of 
 
OF THE SCRIPTURES. 53 
 
 mouth. Nor are we to reject all ritual and historical 
 _traditions concerning facts, or concerning ceremonies, 
 which may or may not be observed. Traditions may 
 be of some use, both for the illustration of scriptural 
 passages, and for the defence of the truth, provided they 
 be subjected to the authority of scripture, and be reck- 
 oned amongst things merely human. Finally, there is 
 no need to have recourse to doctrinal traditions, and to 
 draw from them the truths which are necessary to sal- 
 vation, as if the latter were not contained in scripture ; 
 much less to imagine that traditions are to be received 
 with the same regard and reverence as the scriptures. 
 The truth of the last assertion (for the rest need not 
 either proof or explanation) depends on several argu- 
 ments. First, if every thing necessary and essential to 
 religious faith and practice is contained in scripture, 
 then there is no need to have recourse to traditions: but 
 the former is true, as proved in the preceding chapter, 
 therefore also the latter. Clement of Alexandria as- 
 cribes to Peter this saying, Nothing without the scrip- 
 ture. Who speaks, says Ambrose, when £he scriptures 
 are silent? Again, God himself condemns all doctrinal 
 traditions which are independent of the scripture (Isa. 
 xxix. 13; Matt. xv. 3, 9); not those only which are con- 
 trary to the faith, but all those which are burdensome to 
 the conscience, such as the washing of hands before 
 meat, practised by the Pharisees. Further, the Christian 
 faith ought to depend on an authority not liable to error, 
 otherwise our faith would not be divine. But if it rest- 
 ed on traditions, it would not rest on an authority free 
 from error; for no one can be sure whether the tradi- 
 tion which is set forth, and which is not read in scrip- 
 ture, derives its origin from Christ or his apostles, espe- 
 cially as many things are set forth under the name of 
 traditions, which contradict each other. Thus the 
 churches of Asia boasted of their tradition concerning 
 the celebration of Easter on the fourteenth day of the 
 moon; and Polycrates and Polycarp declared they had 
 this tradition from John; but the other churches were 
 of a contrary opinion, and affirmed that they had this 
 tradition from other apostles. Which side is to be be- 
 lieved? Oral tradition is indeed uncertain, and by no 
 means a safe guardian of truth; and the same may be 
 said of it as of Fame— 
 
 5h 
 
54 OF THE PERSPICUITY 
 "Tam ficti pravique tenax, quam nuntia veri.* 
 
 For this reason, some have not inaptly compared the - 
 scripture to a sun-dial ; for as this, being itself fixed and 
 immovable, points out the hour by its shadow, so the 
 Scripture is an unchangeable rule: whereas they have 
 compared tradition to the hand of a watch, which being 
 always moving and turning round, points out the hour 
 only by the motion and turning of its point. 
 
 v 
 CHAPTER X. 
 OF THE PERSPICUITY OF THE SCRIPTURES. 
 
 Tue scripture not only contains all things necessary to 
 salvation, but also contains them in so clear and perspi- 
 cuous a form, that they may be discovered and known 
 by any man, whose eyes have not been blinded by * the 
 god of this world." The plainness of the scriptures is 
 proved by various arguments. First, the scripture it- 
 self, in many passages, bears testimony to its own plain- 
 ness, both in regard to the law and to the gospel. 
 “This commandment which I command thee this day, 
 it is not hidden from thee, neither is it far off. It is not 
 in heaven, that thou shouldest say, Who shall go up for 
 us to heaven? &c.; but the word is very nigh unto thee, 
 in thy mouth and in thine heart." (Deut. xxx. 11—15.) 
 “Thy word is a lamp unto my feet, and a light unto my 
 path." (Psalm cxix. 105) “We have a more sure 
 word of prophecy, whereunto ye do well that ye take 
 heed, as unto a light that shineth in a dark place." (2 
 Peteri. 19.) Again, the scripture would have been giv- 
 en in vain, if it were obscure; for it was given for our 
 instruction, and as a rule of faith, as Paul observes, 
 (Rom. xv. 4.) *Whatsoever things were written afore- 
 time were written for our learning." But how could 
 the word teach us, if it either surpassed or equalled the 
 oracles of Apollo in obscurity? And how could its de- 
 cisions, if obscure, be the rule of faith and manners? 
 Once more; either God could not reveal himself more 
 
 * «Things done relates, not done she feigns, and mingles truth with 
 lies. — Dryden. 
 
OF THE SCRIPTURES. 55 
 
 pue to men, or he would not. No one will assert the 
 
 - former, and the latter is most absurd; for who could be- 
 
 lieve that God our heavenly Father has been unwilling 
 to reveal his will to his children, when it was necessary 
 to do so, in order that men might more easily obey it? 
 Although another argument is derived from examining 
 the contents of scripture, and seeing how clearly they 
 lay down what is necessary to salvation. For what can 
 be clearer than those things which are contained in the 
 decalogue, and which Christ reduces to two heads? 
 (Matt. xxii.) And who will deny that the doctrines in 
 the Apostles’ Creed are clearly inculcated, taught, and 
 explained, through the whole scripture 
 
 But here we must make several observations. 1. We 
 allow that some things are obscure, and “ hard to be un- 
 derstood," not only in Paul's Epistles, as Peter declares, 
 but also in other books. It has pleased God that such 
 should be the case, to stir up and increase the diligence 
 of the faithful, to check the pride of others, and to re- 
 move any disdain which might arise from too great a 
 facility of understanding the word (since the human 
 mind is in the habit of despising and slighting what is 
 common and attainable by all); but we deny that such 
 things are among those that are necessary to salvation. 
 And even if some of them are among these, we maintain 
 that they are explained in other parts of the word. 7'Àe 
 scripture, says Gregory, brings forward publicly what 
 may nourish the weak, and also lays up in private what 
 may charm the minds of the strong ; it is, as it were, a 
 river both shallow and deep, in which both a lamb may 
 wade, and an elephant may swim. In scripture, as in 
 nature, there are three sorts of things; some are plain 
 to all, some are known only to the learned, others not 
 even to the learned themselves. 2. We readily allow 
 that there are mysteries in scripture which surpass our 
 comprehension, and which we shall not perfectly under- 
 stand even in heaven. At the same time, we maintain, 
 that we have as much of these mysteries taught us, as 
 is useful and necessary to be known. For instance, we 
 do not comprehend the mysteries of the Incarnation 
 and the Trinity—that is, how it can be, that there 
 are three persons in one essence, and how God as- 
 sumed human nature: but though the manner is un- 
 known, the thing itself is plainly taught; which is all 
 that is necessary to salvation. 3. While we believe that 
 the scriptures are plain in things necessary, we confess 
 
56 OF THE PERSPICUITY 
 
 that these things are not clearly taught in every passage ; 
 but there is nothing in the darker passages which is 
 not found elsewhere very plainly laid down. 4. We 
 observe, that the scripture is plain, not to all persons 
 alike, and to those who read and hear it with any kind 
 of disposition whatever; but only to those who are 
 teachable (provided they are in possession of their rea- 
 son, and implore the light of divine grace), and who are 
 not negligent and slothful, and who are neither blinded 
 by preconceived opinions, nor carried away by their 
 passions, nor perverted by wilful sin; for all these dis- 
 positions are great hindrances to the understanding of 
 the scriptures. 5. We remark, that the writings of the 
 Old are less clear than those of the New Testament; for 
 the former was clouded with various types, figures, and 
 shadows, but yet was quite clear enough in whatever 
 was needful to be known by the ancient saints. 6. We 
 do not deny that we shall know divine things far more 
 clearly in heaven; for there we shall no longer “see 
 through a glass darkly, but face to face,” as the scrip- 
 ture teaches. Still we say, that those divine things are 
 abundantly unfolded to us on earth, and therefore, al- 
 though it is “through a glass,” yet “ with open face we 
 behold the glory of the Lord,” as Paul declares, (2 Cor. 
 iii. 18.) We plead for such a perspicuity of the scrip- 
 tures, as does not exclude either attention of mind, or 
 the necessary assistance of God (hence David prays for 
 his eyes to be opened to “see wondrous things out of 
 the law,”) or the teaching and ministry of the church, or 
 the reading of commentaries. The only obseurity which 
 we explode, is that which would drive mankind from the 
 pure fountains of scripture, and compel them to have re- 
 course to the impure streams of human tradition. 
 
 As to the manner of interpreting or finding the sense 
 of the scriptures, we may remark, that there is only one 
 meaning or sense of scripture; for truth has but one, 
 and does not admit several senses; otherwise it would 
 be ambiguous and uncertain. At the same time, we be- 
 lieve that the Holy Ghost has been pleased sometimes, 
 under one and the same expression, to signify several 
 things together, yet subordinate to each other, so that 
 one thing may be the sign and type of another, or may 
 at least have some connexion with it. Thus the pre- 
 cept concerning the “not breaking of the bones of the 
 lamb,” (Exod. xii,) had a reference first to the paschal 
 lamb, and afterwards to Christ, (John xix. 36.) So, the 
 
OF THE SCRIPTURES. 57 
 
 promise given to Abraham concerning “his seed," re- 
 garded Isaac in the type, and Christ in the antitype. 
 These do not constitute two senses, but two parts of one 
 and the same sense intended by the Holy Spirit. The 
 first is called, by some divines, the literal sense, as be- 
 ing that which the words primarily and immediately 
 convey; the second they call the mystical sense, or that 
 which has another besides the immediate signification. 
 But, according to other divines, the literal sense contains 
 all which is intended by the Holy Spirit. 
 
 To find out the true sense of the scriptures, and their 
 interpretation, the following things are necessary :—1. 
 Frequent prayer; for the word is to be understood 
 through the same Spirit who dictated it. 2. A mind free 
 from preconceived opinions, and attached to the truth, 
 and desirous of cultivating true piety. 3. The study of 
 the original tongues, which however is not absolutely 
 necessary to all, but to those only who have to instruct 
 others as well as themselves, and to refute opponents. 
 Just as in naval matters, greater skill is required in him 
 who sails over the ocean to distant countries, than in 
 the man who crosses a small river in a light boat. It is 
 necessary also to compare ancient versions, to distin- 
 guish between literal and figurative expressions, to con- 
 sider the general scope and design, to mark the prem- 
 ises and their conclusions, to compare the darker with 
 the plainer passages, and parallel and even dissimilar 
 passages with each other, to have a regard to the analo- 
 gy of faith, and also to possess some knowledge of the 
 customs of the Jews and other nations. We may ob- 
 serve also, that in the interpretation of scripture, we are 
 not every where to seek after allegorical meanings, and 
 that we must not hastily depart from the literal sense, 
 but only when it is contrary to the analogy of faith, and 
 makes a sense that is absurd. 
 
58 THE SCRIPTURES THE ONLY RULE 
 
 CHAPTER XI. 
 THE SCRIPTURES THE ONLY RULE OF FAITH AND PRACTICE. 
 
 Tuus far we have proved that the scriptures of the Old 
 and New Testament are divinely inspired, and that they 
 fully and clearly contain all things needful to salvation. 
 Hence we easily infer that they are the true and only 
 rule of faith and practice. Now a rule must be perfect 
 in all its parts; not admitting either of addition or dimi- 
 nution. Such we have already proved the scripture to 
 be. A rule also must be certain and unchangeable : but 
 such is the scripture, being the truth of the unchange- 
 able God, *that cannot lie.^ Human opinions are of 
 such a nature as to be continually subject to changes: 
 but it is not so with the doctrine of salvation, which has 
 always been the same. "The scripture, as a rule, directs 
 our faith and conduct in such a manner, that the very 
 least deviation from it renders us guilty of error. We 
 cannot doubt of the scripture being a rule, if we consider 
 that the prophets, our Saviour, and the apostles, always 
 appeal to it. “To the law and to the testimony,” says 
 Isaiah (viii. 20). “It is written," said Christ, when con- 
 tending with Satan, (Matt. iv. 4, 7, 10,) and when deal- 
 ing with the Sadducees, (Matt. xxii.) The apostles did 
 the same in their endeavours to convert the Jews: nay, 
 . so perfect a rule did they consider the scripture, that 
 they sometimes draw an argument from its silence. 
 “To which of the angels said he at any time, Thou art 
 my Son?” (Heb. i. 5,) and the Bereans are commended 
 for examining the doctrine of the apostles by this rule, 
 (Acts xvii. 11.) We may add that the scripture calls 
 itself a rule, (Gal. vi. 16.) ** As many as walk according 
 to this rule, peace be unto them," &c. 
 
 Not only the scripture of the New, but also of the Old 
 Testament, is the rule of our faith and practice, although 
 we are no longer under the old dispensation, which has 
 been evidently abolished. **For whatever things," says 
 Paul, (Rom. xv. 4.) * have been written aforetime, were 
 written for our learning, that we, through patience and 
 comfort of the scriptures, might have hope." Both tes- 
 taments contain substantially the same doctrine; they 
 
OF FAITH AND PRACTICE. 59 
 
 propose the same objects of faith, and enjoin the same 
 precepts: they are both the foundation of the church, 
 which is said to be “built upon the foundation of the 
 apostles and prophets,” (Eph. ii. 20.) and Peter shows 
 that they * do well" who ** take heed to the word of pro- 
 phecy.” (2 Peter i. 19.) The scripture then is the only 
 rule, nor can there be any other. Reason is no such rule, 
 for it is blind, and understandeth not the things of God; 
 (1 Cor. ii. 14, 15.) it is liable to error, and is often de- 
 ceived; the mysteries of faith are beyond its sphere; the 
 natural man cannot comprehend them. Reason is as it 
 were the eye of the mind, but scripture is the standard, 
 by which it measures the objects proposed. Reason is 
 the instrument which the believer uses in examining the 
 objects of faith by the scripture, as by the infallible rule 
 of truth, but it is not the rule itseif of these objects of 
 faith. Yet this does not prevent us from acknowledg- 
 ing that reason has many uses. 1t is of service in vin- 
 dicating the truth, against those who deny revelation 
 altogether, or against those who, admitting revelation, 
 endeavour to corrupt it with false interpretations; in 
 illustrating the mysteries of religion by collecting to- 
 gether all that can be gleaned from the book of nature, 
 from polite literature, from historical records, from phi- 
 losophical and philological science; in drawing conclu- 
 sions, and determining the truth of them; in comparing 
 the text with the context, versions with the originals, 
 the decisions of ecclesiastical teachers with the scrip- 
 ture, and in distinguishing falsehood from truth, and 
 what is legitimate from what is spurious. 
 
 In fact, reason and faith, though of a different nature, 
 are not opposed to each other. Hence we maintain that 
 we must not admit any thing, even in religious matters, 
 which is contrary to right reason. For although there 
 is much darkness in the human mind, yet no one can 
 deny that there remain some sparks of natural light, and 
 that the mind has in it those principles of undoubted 
 truth, which faith often makes use of for the confirma- 
 tion of its own doctrines; but what we maintain is, that 
 reason cannot and ought not to bring forth any myste- 
 ries, as it were, out of its own storehouse; for this is the 
 prerogative of scripture only. Also, that reason is not 
 to be heard when complaining of its incapacity to com- 
 prehend the mysteries of faith: for, being finite, it is no 
 wonder that reason should not comprehend many things 
 that relate to what is infinite; and to reject a mystery 
 
60 THE SCRIPTURES THE ONLY RULE 
 
 because it is incomprehensible to reason, is to offend 
 against reason itself. Neither is reason to be listened to 
 whenever, under cover of holding the mysteries of faith, 
 it aims at setting up its own errors. On the very same 
 grounds we cannot call philosophy any rule of faith, al- 
 though we again concede that it is of no little use, pro- 
 vided it assume not to itself the power of dictating in 
 articles of faith. True philosophy indeed serves very 
 much both to convince men and to prepare their.minds; 
 and there is a wonderful harmony between sound philo- 
 sophy and divinity; for truth is not contrary to truth, 
 nor light to light; only we must not imagine that the 
 former is the rule by which the sense of scripture must 
 be tried and examined. 
 
 The same observations may be applied to the testi- 
 mony of the church, to the fathers, and to the decrees of 
 councils; these form no rule of faith—1. Because these 
 testimonies, being merely human, are liable to error. 
 Augustine, writing to Jerome, makes these just remarks; 
 The books of the scriptures, which are now called canon- 
 ical, are the only books to which I have learned to pay 
 such respect and reverence, as most firmly to believe lhat 
 no one of their authors committed any error in writing ; 
 whereas other books I peruse in such a manner, thgt, 
 however they may be distinguished for holy instructions, 
 I do not think any thing to be true, merely because they 
 have so considered it, but only as far as they have been 
 able to convince me of the truth, either by reasonable ar- 
 gument, or by an appeal to the canonical writers. Nor 
 do I think, my brother, that your opinion on this subject, 
 is different ; indeed I am persuaded that you would not 
 have your own books read in the same way as those of 
 the prophets and apostles, whose writings, because they 
 are free from all error, it were impious to call in ques- 
 tion.—2. Because these testimonies are not only liable to 
 error, but have erred in many things; nay, often contra- 
 dict themselves and each other.—3. Because the writ- 
 ings of the fathers have been in many ways corrupted, 
 and it is very difficult to know what were their opinions 
 on various subjects. It is therefore indisputable, that 
 the holy scriptures are the only rule of faith and practice. 
 
 From what has been said, we may easily ascertain 
 who is the true and supreme Judge of controversies, 
 viz. God who speaks in the scripture. For he only can 
 be a supreme judge in religious matters, who never errs, 
 nor can err, in his decisions, who is influenced neither 
 
OF FAITH AND PRACTICE. 61 
 
 by partiality, nor by passion, and from whom there is no 
 appeal. But all these qualifications belong not to man; 
 God alone can claim them, for he is truth itself, is no re- 
 specter of persons, and acknowledges no superior. To 
 this judge the prophets and the apostles always appeal, 
 as we have shown already ; and if there had been any 
 other, the scripture would have mentioned him some- 
 where, since there was nothing of which the faithful had 
 greater need to be reminded; whereas the scripture is 
 perfectly silent about it, as every reader may observe. 
 But here we may remark that God, speaking in the 
 Scriptures, is called a Judge, because he hath taught in 
 his Word such things, as, being properly understood 
 and applied, will finally settle all controversies of faith. 
 The scripture, therefore, is the fountain and rule of di- 
 vine law, by which all controversies of faith both can 
 and ought to be clearly determined, as in the common- 
 wealth all decisions and judgments are founded on the 
 law; and even the Turks, in all controversies make a 
 final appeal to the Koran; and this was clearly perceived 
 by the fathers of the church. "Thus Optatus speaks: Ye 
 say, It is lawful ; we say, It is not lawful; between your 
 lawful and our unlawful, the minds of the people are di- 
 vided and perplexed. Let no one believe you, let no one 
 believe us ; the arbiter must be sought from heaven; no 
 decision on this matter can be found on earth: but why 
 do we knock at the door of heaven, since even here below 
 we have the gospel testament ? And Augustine says: We 
 are brethren ; why do we strive? Our Father did not die 
 without a, will ; he made a will, then died, and rose again. 
 So long shall we strive about the inheritance, until the 
 will be brought forward. And when the will is brought 
 forth, all are silent, that it may be opened. The Judge 
 listens attentively, the advocates are silent; silence is 
 proclaimed in the court, all the people are attentive, that 
 the words of the deceased testator may be read. He lies 
 unconscious in the tomb ; but his words have power ; so 
 Christ sits in heaven, and his testament is called in ques- 
 tion. Open it then, let us read; we are brethren, why do 
 we strive? 
 
 Yet, though the scripture is our only rule of faith and 
 practice, and God alone who speaks in it, is the supreme 
 Judge in the church, we willingly allow another subor- 
 dinate judge, viz. the testimony of the teachers and pas- 
 tors of the church, who settle controversies by God's 
 word, and by the same Mr confute the adversaries; 
 
62 THE SCRIPTURES THE ONLY RULE 
 
 who explain the precepts of the divine law, and faithfully 
 apply them to all cases which may arise. Such subor- 
 dinate judges were Moses and Aaron, under the Old 
 Testament, who were a sort of ministerial judges, not 
 settling any controversies by their own authority, but 
 from the law and commandments of God: Moses, as 
 mediator, “ bringing the causes unto God,” (Exod. xviii. 
 19.) and Aaron, giving answers from the law, and in ac- 
 cordance with it. (Deut. xvii. 11.) Neither of them were 
 free from the risk of error, for (Lev. iv. 2, 3, &c.) there is 
 prescribed a sacrifice for any sin of the priest committed 
 through ignorance. Such judges also were the bigh- 
 priests who succeeded Aaron, who yet very often erred ; 
 hence they are reproved, (Mal. ii. 8,) because * they were 
 departed out of the way." Such, too, are all pastors 
 under the New Testament, both individually, each over 
 his own flock, and collectively, when assembled in a 
 synod or council. 
 
 But no subordinate judge can bind the conscience, 
 unless he be found fully to agree with the scripture; and 
 we may depart from his decision if he “preach any 
 thing than that which has been preached.” There is but 
 “one lawgiver," (James iv. 12,) namely, God, and the 
 church is only in the situation of an ordinary judge, who 
 is bound by the laws, and whose decision, if contrary to 
 the laws, is null and void, and capable of appeal. And 
 in this case the apostolical axiom is in force, “ We ought 
 to obey God rather than men.” Seeing then that the 
 subordinate judge is liable to error, and does err in many 
 things, we maintain that the right of private judgment 
 belongs to every man, which is evident from those pas- 
 sages in which the faithful are commanded to try or 
 prove all things—* Prove all things, hold fast that which 
 is good,” (1 Thess. v. 21;) “I speak as to wise men; 
 judge ye what I say,” (1 Cor. x. 15;) “ Beloved, believe 
 not every spirit; but try the spirits whether they are of 
 God; because many false prophets are gone out into the 
 world.” (1 John iv. 1.) The same truth is also evident 
 from Gal. i. 8, “ Though we, or an angel from heaven, 
 preach any other gospel unto you than that which we 
 have preached unto you, let him be accursed.” For if 
 private Christians were not allowed to judge of the deci- 
 sions of the church, it would be impious, besides useless, 
 to hold accursed not only the church, but Paul himself, 
 and even the angels, should they preach another gospel. 
 And this opinion does not in the least contradict the 
 
OF FAITH AND PRACTICE. 63 
 
 saying of Peter, (2 Pet. i. 20.) that “no prophecy is of 
 any private interpretàtion;" for his meaning is plain, 
 namely, that no prophecy derives its origin from any 
 private impulse, that is, the suggestion of any man's own 
 mind, but only from the suggestion of the Holy Spirit. 
 But even if we translate the phrase by the words pri- 
 vate interpretation, the sense will be, that the prophecies 
 are not to be explained according to our own pleasure 
 and imagination, by having a meaning affixed to them, 
 clearly contrary to the mind of God, but according to 
 the revelation of the Holy Spirit, who inspired them, and 
 revealed the true meaning of them to the apostles. 
 
 From all that has been said, we may abundantly infer 
 the duty of reading the Scriptures. This obligation 
 arises from the positive command of God, directed to all 
 and each of mankind—* These words, which I command 
 thee this day, shall be in thy heart; and thou shalt teach 
 them diligently unto’thy children, and shalt talk of them 
 when thou sittest in thine house, and when thou walkest 
 by the way, and when thou liest down, and when thou 
 risest up," &c. (Deut. vi. 7—9; xxxi. 11—13;) “ Blessed 
 is the man whose delight is in the law of the Lord, and 
 in his law doth he meditate day and night," (Psalm i. |, 
 2;) “Let the word of Christ dwell in you richly in all 
 wisdom," “ whereunto ye do well that ye take heed,” (Col. 
 iii. 16; 2 Peter i. 19;) * Search the scriptures." (John v. 
 39.) "The end also for which the Scripture was given, 
 obliges us to read it, namely, the salvation of all men, 
 which it could not effect, unless it were perused. All 
 the encomiums bestowed on the Scripture, are so many 
 arguments for the reading of it. It is the will or testa- 
 ment of a Father, therefore it must be read by the chil- 
 dren; it is the epistle of the Creator to the creature, 
 therefore to be perused by the latter; it is the food of 
 our souls, to nourish which it must therefore be read; 
 to which we may add, the constant practice of the Jew- 
 ish and the Christian church. All the fathers exhort to 
 this duty, and among the rest Chrysostom, who, preaching 
 to the people, declares, J always exhort, and will not 
 cease to exhort you, not only to give ear to what is said 
 from this place, but also to apply yourselves at home to 
 the constant reading of the divine Scriptures. And he 
 reproves those who alleged various excuses for their 
 neglect of this duty, such as their various occupations, 
 and the care of their families; and who dared to assert 
 that this duty belonged not to them, but to the monks 
 
 ^ 
 
64 OF THE TRANSLATIONS 
 
 and hermits. We are well aware, indeed, that many 
 abuse the reading of the Scriptures; but if any one 
 should make this a reason for neglecting the duty, he 
 would act likea man, who, because of the frequent abuse 
 of meat and drink, should choose to perish for hunger 
 and thirst. 
 
 CHAPTER XII. 
 OF THE TRANSLATIONS AND APOCRYPHAL BOOKS. 
 
 Since the duty of reading the Scriptures is evident, it 
 follows that they must be translated into the various 
 native languages; for that which was unintelligible 
 would be read to no purpose. As mankind therefore 
 speak a variety of tongues, and all are not acquainted 
 with the Hebrew and Greek, in which the sacred books 
 were written, it is necessary that they should be trans- 
 lated into languages that are known. 
 
 Hence a great many versions and paraphrases have 
 been written by Jews and Christians. The principal, 
 belonging to the former, are—1. The Paraphrase on 
 the Pentateuch, ascribed to Onkelos, who is believed to 
 have been cotemporary with Gamaliel. 2. What is com- 
 monly called the Targum of Jonathan, the disciple of 
 Hillel, as he is thought to have been, and according to 
 some, the fellow-disciple of Simeon who took the infant 
 Saviour in his arms. 3. The Paraphrase of the five 
 books of Canticles, Ruth, Lamentations, Ecclesiastes, 
 and Esther. 4. The Paraphrase of the Hagiographa. 
 5. The Jerusalem Targum on the Pentateuch. There 
 are also extant, some Syrian versions, not only of the 
 New Testament, the version of which is the most an- 
 cient, and hence attributed to the evangelist Mark, but 
 also of the Old Testament; there are also Arabian ver- 
 sions of the tenth century, and Persian, Ethiopie, and 
 Samaritan versions. With regard to the Greek ver- 
 sions, they are well known; the chief of which is that 
 which is called the Septuagint, or version of the LXX., 
 made about 300 years before Christ, under Ptolemy Phi- 
 
 a 
 
AND APOCRYPHAL BOOKS. 65 
 
 ladelphus. The limits of this work will not permit us to 
 enter into the disputes of the learned, as to whether that 
 version was made by seventy-two interpreters, or by 
 one individual; whether all the sacred books were trans- 
 lated, and who it was that advised Philadelphus to adorn 
 and enrich his library with the sacred writings. 
 
 There were also other famous versions, namely, that 
 of Aquila of Pontus or Sinope, who from an excommu- 
 nicated Christian became a Jew, under the emperor 
 Adrian, about A. D. 137. That of Theodotion, an Ephe- 
 sian, in the beginning of the emperor Commodus' reign, 
 A. D. 184, who from a Marcionite heretic became a 
 Jewish proselyte, or a Judaizing Ebionite. That of 
 Symmachus, a Samaritan, who was either before Theo- 
 dotion, or under Severus, about A. D. 193. That of 
 Jericho, found in a cask in that city, A. D. 220; the 
 author is uncertain. The Micopolitan version, found at 
 Nicopolis, in the reign of Alexander Severus, A. D. 250. 
 Out of these versions Origen made up his 7'etrapla, his 
 Hexapla, and his Octapla.* There were other cele- 
 brated versions, such as that of Lucian the martyr, who 
 is said to have suffered martyrdom A. D. 314. That of 
 Hesychiws, and others, which we will pass by, and come 
 to the Latin versions, the most ancient of which was the 
 Italian, and which was succeeded by that of Jerome, a 
 double version, one from the Septuagint, and the other 
 from the Hebrew. From these two, in the course of 
 time, was made up, as some think, that which is called 
 the Vulgate, which has also many things out of Theo- 
 dotion and Lucian, though others are of a different 
 opinion; but it is not our province to decide. Other 
 versions, made in modern times, we need not here 
 notice. 
 
 I shall only add three remarks: 7st, that no transla- 
 tions can be equalled with the original, because the 
 authors of the translations were not men divinely in- 
 spired, but liable to error, whereas the original was 
 written by men inspired of God ; and because the origi- 
 nal is always a rule by which all translations are to be 
 
 * These were editions of the Scriptures, consisting of four, six, and 
 eight versions, respectively placed together in parallel columns. Thus 
 the version of Aguila, Symmachus, the Septuagint, and Theodotion, 
 composed the T’etrapla; these four, together with the Hebrew text, and 
 the Hebrew in Greek letters, as prefixed to them. composed the Heza- 
 pla; and these six, with those of Jericho aud Nicopolis added, com- 
 posed the Octapla. a 
 
66 OF THE TRANSLATIONS 
 
 examined; and it is better and purer to drink of the 
 fountain, than of the streams. Secondly, that the autho- 
 rity of translations is yet great in regard to the doctrine 
 they contain, which is divine, that is, if they faithfully 
 give forth divine truth from the fountain; and it has 
 been justly observed, that no version is so bad, pro- 
 vided it be executed with some degree of fidelity and 
 diligence, which does not contain heavenly and saving 
 instruction; hence the most dull and ignorant have, in 
 the translation they use, sufficient for the firm foun- 
 dation and building up of their faith. Thirdly, that 
 the Septuagint version, although of great weight on 
 account of its antiquity, and because it is read pub- 
 licly and privately by the Jews, and quoted from by 
 the apostles, is yet not to be compared with the origi- 
 nal. For the authors of this version were only interpre- 
 ters, not prophets; they erred grievously in many 
 things; and hence the apostles, who often use it because 
 of its general reception, yet frequently have preferred 
 to quote from the original. Besides which it has been 
 in many ways interpolated; hence it has been justly 
 said, that we have only the ruins of it. 
 
 Before we end our disquisitions on the scripture, we 
 will just inquire, what opinion must be formed of those 
 other books which we have not reckoned in the sacred 
 canon, and which yet are usually joined with the sacred 
 books, such as Tobit, Judith, Wisdom, the books of the 
 Maccabees, &c. We may briefly lay down the following 
 reasons why these books are not to be acknowledged 
 as divine, but merely human: First, they were not 
 written by inspired men, which is plain from 1 Macc. iv. 
 46; ix. 27 ; where it is expressly said, That there were 
 no prophets at that time; and also from 2 Macc. ii. 23, 
 where the author complains of the great labour and dif- 
 ficulty he had in compiling his work, and in abridging 
 the five books of Jason the Cyrenian, to excuse his own 
 weakness and infirmity. The author of the book of ' 
 Wisdom does, it is true, wish to be taken for Solomon, 
 but no person in his senses will believe it, who duly 
 considers that the Israelites in Solomon's days were 
 free, and yet they-are represented by the author of this 
 book as subject to the power of enemies; and who 
 considers also that this author makes an allusion, in ch. 
 iv. 2, to the contests which took place after the time of 
 Solomon. Hence most of the ancients have asserted 
 that the book was written by Philo the Jew, after he had 
 
AND APOCRYPHAL BOOKS, 67 
 
 suffered a rebuff from Caius Cesar, in his embassy to 
 him. Secondly, these books were never reckoned as 
 canonical by the Jewish church, to whom “ were com- 
 mitted the oracles of God ;” neither were they recogniz- 
 ed by Christ and his apostles, nor are they admitted by 
 the more modern Jews. Thirdly, in these books there 
 are many things doubtful, many false, and many absurd. 
 Let us take a few out of many. In the book of Tobit, 
 ch. v. 4, the angel Raphael is introduced like an actor, 
 assuming another person or character, pretending that 
 he was Azarias, the son of Ananias. In ch. vi. the 
 angel, like a magician, suggests the design of driving 
 away a devil by a smoke or perfume made of a fish’s 
 heart and liver, and ascribes to himself the office of pre- 
 senting to God the prayers of the righteous, (ch. xii. 15,) 
 which the scripture claims for Christ alone. In the book 
 of Judith, the cruel deed of Simeon and Levi is highly 
 extolled, which the Holy Spirit condemns, (Gen. xlix, 
 5); and Judith begs that God would give success to her 
 falsehoods, and pretends to comply with the wicked lust 
 of a drunken general. The author of Ecclesiasticus not 
 only acknowledges his own weakness, but also attri- 
 butes to Samuel the things which were never done by 
 Samuel; and in ch. xlviii. 10, refers to Elias, what Christ 
 (Matt. xi.) declares is to be understood of John the Bap- 
 tist. The author of Wisdom falsely makes himself king 
 of Israel. That the book of Baruch is falsely ascribed 
 to Jeremiah, is proved by the Greek language in which 
 itis written. For it is not probable, that he would have 
 chosen to address his countrymen in a foreign tongue; 
 and he falsely declares that he read the book in the fifth 
 year after the destruction of Jerusalem, to Jechonias, 
 and to the whole people at Babylon; for Jechonias was 
 in prison, and Baruch had been carried away into Egypt, 
 after the death of Gedaliah, (Jer. xliii. 6.) Besides, in 
 chap. i. 10, he mentions the altar of the Lord; whereas 
 there was none, the temple being destroyed. The books 
 of the Maccabees also contain many things not only con- 
 trary to the analogy of faith, and to real history, as the 
 things concerning Alexander, (1 Mac. i. 7,) the Romans, 
 (viii. 16,) the ark, (2 Mac. ii. 4—7,) but also contradicto- 
 ry,for Antiochus, who in 2 Mac.i. 16, is said to have 
 been stoned and beheaded, and torn in pieces in the 
 temple of Nanea, is represented in chap. ix. 5, 9, as seiz- 
 ed with a loathsome disorder, as he was hastening from 
 Persia into Judea. The books which are added to the 
 
68 OF THE TRANSLATIONS, &c. 
 
 book of Esther and Daniel, are clearly proved to be un- 
 canonical, from their containing things repugnant to the 
 sacred canon. It is plain to every one who considers 
 them, that the stories of Susanna and of Bel and the 
 Dragon, cannot claim historical credit, much less can- 
 onical authority. The same judgment will be formed 
 concerning the rest of these writings, by every attentive 
 reader. 4. Our opinion is confirmed by the testimony 
 of the Christian church, by that of Melito, of the council 
 of Laodicea, of Athanasius, Jerome, Epiphanius, and 
 others, who did not allow the divinity of these books. 
 And even though it should be granted, as some think, 
 that the New Testament writers quoted passages out of 
 some apocryphal books, the character of these books 
 would not be altered. For every one knows that the 
 sacred writers quote Menander, Aratus, and Epimenides, 
 (1 Cor. xv. 383. Acts xvii. 28. Titus i. 12,) yet who 
 would reckon the writings of these heathen poets as 
 canonical ? 
 
 These books are called Apocryphal, either because 
 they had no place in that secret and sacred chest or re- 
 pository, in which the scriptures were kept, or because 
 they were not read in public, but in private, which cus- 
 tom was however not always observed, since it appears 
 from the third council of Carthage, that some uncanoni- 
 cal books were publicly read; or because they were of 
 unknown origin, or for other reasons. On the contrary, 
 the other books are called canonical, not merely be- 
 cause they have been placed in the sacred canon by the 
 Jewish and Christian churches, but also because they 
 claim in themselves to be accounted the only rule of faith 
 and practice. Other apocryphal books I do not mention, 
 such as the Acts of St. Peter, the Gospel of St. Thomas, 
 $c. I will only bring forward the judgment of Jerome 
 writing to Leta on the education of her daughter. Let 
 her be cautious about all apocryphal writings ; and if 
 at any time she should wish to read them, let her be 
 aware that there are many bad things mingled with the 
 good, and that it requires great prudence to seek the gold 
 in the midst of the dirt. But we have written enough 
 concerning the scriptures. 
 
CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY. 
 
 BOOK THE SECOND. 
 
 OF GOD IN THE UNITY AND TRINITY. 
 
 CHAPTER I. 
 
 OF THE UNITY OF GOD. 
 
 Since it hath pleased God to make himself known to men 
 in the scriptures, the order of things requires, that, hav- 
 ing established the authority which is due to the sacred 
 writers, and the faith and reverence which must be giv- 
 en to their books, we should examine what these holy 
 scriptures teach concerning God. Now there is nothing 
 which they teach us, first, more clearly, than that there 
 is one God only; the passages are numerous and well 
 known; “Hear, O Israel, the Lord our God, is one 
 Lord,” (Deut. vi. 4.) “See now that I, even I, am he, 
 and there is no God with me.” (Deut. xxxii. 39; iv. 35 
 Isaiah xliv. 6.) “To us there is but one God, the 
 Father," &c. (1 Cor. viii. 4—6.) “There is one God, 
 and one Mediator," &c. (1 Tim. ii. 5. Ephes. iv. 6.) 
 Reason itself also teaches us this; for whosoever has 
 any thought and sense of deity, must acknowledge that 
 only to be deity, than which nothing can be conceived 
 better, more sublime, and more perfect ; but of such a 
 nature as this, there can be only one; for if ae a being 
 
70 OF THE UNITY OF GOD. ; 
 
 could have an equal, we could conceive of some more 
 perfect Being, having none equal to himself, and possess- 
 ing all the perfections of that other deity in himself 
 alone, and having him dependent on himself. 
 
 Again, if there were more Gods than one, there would 
 be more supreme Beings, than one, which is impossible; 
 for if there were several supreme Beings, either one 
 would be greater than the other, or they would be en- 
 tirely equal; if the former, one of these would be the 
 sole deity, namely, that which excelled the other; if the 
 Jatter, neither of them would be supreme, because that 
 only is supreme, which is greater than all other beings. 
 Therefore Pheebadius, bishop of Agenna, justly observes 
 in his book against the Arians, Jf there is not one only 
 God, there is no God. To which we may add the re- 
 mark of Tertullian, The soul, although confined iw the 
 person of the body, though surrounded and beset with de- 
 praved customs, though weakened by lusts and passions, 
 yet when it repents, awakening as from a surfeit, or from 
 sleep, or rising as from disease, both recovers its health, 
 and calls upon God, for this reason only, because he is 
 the true and only God, good and great, &c. 
 
 Deplorable therefore was the blindness of the heathen, 
 who, instead of the one true God, worshipped innume- 
 rable deities, as the Christian poet Prudentius expresses 
 it:— 
 
 * Nam tot templa Deüm Rome quot in urbe sepulchra 
 Heroum numerare licet, quot fabula manes 
 
 Nobilitat, noster populus veneratus adorat 
 
 Quicquid humus, pelagus, ccelum mirabile signat, 
 
 Id dixere Deos, colles, freta, flumina, flammas." 
 
 As many tombs of heroes as adorn 
 
 Imperial Rome, as many ghosts below 
 
 As fame records,—so num’rous are the gods 
 Whose temples by our people are ador'd. 
 Whate’er of note, the earth, and sea, and sky 
 Yea, hills, and rivers, and the fire, produce, 
 They honour with the name of Deity. 
 
 It must be allowed, however, that several of the heathens 
 had better notions, as Epictetus, who says, We must 
 above all things learn that there is one God, who governs 
 all things by his providence. And Plato in his epistle to 
 Dionysius, (if Plato were the author) thus speaks, rom 
 this you may learn, when I write seriously, and when 
 not ; when seriously, I begin the epistle with the men- 
 
OF THE VARIOUS NAMES OF GOD. 71 
 
 tion of one God; if otherwise, with the mention of 
 more than one. But although the wiser among the hea- 
 thens were of this opinion, it was not so with the great 
 majority of them. And of this idolatry there were many 
 reasons, such as their great misconception of the nature 
 of a most perfect Being; the numerous wants of man- 
 kind, (for frail and necessitous mortality, as Pliny ele- 
 gantly observes, divided the objects of worship, so that 
 conscious of his own weakness, every one worshipped that 
 which he most needed;) the multitude of the divine 
 names; the variety of the divine attributes and works; 
 the reverence which sons paid to their parents, subjects 
 to their kings, and nations to the heroes who were the 
 defenders of their liberty. It is a very ancient mode, 
 says Pliny, of shewing gratitude to benefactors, to enrol 
 them among the deities. And Lactantius, From what did 
 men derive their opinion of a plurality of Gods? Doubt- 
 less, all those, who are worshipped as gods, were once 
 men, the earliest and most powerful kings ; but who does 
 not know that, on account of their virtue, by which they 
 benefitted mankind, they received divine honours after 
 death, or on account of the inventions and services with 
 which they enriched the world, they obtained an immortal 
 remembrance. The last reason we may mention was, 
 the advantage they derived from the stars and other 
 created things. 
 
 CHAPTER II. 
 OF THE VARIOUS NAMES OF GOD. 
 
 Tue Scripture not only teaches us the unity of God, but 
 also describes that one supreme Being by various names. 
 Not that God needs any name, being the only one of his 
 own nature; but, as all our knowledge begins with the 
 names of things, the Scripture has given different names 
 to the Supreme Being, and it is the peculiar honour of 
 the church, that the true God hath revealed himself in it 
 by his own name. 
 
 Among others, the name Jehovah stands conspicuous ; 
 
72 OF THE VARIOUS NAMES OF GOD. 
 
 the true pronunciation of it is unknown; hence some 
 call it Jahve, or Juhave, others Jav, as the ancient 
 Greeks ; others Java, Jehova, Jehove, &c. Thisname is 
 frequently found in the sacred record, *Iam Jehovah, 
 that is my name ;" (Isa. xlii. 8.) It denotes “him which 
 is, and which was, and which is to come,” (Rev. i. 4) 
 and properly signifies these three things :—1. An eternal 
 Being, who is self-existent and independent; hence he is 
 simply called he that is. 2. A Being, from whom every- 
 thing else has its being. 3. A Being unchangeable, and 
 faithful to his promises. In this sense God says, (Exod. 
 vi. 3) that he was not known to the fathers by his name 
 Jehovah, because although he had often called himself 
 by this name in speaking to the fathers, still he had not 
 yet fulfilled his promises concerning the multiplication of 
 their seed, the bringing of the people out of Egypt, and 
 their coming into Canaan. This name belongs to God 
 alone; it is never given, either properly or improperly, 
 to any created being; not to the ark, for it was not the 
 ark that was addressed, but God of whom the ark wasa 
 symbol, when it was said, Arise, O Lord, (Jehovah ;) 
 not to the altar ; there was indeed this title inscribed on 
 the altar, Jehovah-nissi (my banner), but it was not the 
 altar which was called Jehovah; notto Jerusalem, when 
 it was said, the Lord (Jehovah) our Righteousness, but 
 he who had purposed to call Jerusalem to salvation was 
 to be distinguished by this name (Jer. xxiii. 6.) ; not to 
 the Church, although Jehovah is said to be there (Ezek. 
 xlviii. 35.): not to any created angel, but to the angel of 
 the covenant: and therefore, in Isaiah xlii. 8., after the 
 words, *I am the Lord (Jehovah), that is my name;" it 
 is added, “and my glory I will not give to another.” 
 The next is a name which also denotes the essence of 
 God, I am, or I am that I am. (Exod. iii. 14.) The 
 learned dispute whether this is really a name of God, 
 but it is certain that this expression is of the same 
 meaning as the name Jehovah. There is also the name 
 ^ (Psalm cl. 6.) often joined with that of Jehovah; but 
 what it exactly signifies is not clear. Some think it is 
 derived from a word signifying to be fit, or becoming. 
 The Jews maintain that God is called » from the benefits 
 which he bestows on mankind. "There is also the name 
 bx, El, (Gen. xiv. xxi. 33. Psalm xxii. 2.) from a word 
 signifying strength or might; and the name Elohim, 
 either from the Arabic word signifying to worship, or 
 the Hebrew to swear. It is of the same import as Jeho- 
 
OF THE VARIOUS NAMES OF GOD. 73 
 
 vah, though the Jews maintain that the former is a name 
 of judgment, the latter of grace. This name is given to 
 various creatures, as to magistrates and judges, who are 
 God's vicegerents on earth (Exod. xxii. 28. Psalm }xxxil. 
 6.) also Exod. iv. 16, where Moses is said “to be to 
 Aaron instead of God ;" also to angels, (Psalm xcvii. 8, 
 compare Heb. i. 6;) and to false gods. As to the name 
 Shaddai, it is disputed, among the learned, whether it is 
 derived from a word signifying £o destroy, and signifies 
 that God could destroy all things by the same power by 
 which he created them; or from a word signifying 
 breast, becaüse God supports or sustains all things; or 
 from two words signifying who and sufficient, because 
 God is sufficient for himself and for all his creatures. If 
 this last be the real derivation, we clearly see why God, 
 revealing himself to Abraham (Gen. xvii. 1), calls him- 
 self by this name, viz. to intimate that he did not enter. 
 into covenant with him, as though he needed Abraham's 
 help; on the contrary, that he abounds in every kind of 
 good, so as to fulfil the promises which he had so richly 
 set forth in this covenant. Or it may be derived from 
 the Arabic word signifying to bind or hold fast; since 
 God holds all things in subjection, When the word EZ 
 is joined to this name (El-Shaddai) it is no where given 
 to any creature. 
 
 The name Adonai is found in very many places, and 
 seems particularly to mean that dominion by which God 
 subjects every thing to himself. From this name the 
 heathens called their Bacchus, Edoneus. With regard 
 to the word, Sabaoth, the learned think that it is nota 
 name of God, except when joined to the word God, and 
 then it designates God as the Lord of hosts or armies, 
 from which is plainly derived the appellation of Sabasius, 
 given by the heathens to Bacchus. Of the Greek names 
 by which God is designated, there are two principal 
 ones: the first is ez (Theos,) derived either from wa, 
 to place or arrange ; or from @w, to run; or from 0:ácüa:, 
 to behold; it denotes the nature of God. "The other 
 name is Kw; (Kurios,) by which word the sacred wri- 
 ters generally render that of Jehovah, but which is espe- 
 cially ascribed to Christ the Redeemer, who is called 
 “Lord of Lords." Both these names are sometimes se- 
 condarily ascribed to creatures. 
 
74 OF THE SPIRITUALITY OF GOD. 
 
 CHAPTER III. 
 OF THE SPIRITUALITY OF GOD. 
 
 Havine briefly treated of the names, we must now more 
 fully examine into the nature of God. We are sensible 
 indeed that the infinite nature, of God cannot be perfect- 
 ly comprehended by finite beings. Nevertheless, there 
 are many things revealed concerning it in the scripture, 
 which we are permitted to examine. The first idea that 
 we form in our minds concerning God is, that he is a 
 perfect Being, which the scriptures confirm, everywhere 
 proclaiming the divine perfections. A general declara- 
 tion of the perfection of God is given by Christ, when he 
 says, * Be ye perfect, even as your Father which is in 
 heaven is perfect,” (Matt. v. 48.) But the sacred writ- 
 ings do also set forth his perfections particularly and 
 singly, so that from them we may, by attentive consid- 
 eration, discover that God is a spiritual, thinking, liv- 
 ing Being, possessed of understanding, will, wisdom, and 
 omniscience ; omnipotent, independent, omnipresent, self- 
 existent, eternal, immutable, wise, just, holy, good, merci- 
 ful, and infinite. These perfections are so great that 
 nothing can be added to them, or taken from them; they 
 are not contrary to each other, although the effects of 
 them may be so, and they are altogether identified with 
 the essence of God. Now the first perfection which we 
 conceive to be in God, is, that he is a spiritual Being, 
 not consisting at all of matter. For since all matter is 
 extended, and takes up space, and every thing of this 
 kind is composed of parts, and therefore divisible, imper- 
 fect, liable to change, senseless and inert, which cannot 
 be set in motion, except impelled by something else, and 
 being impelled, is necessarily set in motion, or, meeting 
 with other matter, loses as much of its own motion as it 
 communicates to the other,—this cannot be attributed to 
 God, without arguing imperfection in him, such as it is 
 absurd to attribute to a Being whom we conceive to be 
 most perfect. 
 
 Reason dictated to the very heathen the idea of God’s 
 spirituality. This was the idea of Pythagoras, accord- 
 ing to Lactantius, of Plato, and of Numa, who on this 
 
OF THE SPIRITUALITY OF GOD. 75 
 
 account forbade any image of God to be made. And 
 what reason teaches, the scripture confirms: “God is a 
 Spirit,” says Christ (John iv. 24.) This passage indeed, 
 according to some, is not to be thus rendered; but 
 rather, “God requires a Spirit.” For they maintain that, 
 otherwise, the reasoning of our Saviour is by no means 
 plain—God is of a spiritual essence, therefore he must be 
 spiritually worshipped; for, say they, the manner of 
 worshipping God does not depend on the true nature of 
 the divine essence, but on the divine will; otherwise, no 
 bodily worship ought to be paid to God, and none there- 
 fore would have been enjoined by him—which is not the 
 case. But these reasons are not of sufficient weight, to 
 prevent this passage from being adduced as a confirma- 
 tion of the doctrine in question. For, in the first place, 
 it is more natural to supply the word ez (is) than the 
 word i» (requires ;) the substantive verb is being fre- 
 quently omitted in the Hebrew and Greek, which cannot 
 be said of any other verb, at least so frequently. In the 
 next place, Christ's argument is strictly correct, even if 
 the common version be followed. For our worship 
 ought to be that which is most suitable to the divine na- 
 ture. Since, therefore the nature of God is spiritual, we 
 ought to worship him in spirit, except he himself shall 
 otherwise command, as he did under the Old 'Testament, 
 where he exacted a worship for the most part of a carnal 
 nature, although he did enjoin spiritual worship also. 
 But now, Christ says, the time is come, when that cere- 
 monial worship is to be abrogated ; now God requires a 
 worship suitable to his nature, thereby showing men 
 that he is a Spirit. 
 
 Nor must it be thought strange, that God is every 
 where in the scripture represented like man, having the 
 members of the human body ascribed to him; for this is 
 done to assist the weakness of our comprehension, and 
 must be explained in a manner consistent with the di- 
 vine nature. In short, by these members the scripture 
 intends to point out the divine attributes; and it is to be 
 observed also, that only those members of the human 
 frame are attributed to God, which are either the prin- 
 ciple of those human actions that are best known, as the 
 heart and the bowels, not the stomach, arteries, or veins; 
 or which are the instruments of those actions that are 
 most worthy of man, as the feet, the eyes, the hands, &c. 
 'The heart is mentioned as the principle of vital actions ; 
 the hands, because by these we perform many things; 
 
76 OF THE SPIRITUALITY OF GOD. 
 
 the eyes, because through them we gain the knowledge 
 of many things; the ears, because we readily listen to 
 those to whom we are kind; the mouth, because by it 
 we give utterance to our thoughts; the feet, because by 
 them we go whithersoever we wish. And thus these 
 members represent the mercy, the power, the knowledge, 
 the omnipresence, and other attributes of God. It must 
 be observed also,that such members are ascribed to 
 God, as perform extraordinary things: thus the scrip- 
 ture gives him eyes, but eyes which penetrate men's 
 hearts, and see all things; ears, which hear the very 
 secrets of the soul, and listen to all men, at one and the 
 same time. And so of the other members. 
 
 Since God is a Spirit, it follows that he is invisible. 
 Innumerable passages of scripture prove this point. 
 “To the King, eternal, invisible," (1 'T'im.i.17.) “ Whom 
 no man hath seen or can see,” (1 Tim. vi. 16.) “ There 
 shall no man see me, and live," (Exod. xxxiii 20.) There 
 are indeed many passages, in which it is said that God 
 has been seen; and others, in which God promises that 
 he will give the sight of himself to men in the future 
 world: but these are to be understood,—1. Either of the 
 vision of Christ, who, under a human form, gave us, as 
 it were, a prelude of his incarnation: in this way Jacob 
 saw him, and wrestled with him. 2. Or of the vision of 
 Christ, as he will appear in the last day, in that human 
 form which he assumed in the fulness of time: thus Job 
 expected to see the Redeemer, saying, *I know that... 
 in my flesh I shall see God; whom I shall see for myself 
 and mine eyes shall behold, and not another,” (Job xix. 
 26, 27.) 3. Or of the sight of some symbol, by which 
 God testified his presence. 4. Or of a greater and clear- 
 er manifestation than ordinary; as when Moses is said 
 to have “seen God face to face.” 5. Or it denotes a per- 
 petual and intimate communion with God, and the en- 
 joyment of the divine favour and love, and of all the 
 blessings which will thereby fall to our lot: in the same 
 sense as we are said to “see life,” to “see the kingdom 
 of God,” that is, to enjoy eternal felicity. 6. Or it is to 
 be understood of prophetic vision, presented either in a 
 dream or in a waking trance. 7. Or, lastly, it denotes a 
 perfect knowledge of God, as great as a finite creature 
 can attain; as when it is said that we shall *see God 
 face to face." (1 Cor. xiii. 12.) 
 
 From the spirituality of God, we also infer that he is 
 both a thinking and a living Being. For the first idea 
 
OF THE OMNISCIENCE OF GOD: 77 
 
 that we have of a spirit is, that it is a thinking essence, . 
 therefore we must believe this concerning God. But it 
 must be remarked, that God thinks not like men or 
 angels, but in a far more perfect manner; which will be 
 explained more at large hereafter, when we speak of the 
 knowledge ofGod. Again, because every thinking being 
 has life, we must believe that God isa living Being; and 
 this the Scripture every where teaches, calling God “ the 
 living God,” (Deut. xxxii. 40. Psalm Ixxxiv. 2. Acts xiv. 
 15. 1 Thess. i. 9.) This life of God differs from the life 
 of man in several respects. The life of creatures is dis- 
 tinct from the creatures themselves, but the life of God is 
 the very essence ofGod. "The creatures derive life (rom 
 God, God from himself The life of the former is frail 
 and transitory ; that of the latter is eternal, as will be 
 shown hereafter. And therefore, when God is called the 
 living God, it is notonly to distinguish him from the false 
 deities of heathenism, but from all creatures, who possess 
 only a derived and precarious existence. Moreover this 
 life of God is most happy, since he is called in the Scrip- 
 ture the “blessed” God. (1 Tim. i. 11, vi. 15.) And the 
 correctness of the expression will appear to any one 
 duly considering in what true happiness consists. For 
 who would not call a Being happy, who wants nothing, 
 has entire complacency in himself, and possesses all 
 things; who is free from all evil, and filled with all good. 
 On the whole, we may say, that God is a living Being— 
 that he lives for ever—is life itself—has life in himself—is 
 the fountain of life to all others—is most blessed, and the 
 author of all felicity. 
 
 CHAPTER IV. 
 OF THE OMNISCIENCE OF GOD. 
 
 SiNcE every being capable of thought is possessed of un- 
 
 derstanding and will,we are sure that God, whom we 
 
 conceive to be a thinking Being, is also a Being that un- 
 
 derstands and knows all things. Reason itself taught 
 
 the heathen this truth ; hence the remarkable answer of 
 YR ; 
 
78 OF THE OMNISCIENCE OF GOD. 
 
 Thales to a man, who asked him whether any human 
 action could be unknown to God. No: replied he, not 
 even any human thought. And it is recorded as the 
 opinion of Plato, that all men have a certain secret per- 
 suasion, that God knows every thing, even the inmost 
 thoughts of the mind. Of the same opinion were the 
 stoics, Epictetus, Marcus Aurelius, and others. But with 
 still greater clearness is this truth set forth through the 
 whole Scripture. ** Neither is there any creature that is 
 not manifest in his sight; but all things are naked and 
 open unto the eyes of him with whom we have to do." 
 (Heb. iv. 13.) The apostle in this passage uses a meta- 
 phor derived from victims, from whose necks the skin 
 was taken off, and which were divided or cut through 
 so that all the intestines were opened, and the priest was 
 able to discover whether the victims were without 
 * blemish" or not. Now we must consider, first the 
 object, then the mode of the divine knowledge. 
 
 The object of this knowledge is every thing that can 
 possibly be known or understood, whether it be God 
 himself, or all other things which can be conceived in 
 or out of God; past, present, future; things which 
 neither are, nor have been, nor ever will be; things 
 necessary and contingent, done and thought of, from 
 the greatest to the least. Hence it is said, * His under- 
 standing is infinite." (Psalm cxlvii. 5,) and that, “He 
 knoweth all things," (1 John iii. 20.) God himself is the 
 object of this knowledge, that is, he knows himself, both 
 his own nature, and all his perfections; he knows also 
 his own decrees, and all those actions which he performs 
 in pursuance of his decrees, as it is said, * Known unto 
 God are all his works from the beginning of the world," 
 (Acts xv. 18.) He knows all other things, even to the 
 least; not only angels, men, the beasts, the stars, **the 
 number of which he telleth," says the Psalmist, Psalm 
 cxlvii. 4, and the plants, but even the very hairs of the 
 head, which are said to be * numbered" by him, (Matt. 
 x. 30. No one will reasonably deny that God knows 
 also all things that are past. This knowledge of the 
 past is set forth in the sacred writings under the figure 
 of *a book of remembrance;" although it must be al- 
 ‘lowed, that God is said to remember, merely to point out 
 his affording timely assistance, hearing our prayers, per- 
 forming his promises, freely rewarding the godly, or 
 severely punishing the ungodly. We cannot also deny 
 that all future events are known to God, not only those 
 
OF THE OMNISCIENCE OF GOD. 79 
 
 which we call necessary, but those also which we term 
 contingent, and which, although decreed by God, are 
 really contingent in respect to us, seeing they arise from 
 a concurrence unknown to us of several things together. 
 We cannot but believe this, since the Scripture teaches 
 us that God knew and foretold future contingencies long 
 before the event. Thus he knew that Pharaoh would 
 harden his heart against the plagues; that the men of 
 Keilah would deliver up David to Saul; that the Egyp- 
 tians would afflict the seed of Abraham four hundred 
 years; that Cyrus would deliver the people out of cap- 
 tivity ; that the Jews would be unbelieving in the times 
 of the Messiah, and would put him to death; that Judas 
 would betray his master, &c. &c. Nay, “not even a 
 sparrow falleth to the ground without God’s know- 
 ledge,” as Christ testifies. By his knowledge of the 
 future God distinguishes himself from the idols of the 
 heathen; “Let them bring forth, and show us what 
 shall happen: declare us things to come. Show the 
 things that are to come hereafter, that we may know 
 that ye are Gods,” (Isaiah xli. 22, 23). From number- 
 less passages it is plain also, that the thoughis of the 
 human heart are well known to God. * Man looketh on 
 the outward appearance, but the Lord looketh on the 
 heart.” (1 Sam. xvi. 7.) * The heart is deceitful above 
 all things, and desperately wicked: who can know it? 
 I the Lord search the heart, I try the reins," &c. (Jer. 
 xvii. 9, 10.) * Lord, all my desire is before thee; and my 
 groaning is not hid from thee." (Psalm xxxviii. 10.) And 
 all these passages are confirmed from what we read of 
 Daniel, by the Divine Spirit interpreting the dreams of 
 the King of Babylon, and of Elisha discovering to the 
 King of Israel the designs of the King of Syria, which he 
 meditated in his secret chamber. One passage may 
 suffice to prove the divine knowledge of human actions: 
 “Doth he not see my ways, and count all my steps?” 
 (Job xxxi. 4,) to which may be added the whole of 
 Psalm exxxix. Sins also are not excepted, Psalm xiv. 
 
 All things therefore, which are possible to be known, 
 God knows, as the scripture every where teaches, and 
 reason itself confirms. Yet we must not imagine that, 
 because he is said to be acquainted with things the most 
 minute, and those that are sinful, the divine being is de- 
 graded, on the one hand, and contaminated on the other. 
 For it is necessary that a perfect being should know all 
 
80 OF THE OMNISCIENCE OF GOD. 
 
 those things that can be known, and as far as these 
 things are contrary to his law, it must be observed, that 
 what is sinful cannot contaminate, as far as it is known, 
 but only as far as it is approved or done. It must how- 
 ever be admitted that God sometimes speaks as if he 
 were ignorant of something; but this ought not to ap- 
 pear more strange than what we read in num 
 passages, in which feet, hands, &c. are ascribed to God ; 
 which expressions are to be understood only in a way 
 consistent with the divine nature. We must not there- 
 fore be surprised that God is introduced (Gen. xviii. 21.) 
 speaking of the Sodomites, “I will go down now, and 
 see whether they have done,” &c. God thus ex 
 himself in order to display his justice, that he might not 
 appear to be hurried on to vengeance under the impulse 
 of a blind fury; also, to set forth his long suffering, 
 whereby he is not in haste to punish, though provoked 
 by the obstinate wickedness of man; and also to set an 
 example to magistrates in the administration of justice. 
 
 As to the mode or manner of the divine omniscience, 
 We must speak with sobriety and caution, so as not to 
 attribute to the deity any thing unbecoming or unworthy. 
 Maimonides observes, that to wish to know the mode of 
 the divine knowledge, is the same as wishing to be God. 
 Now we must not at all imagine that God knows things 
 in the same manner as men, who understand one thing 
 at one time, and another thing at another time, and who 
 understand the same thing sometimes imperfectly, at 
 other times clearly, and who, from things known, pro- 
 ceed to things unknown. The divine knowledge is of 
 such a nature, as not to admit of any indistinctness of 
 apprehension, or labour of investigation and recollection, 
 or difficulty of application. God comprehends all things 
 by one single and individual act of mind, surveys them, 
 as it were, with a single glance, and sees them distinctly, 
 certainly, and therefore perfectly. Nevertheless the 
 weakness of our conceptions obliges us to attribute to 
 God a knowledge of two kinds; the one, by which he 
 knows things that are possible, called by the schoolmen 
 the knowledge of natural and simple apprehensions ; the 
 other, by which he knows things that will take place, 
 called by them the knowledge of liberty and vision,— The 
 first kind of knowledge is founded on the power of God, 
 the second has for its foundation the decree of God, who 
 knows future things, because he has decreed that they 
 shall take place. 
 
 — a 
 
OF THE OMNISCIENCE OF GOD. 81 
 
 This attribute of omniscience must necessarily be as- 
 eribed to God: otherwise there is an end to all religion, 
 since nothing can more powerfully tend to establish it in 
 the mind, than the belief that God continually beholds, 
 and will finally judge, all our actions. This attribute, 
 moreover, not only teaches us how we ought to regulate 
 our conduct, since nothing escapes the infinite know- 
 ledge of God, but it also assures us that we can with 
 confidence address our petitions to him in every place, 
 and commit our cause to him, under the persuasion that 
 the uprightness of our hearts is open before him, and 
 that he will discover it, if not in this, yet at least in the 
 future world. 
 
 With the knowledge of God we must join his wisdom, 
 which the scripture every where ascribes to him, and 
 reason confirms. For who can deny that wisdom be- 
 longs to a perfect Being? This attribute of wisdom con- 
 veys a more sublime idea than that of knowledge; for 
 by it God knows what is necessary to be done, accord- 
 ing to the circumstances of things, and in what order and 
 manner it should be done; by what means he may best 
 attain the end he designs, and thereby display his own 
 glory. By this wisdom God orders every thing in a 
 wonderful manner, in measure, number, and weight; a 
 measure indeed not to be examined by the measures, a 
 number not to be estimated by the calculations, a weight 
 not to be balanced in the scales, of such creatures as we 
 are. The ways of this wisdom are to man, for the most 
 part, inscrutable, so that we must cry out with the apos- 
 tle, * O the depth of the riches, both of the wisdom and 
 knowledge of God! how unsearchable are his judg- 
 ments, and his ways past finding out!” (Rom. xi. 33. 
 But although these ways are unknown, yet are they 
 most righteous, and we must adore, and not curiously 
 examine them. So wonderful is this wisdom of God, 
 that it sometimes brings light out of darkness, life out of 
 death, and a blessing out of a curse. To this supreme, 
 res “only wise God,” be honour and glory for ever. 
 
 men. 
 
82 OF THE WILL 
 
 CHAPTER Y. 
 OF THE WILL AND AFFECTIONS OF GOD. 
 
 Every thinking being must not only have understanding, 
 but also will; and since God must possess every thing 
 which belongs to the nature of an intelligent being, a 
 will must exist in him. The whole scripture teaches 
 this: * Our God is in the heavens; he hath done what- 
 soever he hath pleased." (Psalm cxv.3.) “I will do all 
 my pleasure." (Isaiah xlvi. 10.) This will is not to be 
 conceived of as a mode, but as an act; and it is also the 
 very essence of God, since there is nothing in God which 
 is not God ; and hence it is plain that this will is eternal, 
 since the essence of God is eternal. This will moreover 
 is, as it were, simple and individual; and therefore God, 
 by one simple and individual act, wills all things, even 
 as by one single glance he sees and understands all 
 things; but, because we are finite, we cannot form any 
 proper conceptions of things, as they exist in an infinite 
 Being; and therefore, God is conceived of by us, some- 
 times as the Ruler of the world and the Disposer of 
 events, at other times as the supreme Lawgiver; hence 
 it is that the scripture attributes to God a will of various 
 kinds, according to the difference of its objects; one 
 will, by which God decrees what he wills to be done, or 
 to permit to be done; the other by which he prescribes 
 to men their duty: the former regards the futurition and 
 taking place of things, the latter is the rule of our actions ; 
 the one is always fulfilled, and cannot be resisted, (Rom. 
 ix. 19,) the other is often violated by men. The first 
 may be called the will of decree, because it decrees events, 
 or the secret will, because it is, in general, though not 
 always, hidden from us; or the will of good pleasure, 
 * according to" which, Paul says that we are “ predesti- 
 nated.” (Eph. i. 5.) The second may be called the will 
 of commandment, because it prescribes to man his duty, 
 or the revealed will, because it is revealed in the law and 
 in the gospel, or the will of approbation and complacency, 
 because it makes known what is pleasing to God or 
 what he approves, and of which Paul thus speaks, “ This 
 
AND AFFECTIONS OF GOD. 83 
 
 is the will of God, even your sanctification.” (1 Thess. 
 iv. 3. 
 
 wà have said, that by the will of decree God has pur- 
 posed what he wills to do, or to permit. Now there are 
 some things which God wills to do, that are good, but 
 there are others which he neither does, nor can do, be- 
 cause they are evil, which, however, he permits to be 
 done, and which he then overrules to good purposes. 
 Thus he permits men to sin, but he is not the author of 
 sin; on the contrary, he most strongly forbids it. The 
 will of commandment also has two kinds of objects, the 
 one good, the other evil; the former it enjoins, the latter 
 it forbids. These two wills, although they are viewed 
 by us as different, are yet by no means contrary to each 
 other, because they are not directed to the same object. 
 If indeed God did, by the power of his own decree, com- 
 pel men to do those things which he has forbidden in his 
 law, or if he had decreed that some things should be 
 done by men, which afterwards he chose not to permit 
 to be done. then he would will things that are contrary ; 
 but such is not the case, as will appear from the follow- 
 ing example: God had decreed that Abraham should 
 not sacrifice his son, and yet he commands him to sacri- 
 fice his son; these things appear contrary to each other, 
 but they are not so; for the same God who had decreed 
 that Abraham should not sacrifice his son, had decreed 
 also to command Abraham to do so for this end, to try 
 the patriarch ; and at the same time, he had decreed to 
 prevent Abraham from doing so. In this manner the 
 cases are perfectly consistent; God decreed to command 
 Abraham to sacrifice his son, in order to try his faith, 
 and he actually commanded him in due time; God de- 
 creed to prevent Abraham from doing this, and he actu- 
 ally did prevent him. But in order that every doubt on 
 this subject may be removed, let it be observed, —1. That 
 strictly speaking, there is only one will in God, and that is 
 the will of decree. 2. That that will has not only deter- 
 mined what shall be done by men, but has also deter- 
 mined what things shall be enjoined upon, or revealed 
 tothem. 3. That the will of commandment is, properly 
 speaking, the execution of a part of the other will, name- 
 ly, that part which hath determined what shall be re- 
 vealed to, or enjoined upon, men in due time. For ex- 
 ample: God hath required of men faith and obedience, 
 but he had decreed thus to require; in requiring, there- 
 fore, he only executes what he had decreed. But if he 
 
84 OF THE WILL 
 
 does not give to all the faith which he requires, it should 
 excite no wonder, since in this way also he executes 
 what he hath decreed, that is, not to give faith to all; 
 thus there is no inconsistency between the will of com- 
 mandment and the will of decree, since there is one and 
 the same execution of both. This will of God is immut- 
 able; he is “the Lord that changeth not," (Mal. iii. 6 ;) 
 it is also free ; for, although the eternal act of God’s will 
 having been once passed, he cannot will otherwise, 
 nevertheless he is perfectly free, because he is impelled 
 by no external power, but by himself only, and because 
 he always acts voluntarily and with reason, which things 
 constitute the highest degree of liberty. To this free 
 will of God we owe all that we possess; to it, therefore, 
 we ought to submit; nor must we ever murmur against 
 it. 
 
 With regard to what are called affections, although 
 they do not properly exist in God, seeing they are con- 
 nected with the ideas of passion or emotion, which 
 argues weakness and mutability, and therefore would 
 be contrary to the supreme happiness of God, yet are 
 they attributed to him in the scripture, which speaks to 
 men in their own style; but they do not designate any 
 passions or emotions, nor are to be understood as dif- 
 ferent wills or inclinations in the Deity, (for this would 
 imply a changeableness in him,) but as acts of the same 
 will, and denoting different relations of it. We will 
 speak of the principal affections; and, first, of goodness. 
 Now we call goodness that affection in God, by which 
 he is inclined to communicate himself to his creatures. 
 The scripture every where declares it, (Psalm xxxvi. 6, 
 7; Ixxiii. 1; Acts xiv. 17); and even the heathens called 
 their Jupiter Optimus Maximus, (very good and great); 
 and, as Cicero observes, he is called optimus before 
 maximus, because it is a greater and more acceptable 
 thing, to do good to all, than to possess the greatest pow- 
 er. The first act of God's goodness in time is creation ; 
 and because what is produced always depends on what 
 produces it, the second act of goodness is preservation. 
 This goodness, moreover, is either general, which em- 
 braces all creatures, or special, which regards hwman 
 creatures, and most special, which regards the elect. 
 Nor should it seem strange that God is not equally good 
 towards his creatures, for in this inequality is displayed 
 his sovereign freedom and dominion. 
 
 From the goodness springs the love of God, by which 
 
AND AFFECTIONS OF GOD. 85 
 
 God is inclined towards the creature, and delights to do 
 it good, and, as it were, to unite himself with it. There 
 are three kinds of this love usually ascribed to God. The 
 love of benevolence is that by which God is moved to will 
 some good to his creature as a creature, without any 
 regard to the excellence which may be in it. This kind 
 of love is the same as his goodness, and by it God, from 
 eternity, willed góod to the creature, even though un- 
 worthy, and deserving of hatred. The love of beneficence 
 is that by which God does good in time; this expression 
 1n time must be noted, so that this love may be distin- 
 guished from the love of benevolence, which is from 
 eternity. 'The love of complacency is that by which God 
 is inclined towards the creature that is just and holy. 
 By the first kind of love, God elects us; by the second, 
 he redeems and sanctifies us; by the third, he rewards 
 us being holy. Ofthislast Christ speaks, (John xiv. 21,) 
 “He that hath my commandments, and keepeth them, 
 he it is that loveth me; and he that loveth me shall be 
 loved of my Father, and I will love him." With this 
 love of God is connected his grace, by which he is induc- 
 ed to communicate himself to the creature, freely and of 
 his own accord; not from desert or debt, or any other 
 cause out of himself; and not to add any thing to him- 
 self, but for the benefit of the object of this grace. For 
 grace is nothing else but unmerited favour ; it is always 
 opposed to merit; *If it be of grace, then it is no more 
 of works; otherwise grace is no more grace." (Rom. 
 xi.6.) Now this word grace is taken in scripture, some- 
 times for God's favour, by which he chose us from eter- 
 nity unto life; sometimes for the favour, by which he re- 
 ceives us in time, and accepts us in the Son of his love; 
 sometimes for the effects of grace, or the ordinary gifts 
 bestowed by God on believers, such as faith, hope, and 
 charity, or for the extraordinary gifts which were mirac- 
 ulously bestowed in the first ages, for the edification of 
 the church. This grace is accompanied by mercy or 
 pity. concerning which the Psalmist speaks, (Psalm ciii. 
 8; exlv. 9; also Lament. iii. 22, 23,) which, as existing 
 in God, is not a sorrow or sadness of mind arising from 
 the miseries or evils of others, but a ready disposition to 
 succour the miserable. It does not spring from any ex- 
 ternal cause, such as usually stirs up this emotion in 
 human beings, but from the sole goodness of God. The 
 greatness of this pity is shown by the extreme unworth- 
 iness of those who are the md of it, compared with 
 
86 OF THE WILL 
 
 his majesty, by the number of the sins they have com- 
 mitted, and the greatness of their misery, by the severity 
 of divine justice, by the eternal duration of this pity, and 
 by its innumerable effects. 
 
 To the affection of love is opposed that of hatred; 
 which is an emotion of displeasure, and abhorrence of a 
 person who is unlike us, and disagreeable to us. As 
 existing in God, it denotes his disapprobation of sin, his 
 purpose of punishing the sinner, by withholding those 
 saving blessings which flow from his goodness. The 
 passages of scripture are numerous, in which the hatred 
 of God is spoken of. * Thou hatest all the workers of 
 iniquity. (Psalm v. 5; xi. 5; xlv. 8; Prov. vi. 16, 17, 
 &c.) The effect of God's greatest anger, is the punish- 
 ment of eternal death ; therefore, we must guard against 
 this hatred of God, in order to which, sin must be hated 
 rot sincerely, for it is only sin which incurs the divine 
 
 atred. 
 
 To the love of God belong what may be called his de- 
 sires or wishes, &c. Now it is the absence of good which 
 excites desire; but since God enjoys all good, it is plain 
 that desire cannot properly apply to him; yet it is fre- 
 quently attributed to him in scripture, and to this may 
 be referred all those passages in which God is introduced 
 speaking to this effect: * O that my people had hearken- 
 ed unto me" (Psalm Ixxxi. 14; Isaiah xlviii. 18; Luke 
 xix. 42.) 'lherefore this desire in God denotes, that 
 man's obedience is highly pleasing to him, and that he 
 will not pass it by unrewarded; at the same time it 
 points out man’s duty, and his great wickedness in not 
 discharging this duty. To this desire is opposed aver- 
 sion, by which God is said to loathe sin, and to have no 
 pleasure in the destruction of the creature. From what 
 has been said, we clearly see what ideas we ought to 
 have of the hope of God, of his joy, sorrow, jealousy, &c. 
 Hope or expectation in God, intimates that the thing is 
 due to him. Thus when he said, that he “looked that 
 his vineyard should bring forth grapes,” (Isaiah v. 2,) 
 he meant that the vineyard owed him fruit, and could 
 not be fruitless without sin. God is said to rejoice when 
 any thing is pleasing to him ; and also when he performs 
 any thing which displays his glory, as when he does 
 good to his people, or when he punishes the rebellious 
 and ungodly. (Deut. xxviii. 63; xxx. 9.) God is intro- 
 duced as fearing, (Deut. xxxii. 27,) to show that the Is- 
 raelites escaped more on account of their enemies than 
 
Magis E 
 
 of * 
 AND AFFECTIONS OF GOD. 87 
 
 for their own deserts. And sometimes fear is attributed 
 to him, to denote his intention of anticipating, or pre- 
 venting, some evil. Sorrow in God denotes that some- 
 thing highly displeases him, and is contrary to his per- 
 fections. Jealousy in him denotes his fixed purpose of 
 not giving his glory to another, and of punishing him 
 who would take it. 
 
 I will only add a few remarks on the repentance, and 
 on the anger of God. The former is attributed to him 
 in many places of Scripture, (Gen. vi. 6. 1 Sam. xv. |l, 
 &c) Now in what sense in this attributed to him? In 
 order to repentance, properly so called, there must be 
 two things concurring in man; the first is inward grief 
 of mind, whereby he detests what he has done, and could 
 wish it had not been done; the second isa change of 
 the work done. With respect to the former, repentance 
 cannot apply to God, for it would argue the greatest im- 
 perfection, as it springs from the contemplation of a 
 thing ill done, or a work heedlessly undertaken. With 
 respect to the latter, repentance may apply to God, be- 
 cause he sometimes changes his work, and so far does 
 the same thing which men do, who repent. But this 
 change of work does not imply a change in the mind of 
 God, for by one and the same act of his will he decrees 
 both to do the work, and afterwards to alter it; thus he 
 did at the same time decree to create men, and to de- 
 stroy them all by a deluge some ages after. It must be 
 observed also, that this repentance in God denotes that 
 mankind have rendered themselves unworthy of the 
 benefits bestowed on them by God, and deserved pun- 
 ishment by their wickedness; or on the other hand, have 
 so reformed their lives, that God is pacified towards 
 them. As to the divine anger, we are sure, that it does 
 not signify any such emotion or passion of the mind as 
 arises from bile inflaming the blood round the heart, 
 such being altogether inconsistent with the calm and 
 happy nature of the deity ; but it denotes his just and 
 free purpose of punishing sinners. It is spoken of, John 
 iii 36. Rom. i. 18; ii. 8. The effects ef this anger are 
 both temporal, which are either bodily, (Lev. xxvi. Deut. 
 xxxiii) or spiritual, such as blinding, hardening, &c. 
 (Rom. i. 24, 26,) and eternal, i. e. banishment from God, 
 and being cast into everlasting fire. (Matt. xxv. 40.) 
 
88 OF THE JUSTICE OF GOD. 
 
 CHAPTER VI. 
 
 OF THE JUSTICE OF GOD. 
 
 Tue word justice, when spoken of God in scripture, is 
 taken in different senses; for sometimes it denotes that 
 most sacred union of divine qualities, shining forth in the 
 words and actions of God, so that he does nothing but 
 what is agreeable to the nature of an all-perfect Being ; 
 and thus the word is the same as that of holiness, which 
 is everywhere ascribed to God, (Isaiah vi. 3. Levit. xi. 
 44, &c.) Sometimes it signifies that particular justice, 
 by which he gives to every man according to his deeds, 
 and which is seen in the proper distribution of rewards 
 and punishments. Thus Moses speaks, “He is the 
 Rock, his work is perfect, for all his ways are judgment ; 
 a God of truth, and without iniquity, just and right is 
 he.” (Deut. xxxii. 4) Again, justice is taken sometimes 
 for the will of God in punishing sinners, and sometimes 
 for the very punishment inflicted by justice. It is also 
 often taken for the kindness and faithfulness of God in 
 performing his promises. 
 
 Now the very idea of an all-perfect Being shows us 
 that God is a Being most just, wise, and true; to con- 
 ceive of an unjust God involves a contradiction. Yet it 
 may be fairly inquired, whether that justice of God, by 
 which he punishes sin, and which is termed avenging 
 justice, is essential to him, and whether it is inconsis- 
 tent witb his nature to let sin go unpunished. Now this 
 is proved by two principal arguments. 1. If the love of 
 holiness, or the hatred of sin, is essential to God, then 
 his avenging justice will be so also. The former the 
 scripture teaches in those passages in which God is re- 
 presented as a Being of perfect holiness, and extremely 
 abhorring sin: “ Thou art of purer eyes than to behold 
 evil, and canst not look on iniquity.” (Hab. i. 13, also 
 Psalm v. 4, 5.) And reason itself teaches it; for we can- 
 not form any idea of God, without forming the idea of a 
 most holy Being, hating sin. Now this hatred of sin is 
 nothing else but a fixed determination to punish sin, as 
 we have shown before: if then a fixed determination to 
 
OF THE JUSTICE OF GOD. 89 
 
 unish sin is essential to God, his avenging justice will 
 be equally so; if this be essential, he cannot and will 
 not suffer sin to go unpunished. We must not therefore 
 conceive of God as a creditor, who can forego his claims, 
 although sins are spoken of in scripture as debts, but as 
 the supreme Ruler and Judge of the universe, who is 
 bound to preserve inviolate the majesty of his own la ws, 
 and to whom it would be disgraceful to permit his jus- 
 tice to be offended with impunity. Again, if this justice 
 were not an essential attribute of God, there could be no 
 legitimate reason, why he should have delivered up his 
 beloved Son to death; for the perfect wisdom of God 
 will not allow us to say that this was done without 
 reason and extreme necessity. 
 
 The argument is confirmed both by the dictates of 
 conscience, which summons men to the bar of God, and 
 greatly torments them after the commission of sin, and 
 also by the consent of all nations, among whom the 
 opinion of God being a just judge, so far prevailed, that 
 they sacrificed even human victims, in the hope of ap- 
 peasing an incensed deity. It is confirmed also by the 
 whole economy of sacrifices, which under the Old Tes- 
 tament shadowed out the necessity of an expiation of 
 sin for the satisfaction of divine justice. It is true that 
 to punish is called God's *strange work," (Isa. xxviii. 
 21,) but it is so called, because it would be far more 
 pleasing to God, who does not delight in the death of 
 sinners, if men would live in such a manner as to leave 
 no room for his judgments ; not to say that this passage 
 treats of God's vengeance on his own people. Yet else- 
 where God testifies that he derives joy from the punish- 
 ment of the ungodly, (Deut. xxviii. 63. Hosea x. 10). 
 Although this justice generally advances with a slow 
 step to the punishment of sins, it makes up for its slow- 
 ness by its severity. It shines forth in all God's judg- 
 ments, but it will particularly display itself in the last 
 judgment, when he * will render to every man accord- 
 ing to his works." 
 
 And here we may add something concerning the 
 truth or faithfulness of God, which is often expressed by 
 the word justice. Truth sometimes simply denotes 
 righteousness, as in Psalm xix. 9, * the judgments of the 
 Lord are true,” i. e. “righteous ;" but it is also taken for 
 the agreement or consistency of the divine words with 
 the divine mind, and with things as they really are ; for 
 the truth of God is not like ihe truth of men, which is 
 
90 OF THE JUSTICE OF GOD. 
 
 merely an agreement with their mind, while, on account 
 of their ignorance of many things, it does not accord 
 with these things. God is true in all his words, com- 
 mandments, and promises. Truth is also taken for that 
 virtue or excellence, by which God always makes good 
 his promises. (Rom. xv. 8.) It is the same as faithful- 
 ness, by which God performs what he hath spoken, or 
 promised. (1 Cor. x. 13. Heb. x. 23. 1 John i. 9.) 
 
 The justice of God is not opposed to those attributes 
 of mercy and long-suffering which the scriptures ascribe 
 to him, when they teach us that he does not willingly 
 punish, and that punishment is his strange work, that 
 the greatness of the punishment does not answer to the 
 greatness of the offence, (Psalm ciii. 10,) and that he is 
 ready to pardon, and slow to execute his wrath, (Jer. 
 xviii 7, 8. Rom. ii. 4. 2 Peter iii. 9.) For although God 
 necessarily punishes, it does not follow, that he always 
 punishes as much as he is able, and as soon as he is able, 
 or that he always proceeds against the offender. The 
 severity which God shows when he punishes, is shown 
 against those towards whom he hath exercised much 
 long-suffering, as in the case of the Israelites; against 
 those who have received great benefits at his hands, as 
 in the case of Lot's wife, whom he had rescued from the 
 burning of Sodom; against Nadab and Abihu, on whom 
 he had bestowed the honour of the priesthood ; against 
 those who have committed a sin, which might easily 
 have been avoided, and who have thereby set a perni- 
 cious example to others, as in the cases of Uzzah, the 
 Bethshemites, and the man who gathered sticks on the 
 sabbath-day. It is also shownagainst those, who sin at the 
 same time when God makes an extraordinary display 
 of his goodness in the performance of many wonders or 
 miracles, as in the case of Ananias and Sapphira, also 
 against those, who commit enormous crimes. There 
 are other reasons for this severity, unknown to us, yet 
 none on account of which it could be blamed. It con- 
 cerns us therefore not to despise the riches of God's 
 long-suffering, lest we treasure up for ourselves his 
 divine indignation. 
 
OF THE POWER AND OMNIPRESENCE OF GOD. 94 
 
 CHAPTER VII. 
 OF THE POWER AND OMNIPRESENCE OF GOD. 
 
 Havine spoken of the will of God, it remains that we 
 should speak of his power,an attribute, by which God 
 can do whatever is possible to be done: this is not 
 really to be distinguished from his will, for in God will is 
 actual power itself; but it is called power when the 
 thing is not yet done, or when it is not to be done 
 although there is nothing to hinder the doing of it. 
 That God's omnipotence is nothing more than his effi- 
 cacious will, is very evident, because, since God is an 
 all-perfect Being, he acts or works in a most perfect 
 manner, and no manner can be conceived more perfect, 
 than that which is by the act of the will. This power 
 of God the scripture everywhere proclaims, * With God 
 nothing shall be impossible," (Luke i. 37,) * With God all 
 things are possible," (Mark x. 27,also Psalm cxv. 3. 
 Phil iii. 21.) Reason proves it; for to conceive of an 
 impotent God is not to conceive of a God at all Py- 
 a called those fools, who denied the power of 
 od. 
 
 The object of this power is every thing that God wills, 
 and which does not involve a contradiction, as that a 
 thing is, and is not, at the same time, that a circle is 
 square, &c. and does not also imply sin and imperfec- 
 tion, as to lie, to eat, to drink, to be hurt, to die, &c. 
 For as the object of infinite knowledge is every thing 
 which can be known, so the object of infinite power is 
 every thing which can be done, that does not imply a 
 contradiction on the part of the thing itself, or of the 
 agent. Therefore it is not every thing which is con- 
 ceived by us, that is the object of the divine power; for 
 many things are imagined by us, which are very absurd 
 and unworthy of God. At the same time we must not 
 believe, that that only is the object of this power, which 
 can be conceived by us; for God can do many things 
 which we cannot comprehend, as the creation of the 
 world out of nothing; but we ought firmly to believe 
 
92 "OF THE POWER AND 
 
 that God can bestow upon us all things necessary to 
 our salvation—that he can safely preserve us from every 
 evil and from every enemy—that he can bestow on his 
 followers the good things he has promised, and inflict 
 on the ungodly the punishment they deserve—that he 
 can “do exceeding abundantly above all that we can 
 ask or think,” (Eph. iii. 20.) Who ought not to fear a Being 
 so powerful? Who is not bound to have recourse to 
 him, to trust in his promises, and to obey his precepts ? 
 
 With the power of God we must connect his dominion, 
 by which he possesses the right or authority of doing 
 all that he does. This dominion has for its foundation, 
 the dependence of all the creatures on their Creator, and 
 the vast superiority of the divine nature to all others. 
 It was the saying of Aristotle, that if there were any 
 man who surpassed all the rest in wisdom, he would be 
 worthy to have dominion over all. God, therefore, on 
 account of his surpassing dignity and excellence, in re- 
 gard to which there is no proportion between him and 
 the creature, possesses absolute and infinite dominion 
 over all the creatures. This dominion is further founded 
 on the numberless benefits which God bestows on his 
 creatures. By virtue of this dominion, God has a right 
 to deal with his creatures as he pleases; nor ought any 
 one of them to complain, if another be preferred to it, or 
 if it be afflicted while another abounds in blessings. 
 This absolute authority was acknowledged by Job, when 
 he said, “The Lord gave, and the Lord hath taken 
 away; blessed be the name of the Lord,” (Job i. 21.) 
 By Eli, when he exclaimed, “It is the Lord, let him do 
 what seemeth him good,” (1 Sam. iii. 18.) And by Da- 
 vid, who says, “I was dumb, because thou didst it,” 
 (Psalm xxxix. 9.) But how far that right is to be ex- 
 tended, it is not our province to determine. 
 
 The scripture teaches us that God is not only omnipo- 
 tent, but also omnipresent. * Heaven is my throne, and 
 earth is my footstool.” * Do not I fill heaven and earth ?" 
 “ Whither shall I go from thy Spirit; whither shall I flee 
 from thy presence? If I ascend up into heaven, thou 
 art there," &c. * Behold the heaven and heaven of hea- 
 vens cannot contain thee." (Isaiah lxvi 1. Jer. xxiii. 
 24. Psalm cxxxix. 7—11. 1 Kings viii. 27.) The last 
 of these passages contains the words of Solomon, when 
 he consecrated the temple; and he spake them, in order 
 that no one might, like the Gentiles (who thought that 
 they could by certain incantations invoke the deity from 
 
OMNIPRESENCE OF GOD. 93 
 
 heaven into their temples,) believe that Solomon himself 
 imagined he could bring down the true God from heaven, 
 to dwell in that house which he had built; therefore that 
 great king, in the very commencement of his prayer, 
 declares that the very heavens cannot contain God. 
 The more rational among the heathens were of the same 
 opinion. Thus Virgil— 
 
 Tre per omnes 
 Terrasque tractusque maris, ccelumque profundum. 
 
 Through heaven, and earth, and ocean’s depth, he throws 
 His influence round, and kindles as he goes. 
 
 Quo fugis, Encelade, quascunque accesseris oras, 
 Sub Jove semper eris. * 
 
 Enceladus, to any country flee— 
 In Jove's dread presence thou wilt always be. 
 
 Xerxes could net allow the deity to be confined to 
 temples made with hands, and avenged this impiety by 
 destroying the temples of the Greeks. Pythagoras de- 
 fined God to be a Being diffused over the whole nature 
 of things ; and Simplicius affirmed, that God was always 
 every where present with all his perfections. In the Ko- 
 ran of Mahomet, it is read, Where three are together, 
 God is the fourth; where there are five, God is the sixth, 
 (and so on). 
 
 The mode in which God is every where present, it 
 does not become us curiously to examine, nor rashly to 
 determine; it is indeed impossible to explain it. The 
 following truths are however certain:—First, that the 
 omnipresence of God is not to be conceived under the 
 idea of any extension or diffusion of the divine essence 
 through all things: for, in this way, God would be con- 
 sidered in the light of a body ; which cannot be allowed, 
 as we have before proved. Secondly, that God is omni- 
 present by virtue of his power, energy, and operation. 
 He is omnipresent in regard to his operation, for he 
 works all in all, giving to all the creatures their being, 
 and preserving them, bestowing on all of them their 
 strength and power of action. Now since he works all 
 this by his power, we say that he is omnipresent by 
 virtue of that power. And as this is not different from 
 the divine essence, we maintain that he is omnipresent 
 in regard to his essence. We do not indeed deny that 
 
94 OF THE ETERNITY AND 
 
 God is very often represented as ascending and descend- 
 ing, approaching and departing; but this does not at all 
 disprove his omnipresence. God approaches and de- 
 scends, when he gives testimonies of his presence; 
 he departs and ascends, when he withdraws and with- 
 holds from men the symbols or signs of his gracious 
 presence. "Z'hirdly, that the omnipresence of God is not 
 unbecoming the divine majesty, as though God could not 
 be in the most impure places, without being contamin- 
 ated; for since he is a Spirit, he cannot be touched by 
 what is corporeal. Fourthly, that the omnipresence of 
 God does not prevent him from being said to be present 
 in a peculiar manner in certain places and persons, 
 where he gives the signs and effects, either of his 
 majesty, his glory, or his grace. Thus, he is said to be 
 in heaven, because in it there is a brighter display of the 
 divine glory, presence, and majesty, whence it is called 
 metaphorically the throne, palace, or sanctuary of God. 
 He is also said to be in heaven, in order that we may 
 form only the greatest and most sublime conceptions of 
 the Deity, and raise our minds in devotion from earthly 
 to heavenly things—from the lower to the higher sphere. 
 Fifthly, that the same God, who fills all things with his 
 presence, and is not confined or limited to any space, 
 who unfolds his glory to angels and saints in heaven, 
 dwells in the faithful on earth by his Spirit, and in the 
 church by his grace; to say nothing of Jesus Christ, in 
 whom, as the scripture teaches us, *dwelleth all the 
 fulness of the Godhead bodily." This omnipresence of 
 God ought to render us sure of his divine assistance in 
 all dangers, and diligent in religion through all our lives, 
 since he is “not far from every one of us,” (Acts xvii. 
 27.) Heis wise, says one, who lives in the world as in a 
 temple, and thinks of God as every where present. 
 
 —_¢— 
 
 CHAPTER VIII. 
 
 OF THE ETERNITY AND OTHER ATTRIBUTES OF GOD. 
 
 Tuar God is a Being who necessarily exists, is evident; 
 for necessary or self-existence belongs to the nature of 
 an all-perfect Being: and if such a Being could be con- 
 
OTHER ATTRIBUTES OF GOD. 95 
 
 ceived, as not possessing such a kind of existence, he 
 would be conceived as one without perfection. Besides, 
 if God is not necessarily existent, it might be that, at 
 some time or other, he did not exist. But if this be 
 granted, an evident impossibility will arise; for God did 
 not then derive his existence from another, since we can 
 have an idea of no being so perfect as God, and there- 
 fore no being could confer on another a perfection which 
 it did not itself possess. Neither could he have derived 
 being from himself, because he did not exist, (as sup- 
 posed ;) he must therefore be self—that is, necessarily— 
 existent. From all this, therefore, results his eternity ; 
 for what necessarily exists, never can have been or can 
 be non-existent, and therefore has neither beginning nor 
 end. Reason itself claims this attribute for God; nor 
 was it unknown even to the heathens. Proclus, a fol- 
 lower of Plato, proved God to be eternal, because he 
 exists of himself. Thales defined God to be a being that 
 is without beginning and end; before all things: and 
 who was never born. But what reason teaches, the 
 scriptures far more clearly point out. Thus, in Psalm 
 cii. 26—28, the Psalmist, comparing the most permanent 
 of all visible things, namely, heaven and earth, shows 
 that they both had a beginning, and will have an end; 
 but that God abideth for ever. * Of old hast thou laid 
 the foundation of the earth, and the heavens are the 
 work of thy hands. They shall perish, but thou shalt 
 endure; yea, all of them shall wax old like a garment ; 
 and as a vesture shalt thou change them, and they shall 
 be changed: but thou art the same, and thy years shall 
 have no end.” ‘Who only hath immortality,” says 
 Paul, (1 Tim. vi. 16.) because he alone is without begin- 
 ning and end. So great is this attribute, that nothing 
 else can share in it. 
 
 Now eternity, properly so called, such as belongs to 
 God, denotes three things—to be without beginning, 
 without end, without succession. In this eternity we 
 cannot conceive of any thing prior or posterior, any 
 thing past, present, or future. No one, indeed, can doubt 
 that God is without beginning and end; but it may be 
 a question, whether no successive duration is applicable 
 to him. We confess that this is incomprehensible to us, 
 who are accustomed to judge of eternity as we do of 
 time, and to ascribe to God what is applicable only to 
 men. Yet there are many reasons which prevent us 
 from ascribing to God any thing like successive dura- 
 
96 OF THE ETERNITY AND 
 
 tion. For duration, properly speaking, respects not the 
 essence of things, but their existence, as far as we con- 
 ceive of existence as something distinct from essence. 
 No one, for example, ever attributed duration to the 
 essence of a triangle. Now eternity has indeed respect 
 to God's existence, but which is in no way different from 
 his essence. For God possesses eternity, seeing that his 
 essence is so perfect as to include existence in it; there- 
 fore it cannot be conceived under the idea of duration. 
 Augustine, on Psalm ci. cii, thus properly speaks:— 
 Eternity is the very essence of God, which has nothing 
 changeable. In it there is nothing past, as though it no 
 longer exists—nothing future, as if it does not yet exist ; 
 in it there is nothing but what 1s, there is no was, there is 
 710 SHALL BE. 
 
 The confused notions which we are apt to form of the 
 duration of God, arise from the weakness of our under- 
 standings, and from our habit of conceiving of God 
 along with the creation, and, after the creation, of the 
 world; and thus attributing to him that which is appli- 
 cable only to those things which exist in time ; whereas 
 we ought to consider God as existing before the crea- 
 tion of the world, and then we shall no more think of 
 ascribing duration to him, than space or situation. We 
 may conceive of eternity as a point around which is de- 
 Scribed the circumference of a circle, and which being 
 itself immovable, bears an equal relation to every part 
 of that cireumference, not having any above or below ; 
 so that it may be said to co-exist with all the three dif- 
 ferences or diversities of time, such as the past, the pre- 
 sent, and the future. 
 
 Besides the eternity of God, we may notice his simpli- 
 city, by which we mean nothing more than the intimate 
 connexion and entire unity of all the attributes of God, 
 and their oneness or identity with the divine essence it- 
 self. This simplicity is thus expressed by Augustine: 
 — Let us conceive of God as good without quality, great 
 without quantity, creative without indigence or need, pre- 
 sent without situation, entirely every where without place, 
 eternal without time, changing every thing without any 
 change of himself. 
 
 From the simplicity of God follows his immutability, 
 which denotes nothing else than such a state of the di- 
 vine essence and attributes, as is not subject to any 
 change. Now this immutability is proved by scripture: 
 “God is not a man, that he should lie; neither the son 
 
OTHER ATTRIBUTES OF GOD. 97 
 
 of man, that he should repent.” (Numb. xxiii. 19.) “I 
 am the Lord, I change not." (Mal. iii. 6.) ** With whom 
 is no variableness, neither shadow of turning." (James 
 i 17.) Besides, that which possesses all perfection, can- 
 not be changed. If God changed, he would do so either 
 for the better, or for the worse, or for something equal. 
 Now he cannot change for the better, because he is the 
 best: neither for the worse,for then he would not pos- 
 sess all perfections, for he would not have tbat by which 
 he could preserve himself from becoming worse; nor 
 can he receive any additional perfections equal to what 
 he has already, otherwise he would not possess all. 
 Therefore, there is no changeableness in God; neither 
 in his essence, his eternity, his understanding, nor his 
 will; not in his essence, for being the first, he cannot be 
 superseded by any prior being; being all-powerful, he 
 cannot be injured by any; being most simple, he can be 
 corrupted by none; being immense, he cannot be in- 
 creased or lessened ; being eternal, he cannot fail. There 
 is no change in his eternity, for where there is no suc- 
 cession, there is no mutation ; neither in his vnderstand- 
 ing, for the knowledge of God is all-perfect; nor in his 
 will, for the will of God is all-wise, to which nothing un- 
 foreseen can happen, so as to compel him to change his 
 intentions for the better. Again, nothing can prevent 
 and resist his will; he does, indeed, will the various 
 changes of things, but his will itself remains unchangea- 
 ble. This immutability of God is the foundation of our 
 faith and hope. 
 
 From all that has been previously said, we conclude 
 that God is an infinite being. To be finite is an imper- 
 fection, and a very great imperfection ; whereas our idea 
 of God must be the idea of a being altogether, and in 
 every sense, perfect. This infinity is diffused through 
 all the divine attributes; his divine nature is infinite— 
 infinite in itself as possessing infinite perfections; his 
 power is infinite, his wisdom, goodness, mercy, &c. are 
 infinite. * Canst thou," says Zophar, “by searching 
 find out God? canst thou find out the Almighty unto 
 perfection? It is high as heaven; what canst thou do? 
 deeper than hell; what canst thou know? The measure 
 thereof is longer than the earth, and broader than the 
 sea.” (Job. xi. 7—-9.) All the arguments, therefore, 
 which prove God to be an all-perfect, prove him to be 
 an infinite Being. 
 
 From these attributes and perfections result the su- 
 
 d 
 
98 OF THE TRINITY. 
 
 preme glory and majesty of God ; which he possesses in 
 himself from eternity; and which he displays to the 
 creatures in time, unfolding and illustrating before them 
 his excellences in his works, as in the creation, the deli- 
 verance of the Israelites, &c., but especially in the send- 
 ing of his Son into the world. This glory the angels 
 celebrate in heaven, and mankind ought to celebrate on 
 earth. All God's attributes are wholly incommunicable 
 to the creatures; yet there are traces of some of them in 
 the creatures, which therefore are improperly termed by 
 the schoolmen communicable. And thus far concerning 
 the divine attributes. 
 
 CHAPTER IX. 
 OF THE TRINITY. 
 
 In the preceding chapters we set forth the unity of God, 
 and his principal attributes ; we must now observe that 
 the scripture expressly mentions three persons to whom 
 the divine nature is ascribed, namely, the Father, the 
 Son, and the Holy Ghost. Of these three the scripture 
 speaks unitedly in various places; for not to mention 
 the baptism of Christ, in which the Father revealed him- 
 self by the voice that was heard ; the Son, who was the 
 subject of the divine oracle, was seen; and the Holy 
 Ghost descended in the shape of a dove: the following 
 passages are well known: * Go ye, and teach all na- 
 tions, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of 
 the Son, and of the Holy Ghost. (Matt. xxviii. 19.) 
 “The grace of our Lord Jesus Christ, and the love of 
 God, and the communion of the Holy Ghost, be with you 
 all" (2 Cor. xiii. 14.) See also John xiv. 16; 1 Cor. 
 xii 3; Gal. iv. 6. So also in Rev. i. 4, 5, John seeks 
 grace “ from him which is, and which was, and which is 
 to come," namely, from the Father, and *from the sev- 
 en spirits," namely, from the Holy Ghost, (so called on 
 account of his manifold gifts, and with an allusion also 
 to the seven churches of Asia,) and * from Jesus Christ, 
 the faithful witness, &c." And not only in the New 
 
OF THE TRINITY. 99 
 
 Testament is there mention made of these three united- 
 ly, but in the Old Testament also. *I will mention the 
 loving-kindnesses of the Lord, &c., for he said, Surely 
 they are my people,” &c., (this is said of the Father.) 
 The angel of his presence saved them; in his love and 
 in his pity he redeemed them, &c., (this concerning the 
 Son.) But they rebelled, and vexed his Holy Spirit, 
 (this concerning the Spirit.) (Isaiah lxiii. 7—10.) “The 
 Spirit of the Lord God is upon me (the Son), because the 
 Lord hath anointed me (by his Spirit) to preach the gos- 
 pel to the poor." (Isaiah lxi. 1.) Nor must we omit 
 those passages in which the plurality of persons appears 
 to be pointed out, such as * Let us make man in our 
 image.” “Behold the man is become as one of us." 
 * Go to, let us go down, and confound their language." 
 (Gen. xi. 7.) 
 
 Concerning these three persons we must remark, that 
 they are distinct from each other, as is evident from the 
 passages already quoted, and many others; thus Psalm 
 ex. 1, “The Lord said unto my Lord, Sit thou at my 
 right hand." Here the Lord who speaks is distingülsh- 
 ed from the Lord who is spoken to. So also John xv. 
 26, * when the Comforter is come, whom I will send 
 unto you from the Father, even the Spirit of truth, which 
 proceedeth from the Father, he shall testify of me." 
 Here the Comforter, or Spirit, is plainly distinct from 
 the Father and the Son. Again, they are so distinguish- 
 ed, that some things are said of the Father which cannot 
 be said of the Son, and some things of the Son which 
 are no where said of the Spirit. 'The Father is said to 
 have begotten the Son; but the Son is no where said to 
 send the Father. The Spirit is said to proceed from the 
 Father, and to be sent by the Son; but no where is the 
 Father said to proceed from, nor the Son to be sent by, 
 the Spirit. Yet are these persons distinct in such a 
 manner, that they are not three Gods but one God; for 
 the scripture every where proves, and reason confirms, 
 the unity of the Godhead. "There are, therefore, three 
 persons in one divine essence ; and this is clearly estab- 
 lished by the passage in 1 John v. 7, which is brought 
 forward and quoted by Cyprian, although not read in 
 many copies. A far greater number of reasons can be 
 alleged why this passage should be said to have been 
 struck out by heretics, than to have been inserted by 
 the orthodox. It was more to the advantage of heretics 
 to suppress this passage, than to that of the orthodox to 
 
100 OF THE TRINITY. 
 
 add it, because, if it were genuine, the heresy of the for- 
 mer would be entirely overthrown; if spurious, the or- 
 thodox creed was in no danger, being clearly established 
 from other passages of scripture. ‘The connection also 
 of the text confirms our opinion ; for unless this verse 
 be admitted, there seems no reason why John should 
 say, “ There are three that bear witness Zn earth,” not 
 having before said any thing of *three witnesses in 
 heaven.” Nor can it be objected that these words in 
 earth, were also added afterwards, for the contrary ap- 
 pears from verse 9, where mention is made both of the 
 divine and the human testimony, * If we receive the wit- 
 ness of men, the witness of God is greater." 
 
 This mystery of three in one, is called the mystery of 
 the Trinity, a word not expressly written in the scrip- 
 tures, but wisely invented, and advantageously used, for 
 the purpose of exposing the shifts and subterfuges of 
 crafty heretics, just as other words have been invented 
 and used, such as $yosco; (of the same essence), scia 
 (essence), éxápus (subsistence), &c. Concerning this 
 mystery we must inquire soberly, and speak modestly, 
 since the human mind cannot conceive, nor mortal 
 tongue express, the greatness of it; and, therefore, we 
 can have nothing todo with the unbridled audacity of 
 the vain and speculating schoolmen, who, by their plau- 
 sible and dangerous subtleties, have given room for the 
 introduction of various heresies. We may examine 
 things revealed, but not rashly pry into secret things, 
 lest as Prosper remarks, we should be convicted of un- 
 lawful curiosity in the latter, and of blamable negli- 
 gence in the former. Distinguished men, both in this 
 and in former ages, have attempted to render this mys- 
 tery plain by many examples. I admire their ingenuity, 
 united as it is with an ardent desire for the promotion 
 of Christian truth; while I read what they have written, 
 my mind is captivated both by their ingenuity and'by 
 their elegance; but when these attractions of learning 
 and eloquence are removed and the mind is brought 
 down to a little closer consideration of the subject, all 
 that they have advanced is, in a great measure, forgot- 
 ten. But although this mystery is incomprehensible to 
 mortals, it must not be rejected by us: for it is not 
 strange that finite beings, such as we are, should not 
 perfectly comprehend the nature of an infinite Being. 
 It is enough to have proved from the scriptures these 
 two points, that there is one God, and that the Godhead 
 
OF GOD THE FATHER. 101 
 
 js ascribed to tree persons, distinct from each other. The 
 latter we have begun to prove, and shall prove still 
 further. But to assist our understanding on this subject, 
 we may observe that the divine essence is infinite; also, 
 that we do not comprehend how this essence is common 
 to three persons, for this reason,—because we judge of 
 the divine essence as we do of a finite essence, which 
 cannot subsist in more than one. Further, that the 
 divine essence subsisting in a plurality of persons, arises 
 from the Infinite nature of Deity, but that these persons 
 are no more than three, is only known from revelation. 
 Gregory Nazianzen excellently remarks on this subject, 
 I cannot attempt to think of one, but I am instantly sur- 
 rounded with the splendour of three; I cannot attempt to 
 distribute the three, but I am instantly carried back to 
 the idea of one. These three, in whom the divine 
 essence subsists, are called persons, which is the term 
 we shall make use of in the ensuing pages; we confess, 
 indeed, that it is not so appropriate, but for want of other 
 terms, we are compelled to adopt this, in common with 
 the whole Christian church. 
 
 CHAPTER X. 
 OF GOD THE FATHER. 
 
 Havine proved that the divine nature is in scripture at- 
 tributed to three persons, the Father, the Son, and the 
 Holy Ghost, we must now treat of these persons sepa- 
 rately. To begin with the Father, we need only make 
 these three observations :—1. That the Father is in gene- 
 ral mentioned by the sacred writers before the Son and 
 Holy Spirit; (see Matt. xxviii. 19; 1 John v. 7,) not be- 
 cause he is anterior tothe Son and Spirit in age or time, 
 for eternity belongs equally to the three; nor because he 
 excels the others in dignity, for the three adorable per- 
 sons possess the same majesty, glory, power ; in short, 
 the same perfections: but he is placed first, because he 
 is represented as begetting the Son, and as sending the 
 Holy Spirit, 2. We "EN mE we never read of the 
 * 
 
102 OF GOD THE SON. 
 
 Father that he was begotten or sent by any other: on 
 the contrary the Sen is said to be begotten by him, and 
 the Holy Ghost to proceed from him; nor is he any 
 where said to work by the power of another, as the Son 
 is said to do nothing of himself. (John v. 19.) The 
 Father in the work of salvation is considered as the 
 supreme Judge, who directs all things, who requires 
 satisfaction, who receives it from the Surety, and who, 
 to sum up all in a word, maintains the majesty of God- 
 head, for which reason he is sometimes called God in 
 contradistinction from the Son or the Spirit. We add 
 no more; neither is it necessary to show that all divine 
 attributes belong to him, for this has been already suffi- 
 ciently proved. I will only add that he is here called the 
 Father,not in reference to creation, by which we are 
 all “his offspring," (Acts xvii. 28,) or to adoption in 
 Christ, (Eph. i. 5,) but in reference to that extraordinary 
 relation which he bears to the second person in the 
 Trinity. 
 
 CHAPTER XI. 
 OF GOD THE SON. 
 
 Havine spoken of the Father, we must now speak of the 
 Son, i. e. of Christ, who in the fulness of time assumed 
 human nature; and here we have to prove three things: 
 —That he is God; that he is equal with the Father ; 
 that he is begotten of the Father. With respect to the 
 first, viz. that Jesus Christ is God, it will not be difficult 
 to proveit. And first of all we remark, that he is called 
 God in numberless passages of scripture. **'The Word, 
 i. e. the Son, was God." (John i. 1.) To understand this 
 to mean a kind of subordinate and created God is ab- 
 surd, since it is not to be believed that John, in the very 
 first words of his history, would have used the name of 
 God improperly, without adding any explication, and 
 thus have led the faithful into the most dangerous error 
 of believing the Word to be the true God when he was 
 not so. Again: Thomas, addressing Christ, exclaimed, 
 
OF GOD THE SON. 103 
 
 * My Lord, and my God," (John xx. 28.) The Son is 
 called “God manifest in the flesh," (1 Tim. iii. 16.) ** Over 
 all, God blessed for ever," (Rom. ix. 5.) Here the context 
 does not admit of these words being referred to the 
 Father, but to Christ; who * came from the fathers, as 
 concerning the flesh," and who, as concerning his divine 
 nature, is “God blessed for ever.” He is called “ Our 
 great God and Saviour Jesus Christ,"* (Titus ii. 13.) 
 “The true God, and eternal life.” (1 John v. 20.) And 
 in Heb. i. 8, the apostle thus speaks, “Unto the Son 
 he saith, Thy throne, O God, is for ever and ever; a 
 sceptre of righteousness is the sceptre of thy kingdom.” 
 Again: he is called Jehovah, or Lord; for that which is 
 read in Numb. xiv. 22, of the Israelites tempting Jeho- 
 vah, is applied to Christ, by St. Paul, 1 Cor. x. 9, saying, 
 “Neither let us tempt Christ, as some of them also 
 tempted, and were destroyed of serpents.” And not only 
 is he called * The Lord,” but “ The Lord our Righteous- 
 ness,” (Jer. xxiii. 6). We must observe that the name 
 of God is not so given to any angels or men, as in the 
 above passages it is given to Christ. 
 
 Not only is he called God, but all the attributes of 
 deity belong to him, . Eternity is ascribed to him, for he 
 is not merely said to have been * before Abraham was,” 
 (John viii. 58,) nor merely to “have been in the begin- 
 ning," (John i. 1,) but before all the works of God: for 
 thus speaks eternal Wisdom, which is the same as the 
 Son, * The Lord possessed me in the beginning of his 
 ways, before his works of old. I was set up from ever- 
 lasting, from the beginning, or ever the earth was, when 
 there were no depths," &c. (Prov. viii. 22, 23,24.) For 
 in no other way is eternity described in scripture, as 
 may be seen from Psalm xc. 2; xciii. 2; ciii. 17.) And 
 that Wisdom in the above passage is the Son of God, 
 will appear to any one who considers, that nothing is 
 said of this Wisdom, which is not elsewhere said of 
 Christ; and that if only a divine a£tribute were here in- 
 troduced speaking, there was no need to declare its 
 eternity in so many words. For no one can doubt the 
 eternity of God's wisdom, any more than the eternity of 
 God himself. Nor would a being deserve the name of 
 God, who could have been at any time without wisdom; 
 or even if it were necessary that wisdom should so 
 laboriously and carefully establish its own eternity, there 
 
 * This is the proper rendering of the original re peyddov cod xàt Zer- 
 Xpos jay, not as it is in our version. 
 
104 OF GOD THE SON. 
 
 appears no reason why it should so distinguish itself 
 from God, as to glory in having been “ brought up with 
 him,” and to rejoice and exult in having been * daily his 
 delight rejoicing always before him.” 
 
 Christ’s Omnipresence is proved from Matt. xviii. 20, 
 * Where two or three are gathered together in my name, 
 there am I in the midst of them." (Matt. xxviii. 20.) 
 *Lo,Iam with you alway, even unto the end of the 
 world.". To which we may add, (John iii. 13,) where 
 Christ speaking on earth, declares that he is in heaven. 
 * No man hath ascended up to heaven, but he that came 
 down from heaven, even the Son of man, which is in 
 heaven." His omnipotence is proved from Rev. i. 8, 
 where he is called *the Almighty;" from John v. 19, 
 where it is said, * What things soever he doeth, these 
 also doeth the Son likewise;" and Phil. iii. 21, where 
 Christ is said “to be able to subdue all things to him- 
 self;" but there are further proofs from the cireumstance 
 of divine works being also ascribed to him. His omni- 
 science appears from John xxi. 17, * Lord, thou knowest 
 all things;" and from Rev. ii. 23, * All the churches shall 
 know that I am he which searcheth the reins and the 
 hearts.” His immutability is clear from Heb. i. 11, 12, 
 “ They (the heavens) shall perish, but thou remainest. 
 Thou art the same, and thy years shall not fail" It is 
 equally easy to prove the same of other attributes. It 
 is, then, enough to establish the deity of Christ, that the 
 names of God, and divine attributes, are given to him; 
 such as Creation, (Heb. i. 10,) “Thou, Lord, in the be- 
 ginning hast laid the foundation of the earth, and the 
 heavens are the works of thine hands;" which passage 
 no person in his senses will understand as referring to 
 the new creation. Again: “All things were made by 
 him; and without him was not any thing made that was 
 made,” (John i. 3.) “By him were all things created, 
 that are in heaven, and that are in earth, visible and in- 
 visible. All things were created by him, and for him.” 
 (Col. i. 16.) Again: the works of preservation and go- 
 vernment are ascribed to him, when he is said to “ uphold 
 all things by the word of his power;" (Heb. i. 3,) which 
 also is proved from his power in working miracles. No 
 one will deny that the work of redemption is attributed 
 to him, (Acts xx. 28,) also remission of sins, sanctifica- 
 tion, the sending of the Holy Ghost, the giving of eternal 
 life, the judgment of the world, and the raising of the 
 dead. (Matt. ix. 6; Eph. v. 26; John xv. 26; John x. 
 
OF GOD THE SON. 105 
 
 28; John v.22; Acts xvii. 31; John v. 21.) The build- 
 ing of the church is attributed to him, in Heb. iii. 4, from 
 which passage the deity of Christ is indisputably estab- 
 lished; for after the sacred writer had said that Christ 
 * was counted worthy of more glory than Moses, inas- 
 much as he who hath builded the house hath more 
 honour than the house,” he adds, “for every house is 
 builded by some man; but he that built all things is 
 God.” 
 
 To these arguments we may add another, derived 
 from that religious worship which is due to God only, 
 and which is yet paid to Christ. 1. We are commanded 
 to believein him. * Ye believe in God, believe also in 
 me.” 2. To hope and trust in him. * Kiss the Son: 
 blessed are all they that put their trust in him.” “There 
 shall be a root of Jesse, and he that shall rise to reign 
 over the Gentiles, in him shall the Gentiles trust." (Rom. 
 xv. 12; Isaiah xi. 10.) And this is the more worthy of 
 remark, because he is pronounced accursed, who “ trust- 
 ethin man. (Jer. xvii. 5.) 3. Angels are commanded 
 to worship him, (Heb. i. 6,) which passage is particu- 
 larly to be noted, because it is a quotation from Psalm 
 xcvii 7, where this worship is claimed for *the Lord, 
 who reigneth.” Every knee is commanded “to bow” 
 to him, (Phil. ii. 10) The apostles seek “Grace and 
 peace" from him as well as from the Father, (Rom. i. 7; 
 1 Cor.i. 3; Rev. i. 4,5.) The faithful are described as 
 those who call on the name of Christ, (Acts ix. 14; 1 
 Cor. i. 2,) and “ every creature” is introduced as ascrib- 
 ing “ Honour, glory, and power unto the Lamb,” (Rev. 
 v. 13.) From all that has been said, therefore, it is plain 
 that Christ is God ; and this cannot be denied without 
 the greatest impiety; for, as we ought to take care not 
 to call any being God, who is not God, so, on the con- 
 trary, we cannot, without the greatest crime, deny the 
 name and honour of God to a being, to whom the scrip- 
 ture gives the divine name and perfections; and so 
 much the less can this be denied, because, since God 
 *giveth not his glory to another," as he declares by 
 Isaiah, it is impossible that he should not be the true 
 God, to whom are ascribed the name, the attributes, and 
 the works of God, in which his glory consists. Let this 
 putt then be firmly fixed in our minds, that Christ is 
 God. 
 
 All the arguments which prove Christ to be truly God, 
 prove him to be the supreme God, and equal with the 
 
106 OF GOD THE SON. 
 
 Father. For to suppose two Gods, one of whom is inferior 
 to the other, is to be totally ignorant what God is. For the 
 idea of God is the idea of a Being who has none greater, 
 more powerful, more perfect, than himself But in order 
 that this truth may be placed beyond all doubt, we shall 
 confirm it by six or seven arguments. The first of these is 
 derived from Phil. ii. 6, where the holy apostle says of 
 Christ, that * being in the form of God, he thought it not 
 robbery to be equal with God." What can be spoken 
 more plainly? Is it likely that Paul would have broken 
 forth into these expressions, if Christ had not been the 
 true and supreme God? The second argument is founded 
 on John x. 30, * 1 and my Father are one.” This passage 
 cannot be explained of a unity of consent or will, for 
 Christ thus speaks, to prove that none can pluck his 
 sheep out of his hand, seeing he was one with the Father, 
 whose power, he says, is so great that no one can pluck 
 these sheep out of his hand. He means, therefore, to 
 prove that his own power is not less than that of his 
 Father, because he was one with him in essence; and in 
 this sense the Jews understood him, for they attempted 
 to stone him, because he made himself God. The third 
 argument is derived from Isaiah vi, compared with John 
 xii. 39, 40, 41. No one will venture to deny that Isaiah 
 there speaks of the supreme God, whom he saw * sitting 
 upon a throne, high, and lifted up; the seraphims stand- 
 ing and crying, Holy, Holy, Holy, is the Lord of Hosts; 
 the whole earth is full of his glory." But John, in the 
 passage above cited, expressly declares, that Isaiah then 
 saw the glory of Christ. Christ therefore must be the 
 supreme God. The fourth argument is taken from 
 Isaiah xlv. 22, 23, compared with Rom. xiv.10. No one 
 will deny that the prophet is speaking of God, * Look 
 unto me, and be ye saved, all the ends of the earth ; for 
 I am God, and there is none else. I have sworn by my- 
 self, the word is gone out of my mouth in righteousness, 
 and shall not return, that unto me every knee shall bow, 
 every tongue shall swear." But the apostle applies this 
 to Christ—* We shall all,” he says, “stand before the 
 judgment-seat of Christ. For it is written, As I live, 
 saith the Lord, every knee shall bow to me, and every 
 tongue shall confess to God." The fifth argument is 
 from Isaiah liv. 5, where God thus addresses his church, 
 “Thy Maker is thy Husband, the Lord of Hosts is his 
 name; and thy Redeemer, the Holy One of Israel; the 
 God of the whole earth, shall he be called.” Now who 
 
OF GOD THE SON. 107 
 
 will deny that through the whole of the New Testament, 
 Christ is described as the Bridegroom, and the Redeemer 
 of the Church? The sixth argument is drawn from 
 Psalm xcvii. 7, compared with Heb. i. 6, * Worship him, 
 all ye gods,” which words the Psalmist speaks on behalf 
 of the supreme God, since he says, in verse 1, * The 
 Lord reigneth, let the earth rejoice.” But the writer of 
 the epistle asserts that these words were spoken con- 
 cerning the Son. “Again, when he bringeth the first-be- 
 gotten into the world, he saith, And let all the angels 
 of God worship him." The seventh argument is founded 
 on Zech. xii. 10, *'T'hey shall look upon me whom they 
 have pierced." Compare this with John xix. 37, and 
 Rev. i. 7. Now that Zechariah speaks of the supreme 
 God, no one will doubt, who hears the first words of the 
 chapter—“ The burden of the word of the Lord, which 
 stretcheth forth the heavens, and layeth the foundation 
 of the earth, and formeth the spirit of man within him." 
 
 It would be easy to bring forward other proofs, as 
 Heb. i. 10, compared with Psalm cii. 26, and Rev. ii. 23, 
 compared with Jer. xi. 20: xvii. 10; but what have been 
 adduced are sufficient to prove, that Christ is the su- 
 preme God, and not inferior to the Father. But if any- 
 thing is said concerning the Father, which is not said 
 concerning the Son, as when the Father is said to beget 
 the Son, this only proves that there is a distinction be- 
 tween the Father and the Son, and not that the Father 
 is greater than the Son. Again, if the Son is said in any 
 passage to be inferior to the Father, and to work by the 
 power of the Father, such passage only shows that there 
 is something in Christ besides the divine nature, viz. the 
 human nature, according to which he is inferior to the 
 Father, and also that there is a certain order of opera- 
 tion between the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, and a 
 kind of economy ; but it by no means proves that Christ, 
 as God, is inferior to the Father. 
 
 But not only does the scripture teach us, that the Son 
 is God, and the supreme God, but also declares that he 
 is begotten of the Father. “The Lord hath said unto 
 me, Thou art my Son; this day have I begotten thee." 
 (Psalm ii. 7.) In Prov. viii. 24, 25, Wisdom declares 
 that she * was brought forth," for so the Hebrew word is 
 properly rendered, and so also the Septuagint renders it. 
 And this is the true reason why the Son of God is said 
 to be “the only begotten,” (John i. 14.) “his own Son,” 
 (Rom. viii. 32:) nay, he is so called the Son of God, that 
 
108 OF GOD THE SON. 
 
 to none of the angels was such a name ever given, as 
 the apostle declares, (Heb. i. 5,) and in this manner he is 
 distinguished from others, who in the scripture are called 
 sons of God, either by creation, or by adoption. This 
 generation no mortal can comprehend; in fact we do 
 not understand by the term anything else, than that the 
 Father from all eternity shared his name, his perfections, 
 and his glory, with the Son. But in what way this com- 
 munication took place,let no one ask us,for we are 
 ignorant of it, and are not ashamed to confess our igno- 
 rance. For we may be allowed to be ignorant of what 
 we cannot possibly know. It is justly said by Cyril, 
 Believe that God has a Son, but in what way be not curi- 
 ous to know ; for though you seek, you will not find; do 
 not therefore lift yourself up, lest you fall: what is com- 
 manded or revealed, that only seek to understand. 
 
 All that we have to observe on this subject is, that 
 Christ was begotten from eternity, as is shown in Prov. 
 viii. 25, where Wisdom declares herself to have been 
 “brought forth before the mountains were settled,” that 
 is, “from eternity," which is confirmed by Mic. v. 2, 
 * Out of thee shall he come forth unto me, that is to be 
 ruler in Israel; whose goings forth have been from of 
 old, from everlasting.” It is also proved by all those 
 passages which prove Christ to be God, since God is 
 eternal. Christ is not therefore called the Son, either on 
 account of his conception by the Holy Ghost, or his ap- 
 pointment to the mediatorial office, or his resurrection 
 from the dead, or his exaltation to the Father's right 
 hand; these are not the reasons on account of which he 
 is called the Son of God, although we may from these 
 infer that he was so. Hence Paul says, that he was “ de- 
 clared to be the Son of God by the resurrection from the 
 dead.” (Rom.i.4. For Christ existed long before he 
 was born of a virgin, and is the supreme God, as we 
 have already proved: but especially consult Heb. iii. 6, 
 where the apostle teaches us, that Christ was the Son of 
 God, as God, since he says that “Christ as a son, was 
 over his own house,” having previously said, (verse 3,) 
 that he had “builded the house," and (verse 4,) that 
 *he who built all things was God." He is therefore 
 called the Son of God, because begotten of the Father, 
 and because, *as the Father hath life in himself, so hath 
 he given to the Son to have life in himself" (John v. 26.) 
 We must observe also that the mode of this generation 
 is not to be estimated by the laws of human nativity, or 
 
OF THE HOLY GHOST. 109 
 
 of any created thing, for not so wide is the heaven from 
 the earth, as the generation of the Son is from other 
 generations; for in this divine generation the Father is 
 not older than the Son, nor the Son younger than the 
 Father; both are eternal, and this generation took place 
 without any change. Here the understanding not only 
 of men, but of angels, is at a loss; here we must lay our 
 hands upon our lips, and be silent. 
 
 CHAPTER XII. 
 OF THE HOLY GHOST. 
 
 Concrrnine the Holy Ghost we have to inquire, what 
 He is, whether a mere power of God, or really a person 
 distinct from the Father and the Son—whether He is 
 God—from whom He proceeds—why He is called the 
 Spirit, and the Holy Spirit? To begin with the first in- 
 quiry, it is easy to show that the Holy Ghost is a person 
 subsisting distinct from the Father and the Son; and 
 this is proved by all those passages in which he is ex- 
 pressly distinguished from them, as John xiv. 16, “I will 
 pray the Father, and he shall give you another Comforter, 
 that he may abide with you for ever ;” and John xvi. 13, 
 * When he, the Spirit of truth, is come, he shall guide 
 you into all truth; for he shall not speak of himself,” &c. 
 Who can believe that these words are spoken of a mere 
 power, and not a person? So also Matt. xxviii. 19, 
 where the disciples are commanded to baptize in the 
 name of the Father, Son, and Spirit, no one will surely 
 say that any man can be baptized in the name of a mere 
 power or virtue. So also those passages in which we 
 are commanded not to “ grieve the Holy Spirit," as Eph. 
 iv. 90, which cannot be said, except of a person ; and 
 those also in which men are said to sin against the Holy 
 Ghost; and especially that passage in which the sin 
 against the Holy Spirit is distinguished from the sin 
 against the Father and the Son, as Matt. xii. 31, 32, —for 
 he against whom men thus sin, must be a person, yea, a 
 divine person. We may also bring forward those pass- 
 10 
 
- 3 » 
 110 OF THE HOLY GHOST. 
 
 ages in which the Spirit is distinguished from his gifts 
 and operations, as 1 Cor. xii. 4, * and there are diversi- 
 ties of gifts, but the same Spirit." Moreover, after the 
 apostle had said that *to one is given the word of wis- 
 dom, to another the word of knowledge, the gifts of heal- 
 ing," &c. he adds in verse 11, * But all these worketh 
 that one and the self-same Spirit, dividing to every man 
 severally as he will.” And this argument is the more 
 cogent, because the apostle distinguishes the Holy Spirit ~ 
 from his operations, in the same way in which he dis- 
 tinguishes the “ differences of ministrations” from “ the 
 Lord,” and the “ diversities of operations” from * God," 
 (verse 5, 6. To which we may add those passages, in 
 which the Spirit is represented as descending in the 
 shape of a dove, or of divided tongues. For only per- 
 sons, and not virtues, or accidents,can assume visible 
 appearances or forms of this kind. We conclude there- 
 fore, that the Holy Spirit is a person subsisting distinctly 
 from the Father and the Son, although some things may 
 be attributed to him, which do not seem to agree with 
 the idea of a person; but then we are to understand 
 such things as referring to his gifts. 
 
 Now the same arguments which prove the deity of the 
 Son, might easily prove the deity of the Spirit; but to 
 be brief, we will bring forward five only. The first we 
 shall take from Isaiah vi. 9, 10, compared with Acts 
 xxviii. 25, 26, for in the Acts, Paul shows that Isaiah is 
 speaking of the Holy Ghost, * Well spake the Holy Ghost 
 by Esaias the prophet unto our fathers." But we have 
 proved in the former chapter that Isaiah is speaking of 
 the supreme God, the same as the Son, of whom also it 
 is said Isaiah speaks, (John xii. 41.) The second argu- 
 ment is from Acts v. 3, 4, where Ananias, whom Peter 
 declares to have “lied to the Holy Ghost,” is said also to 
 have *lied unto God." The third argument is derived 
 from 1 Cor. iii. 16, and vi. 19, where believers are called 
 “the temple ofthe Holy Spirit.” Now a temple is the 
 residence of God only. Jf, says Augustine, we were 
 commanded to build a temple of wood and stone to the 
 Holy Ghost, this would be a plain proof of his divinity, 
 because this act of worship is due to God alone; how 
 much plainer then is the proof of it, that we are not to 
 build a temple to him, but to be ourselves his temple? 
 
 The fourth argument is derived from Matt. xxviii. 19, 
 already so often quoted; for not only does this passage 
 prove the Spirit to be a person, but also a divine person. 
 
OF THE HOLY GHOST. 111 
 
 For he, in whose name we are baptized, is considered 
 as the author of the covenant of grace; who has autho- 
 rity to institute sacraments for the sealing of that cove- 
 nant; who can promise and give grace; and whom 
 those that are admitted into the covenant are bound to 
 worship and serve; none of which can be said of any 
 created thing. We allow, indeed, that the Israelites 
 _were said to be “baptized unto Moses;” but this isa 
 
 very different thing, for it only means that the Israelites 
 were in a solemn form, admitted to the profession of the 
 religion and worship revealed through Moses, and were 
 initiated into his doctrine, when they were under the 
 cloud, and in the sea; for that continuing under the 
 cloud, and passage through the sea, are here called by 
 the name of baptism. To this passage may be added 
 those in which the apostles wish grace and peace, and 
 other blessings, from the Spirit, no less than from the 
 Father and the Son, as 2 Cor. xiii. 14. Rev. i. 4. 
 
 The fifth argument is taken from those passages in 
 which the attributes of God are ascribed to the Spirit, as 
 omnipresence, * Whither shall I go from thy spirit?” &c. 
 (Psalm cxxxix. 7, 8)—omniscience, “The Spirit search- 
 eth all things, yea, the deep things of God,” (1 Cor. ii. 
 10.) Divine works are also attributed to him, as the 
 conception of Christ, (Luke i. 35,) the working of mira- 
 cles, (Matt. xii. 28. 1 Cor. xii. 4—6,) the government of 
 the church, and the sending of ministers, “The Holy 
 Ghost said, Separate me Barnabas and Saul for the work 
 whereunto I have called them." * Take heed to all the 
 flock, over which the Holy Ghost hath made you over- 
 seers.” (Acts xiii. 2; xx. 28.) So also our ?//umination, 
 sanctification, and the raising up of our bodies, and other 
 works which we need not mention. We must not, how- 
 ever, omit to say, that the scripture very seldom men- 
 tions the adoration and invocation of the Spirit, because, 
 in the economy of grace, the Holy Spirit is generally 
 regarded as the author of the petitions we address to 
 God, but not so as to be less an object of divine worship 
 than the Father and the Son. 
 
 We must now say something concerning the proces- 
 sion of the Holy Ghost. The passage in John xv. 26, 
 shows that he proceeds from the Father. * When the 
 Comforter is come, even the Spirit of truth which pro- 
 ceedeth from the Father." Again, that he proceeds from 
 the Son, is proved by those passages in which he is re- 
 presented as being sent by the Son as well as by the 
 
LE 
 112 OF THE HOLY GHOST. 
 
 Father: he is also called the Spirit of the Son. (See John 
 xvi 7. Rom. viii 9. Gal iv. 6.) 'This procession is 
 quite different from generation; for the Holy Spirit is 
 always said to proceed from, and never to have been 
 begotten by, the Father; nor is he ever called £he image 
 of God. But we must not curiously inquire into the 
 nature of this difference; let us guard against the un- - 
 bridled and unsuccessful boldness of the schoolmen, who 
 attempt to explain it. We may only observe concern- 
 ing the term Spirit, by which the Third Person of the 
 Trinity is called, that it is difficult to find the true reason 
 ofthis appellation. It is not likely that he is called so to 
 express his nature, which is quite different from the na- 
 ture of bodies, for the nature of the Father and the Son 
 is equally spiritual. Some think he is so called, because 
 he proceeds from God in a way of breathing, but this is 
 to explain what is obscure by what is still more obscure. 
 Perhaps he receives this name, because this adorable 
 Person is set forth to us as *the Power of the Highest," 
 even that power by which the Father performs every 
 thing which he has decreed in his wisdom. For it is 
 almost always the custom, in every class of things, to 
 attribute the power of self-motion and the power of 
 moving other things to some spirit. Wedecide nothing 
 on the subject. We may add a word or two on the epi- 
 thet Holy, which is given to the Spirit, so that he is called 
 the Holy Spirit. Now he is thus called, not only on 
 account of his unsullied purity and glorious majesty (for 
 even the heathens represented majesty by the term holi- 
 ness,) as though he were holier than the Father and the 
 Son; for holiness is equally ascribed to the Three Per- 
 sons, (Isaiah vi. 3,) and the divine holiness, being infi- 
 nite, does not admit of degrees,—but because, in the 
 order of the divine operations, the sanctification of be- 
 lievers is usually attributed to him, as election is to the 
 Father, and redemption to the Son. And now we have 
 said enough of the sacred mystery of the Trinity. 
 
CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY. 
 
 BOOK THE THIRD. 
 
 - ^. 
 
 OF THE CREATION AND PROVIDENCE OF GOD. 
 
 —$.9—— 
 
 CHAPTER I. 
 
 OF THE DIVINE DECREES. 
 
 Havine spoken of the Being and Attributes of God, order 
 requires that we should speak of his works, and first, of 
 those internal operations which are called Decrees, and 
 which precede the external works of God. Now by the 
 term decree we understand a fixed and unchangeable 
 purpose in the mind of God, concerning that which he 
 will do or permit to be done. That such decree exists, 
 is evident from scripture, which is accustomed, in ex- 
 pressing this decree, to use sometimes the word counsel, 
 as Eph. i. 11, * He worketh all things after the counsel 
 of his own will." “My counsel shall stand,” (Isaiah 
 xlvi. 10.) Sometimes the words, purpose, (Rom. viii. 
 28;) good pleasure, (Eph. i. 5, 9. Matt. xi. 26;) predesti- 
 nation, (Rom. viii. 29;) foreknowledge, (Rom. viii. 29.) 
 It is evident also, from the entire perfection of God, which 
 does not allow that any thing should be done without 
 his will; and indeed from his complete knowledge, by 
 which he knew from eternity, not only every thing that 
 could, but also every thing that would, take place. Now 
 he could not certainly know what would come to pass, 
 if he had not decreed it. This was not unknown to the 
 very heathens. Hence Marcus Antoninus said, That this 
 should happen to thee was fore-ordained from eternity. 
 And Curtius has these monde: Although they may at- 
 10* 113 
 
114 OF THE DIVINE DECREES. 
 
 tempt to elude the argument, who think that human af- 
 fairs are directed and governed by chance, yet I main- 
 tain that, by an eternal appointment, and by the connex- 
 ion of secret causes long before ordained, every event has 
 its own order, according to an immutable law. Now 
 decrees are not to be attributed to God in the same sense 
 in which they are to men, who require deliberation pre- 
 vious to action, and whose will is often doubtful and 
 changeable; but they are attributed to Godin sucha 
 way, that all his works may appear to be full of wisdom, 
 and nothing to be done without his knowledge and will. 
 
 That these decrees are eternal, is proved from scrip- 
 ture: “ According as he hath chosen us in him before 
 the foundation of the world.” ‘ Who hath saved us ac- 
 cording to his own purpose and grace, which was given 
 us in Christ Jesus before the world began," (Eph. i. 4. 
 2'lim.i 9. And Paul also speaks of the “ hidden wis- 
 dom, which God ordained before the world, for our 
 glory :" (1 Cor. ii. 7); for by all these expressions eter- 
 nity is designed. Besides, it would be unworthy of an 
 all-wise and omniscient Being to make decrees only in 
 time, according as circumstances might arise. The idea 
 we have of God, as an all-wise Being, does not permit us 
 to doubt that these decrees also are most wise; and this 
 the scripture teaches—** O the depth of the riches, both 
 of the wisdom and knowledge of God," (Rom. xi. 33). 
 They are also most free or independent — * Even so, 
 Father, for so it seemed good in thy sight," (Matt. xi. 
 26.) This is evident from the consideration, that, in 
 whatever God does, he is influenced by none but him- 
 self, which is the highest degree of liberty. They are 
 also unchangeable, which the scripture likewise teaches 
 —* My counsel shall stand," (Isaiah xlvi. 10.) The rea- 
 son why men alter their determinations, is either igno- 
 rance, or impotence, or wickedness, or instability, but 
 none of these can be attributed to God. God does in- 
 deed sometimes destroy what he has made; but this 
 does not take place as if he bad altered his decree, for 
 the same Being who had decreed to make, had decreed 
 also to destroy ; thething is changed, but not the will of 
 God. 
 
 From this unchangeableness of the divine decrees it 
 follows, that God has decreed nothing which does not 
 come to pass; yet this does not take away the liberty of 
 the creature. It is indeed difficult to conceive how this 
 absolute certainty of events can consist with the liberty 
 
OF THE DIVINE DECREES. 115 
 
 of man. Still, nothing is more certain, than that every 
 thing that takes place has been decreed by God, and that 
 we all act as free agents—It is enough to know these 
 two things. Only be it observed, that the same decree 
 which hath determined future events, hath also deter- 
 mined the mode in which they shall take place, so that 
 all the creatures act agreeably to their nature—the in- 
 animate creatures by a physical necessity, but the 
 rational with reason and free agency. For though the 
 immutability of the divine decrees takes away from men 
 that liberty, called by divines the liberty of independence, 
 which belongs only to God, who, being independent of 
 all other beings, acts therefore independently, and has 
 the creatures, both in their existence and operations, de- 
 pendent upon himself, yet it does not take away from 
 them the liberty of voluntariness, by which a rational 
 creature acts of its own accord, and with previous deli- 
 beration; for the decree concerning the operation of 
 second causes does not destroy the nature of them; 
 and such liberty as this is essential to every rational 
 being. Moreover, this immutability of the decrees in- 
 contestably proves that there are no such things as con- 
 ditional decrees, that is, such as depend on a condition 
 which may, or may not, be performed. Such decrees 
 cannot be supposed without also supposing, either that 
 he who decreed is ignorant of the issue, or that the issue 
 is not in the power of him who decreed. But neither of 
 these can be said concerning God. It is not, indeed, to 
 be denied, that the promises and the threatenings of God 
 are conditional, but from these no conclusion can be 
 drawn in favour of conditional decrees. For promises 
 do not determine the future event, as decrees do, but 
 merely show what is pleasing to God, and what is not, 
 and also show the connexion between the condition 
 which is required, and the thing which is promised. 
 Besides the eternity and immutability of God's decrees, 
 we must say something of their extent. Thisis so great, 
 that nothing takes place in the world which God hath 
 not decreed should take place; still it is certain that God 
 is differently concerned in these events, according as 
 they are either good or evil; the good he hath decreed to 
 do, the evil only to permit. For since God is the author 
 of all good, and cannot be the author of evil, he must do 
 what is good, and cannot do that which is evil; and yet, 
 since nothing can happen contrary to the knowledge 
 and will of God, we say that he permits evil, though he 
 
116 OF THE DIVINE DECREES. 
 
 in no way approves of it. From this may be inferred 
 what answer must be given to the following question— 
 Whether the end of every man’s life is, with all its cir- 
 cumstances, so unchangeably fixed by the decree of God, 
 that he cannot depart out of life at anyother period of 
 time, or by any other kind of death, than that which 
 actually falls to his lot? Yor if all that happens in the 
 world was known by God from eternity, and if nothing 
 could be foreknown by God, which he did not also de- 
 cree should take place, it follows that the end of human 
 life is fixed and determined by God. 
 
 Now this is further proved, 1. From Job xiv. 6. “ Since 
 his days are determined, the number of his months are 
 with thee, thou hast appointed his bounds that he cannot 
 pass.” 2. From those passages, in which the end of life 
 is expressly foretold; as in the case of Moses, (Deut. 
 xxxi. 14); David's child, (2 Sam. xii. 14); Jeroboam’s 
 son, (1 Kings xiv. 12); Ahaziah, king of Israel, (2 Kings 
 i 16); the sons of Eli, (1 Sam. ii 34); our Saviour 
 Christ, and very many others. For since whatever is 
 foreknown by God, will certainly take place, it necessa- 
 rily follows, that the manner and the time of each indi- 
 vidual's death was determined, as well as certainly 
 known by God. And this is further evident from the 
 most accidental kind of death being represented as de- 
 termined by God, for which see Exod. xxi. 13, and also 
 from the conception and birth of man, as well as his ife, 
 being represented as ruled and directed by God. (Ps. 
 exxxix.) For if that which is of inferior moment, 
 is ordered by God, surely that which is of the greatest 
 moment such as the day on which depends the eter- 
 nal happiness or misery of man, cannot be dependent 
 on man himself. The same thing is further evident from 
 the circumstance of all events having such a connection 
 with each other, that one very often depends on the 
 other, and therefore it is not probable that the Being 
 who decrees and orders other events, should not have 
 provided for, and decreed this event also. The heathen 
 were fully persuaded of this truth: thus Seneca, No one 
 dies too soon, seeing he never could have lived longer 
 than he did ; every one has his term fixed, which will al- 
 ways remain where it is fixed, nor will any favour (on 
 the part of God), nor endeavour (on the part of man), 
 make it longer. 
 
 With regard to human life being sometimes said to 
 have been prolonged, as in the case of Hezekiah, we 
 
OF THE DIVINE DECREES. 117 
 
 must not imagine that it was prolonged beyond the time 
 fixed by God, but beyond the time in which, according 
 to the order of second causes, or the violence of disease, 
 the persons concerned appeared to be near death. In 
 this sense men’s days are said to be shortened, not as if 
 God chooses that they should die before the time he has 
 appointed, but because, according to the laws of nature, 
 or the constitution of the body, they appeared likely to 
 live longer. Moreover, from the term of our life being 
 fixed, we are not to conclude that medical assistance is 
 useless. God generally uses it as the instrument of pre- 
 serving those whom he pleases to continue living; but 
 we are only to conclude from it, that no reliance is to be 
 placed on physicians, as if they were the arbiters of life 
 and death. Nor must this same doctrine prevent us 
 from offering up prayers for length of days: it only 
 teaches us so to moderate our prayers, as to submit our- 
 selves, and every thing belonging to us, to the good 
 pleasure of God. It should also render us undismayed 
 in danger, while we follow the leadings of Providence, 
 but not rash, so as to run into danger without any 
 necessity. 
 
 Although we must believe that God hath decreed all 
 things by one single and individual act of his will, yet 
 there is no reason why there should not be laid down 
 some order in the things decreed, so that the weakness 
 of our comprehension may be thereby assisted. Divines 
 take several views of this subject ; not to reckon all, the 
 following view may be given: 1. God decreed to create 
 the world, and to create man, for we cannot conceive 
 God as having decreed any thing concerning man, be- 
 fore he had decreed to create him; and this was the 
 first decree which he executed in time. 2. God decreed 
 to permit man’s fall, and that his sin should be transmit- 
 ted to his posterity ; and this decree may be said to be 
 the next in order. 3. God decreed not to condemn all 
 men, though all deserved death, but to have mercy on 
 some, whom he appointed to salvation. 4. Since his 
 justice would not permit him to save man without sat- 
 isfaction, God decreed to send his Son, who might, by 
 his death, satisfy that justice, and purchase eternal iife. 
 5. God, well knowing that Christ’s satisfaction would 
 avail none without being known and received, decreed 
 to reveal it to men through the preaching of the gospel, 
 and thereby to gather to himself a church; and also to 
 give the Spirit for the purpose of producing in us faith 
 
118 OF THE CREATION IN GENERAL. 
 
 and holiness. 6. God decreed to crown with eternal 
 glory those whom he appointed to salvation, for whom 
 Christ purchased it by the merit of his death, and whom 
 the Holy Spirit sanctified; and this is the last decree 
 that will be executed. Now this is the order we shall 
 follow as we proceed in this work, and, therefore, that 
 the execution may correspond with the decree, we shall 
 treat first, of the creation of the world, of angels and 
 men, together with their fall; then we shall proceed to 
 the decree concerning the salvation of men, and the 
 means whereby God has executed it. 
 
 CHAPTER II. 
 
 OF THE CREATION IN GENERAL. 
 
 Ir is not our business to inquire why God, who does not 
 need our assistance for his own happiness, was pleased 
 to form the creatures, in order that he might display his 
 own perfections in them. It belongs not to man to aim 
 at knowing what God hath chosen to conceal; it is 
 enough to know that that will was accomplished when 
 it pleased the Supreme Being to create what he had de- 
 signed, and to begin the execution of the plan which he 
 had, with the greatest wisdom, marked out from eterni- 
 ty. Nor does it become us to inquire why God did not 
 create the world sooner ; therefore, it was a smart reply 
 which a godly man gave to one who scoffingly asked 
 him, what God had been doing before the creation, 
 namely, That he had made a hell for all curious and 
 prying inquirers. Now by creation, we understand 
 nothing else but that act of the divine will by which he 
 produced the whole universe out of nothing, and willed 
 that those things should exist which did not exist before. 
 This creation the scripture usually expresses by the 
 word x3 (bara), which signifies properly to produce any 
 new thing by a single act of power, or to effect any thing 
 by extraordinary power ; for it does not always signify 
 to produce out of nothing ; neither does the Greek word 
 
OF THE CREATION IN GENERAL. 119 
 
 xiu, Which denotes also any mode of producing a 
 thing, or the Latin word creare, which very often signi- 
 fies to beget, or make in any way, or to place in some dig- 
 nity, (as to create consuls,) or to be the cause of any 
 thing, (as to create troubles to a person.) Before this 
 creation, nothing existed but God, therefore, the world. 
 is not eternal; neither is the matter of which it is 
 framed. This is capable of proof, not only from scrip- 
 ture, which every where teaches us that God created 
 heaven and earth, and all things “in the beginning,” 
 (Gen. i. 1; Rev. iv. 11,) but also from reason, which 
 teaches us that it is absurd to ascribe to an imperfect 
 being the greatest perfection of all, namely, eternity, 
 which is the sole property of the Supreme Being, and 
 cannot be shared with any other. To maintain the eter- 
 nity of the world is no less ridiculous, not to say impi- 
 ous, than to assert that the world is God, as he did, who 
 said— 
 
 Jupiter est, quodcunque vides, quocumque moveris, 
 W hate'er you see, where er you turn, is Jove. 
 
 Several of the wiser heathens acknowledged the world 
 to have been created by God. Thus Plato called God 
 the Maker of the visible world. Sanchoniathon has re- 
 corded the opinion of the Phenicians on the origin of 
 things, in terms so closely resembling those of Moses, 
 that they appear to have read his books. The Egyp- 
 tians also, as an emblem of the origin of the world, re- 
 presented their god Cnephus as spitting an egg out of 
 his mouth. The very followers of Epicurus opposed the 
 notion of the world being eternal, as Lucretius and 
 others; on this point Epicurus was far sounder than the 
 leader of the Peripatetics, although he committed a no 
 less grievous error in maintaining that the world was 
 made up of an accidental combination of atoms. We 
 cannot sufficiently wonder that there have been, and 
 still are found, persons who assert the eternity of mat- 
 ter, merely because they cannot conceive that God 
 should not be always doing or producing something, as 
 if God needed the creatures, and were not sufficient for 
 himself He could not be inactive who was contemplat- 
 ing himself and his own perfections. 
 
 The world, therefore, was made, and matter was cre- 
 ated, out of which the world was formed ; but all things 
 were not made in the same manner ; some were made 
 
120 OF THE CREATION IN GENERAL. 
 
 out of nothing, some out of the pre-existent matter, yet 
 unformed and shapeless. That some things were made 
 out of nothing, the apostle intimates, when he says, 
 “Through faith we understand that the worlds were 
 framed by the word of God, so that things which are 
 seen were not made of things which do appear,” (Heb. 
 xi 3,) which passage may be explained by one in the 
 book of Maccabees; where a pious mother, encouraging 
 her son to martyrdom, directs him to contemplate the 
 heaven and the earth, with all things in them, and to 
 know that God made them out of things not existing ; 
 and thus Chrysostom explained the clause ri ovra ip due 
 üvrov, things existent out of things non-existent. This is - 
 confirmed by reason: for if nothing is co-eternal with 
 God, and if it is absurd to attribute the highest perfec- 
 tion to an imperfect being, matter must necessarily have 
 been produced out of nothing. This could not, indeed, 
 take place naturally, for every natural cause, being of 
 finite power, requires a subject on which it may act, and 
 which it may modify or alter. But God, as a being of 
 infinite power, can prepare matter for himself, so that, 
 although there existed nothing before, something should 
 now exist by the infinite power of God. Hence he is 
 said to *call the things which be not as though they 
 were.” (Rom. iv. 17.) ^ This creation of all things was 
 effected by the single word of God. He said, * Let there 
 be light, and there was light.” (Gen.i.3.) “He spake, 
 and it was done; he commanded, and it stood fast.” 
 (Psalm xxxiii. 9. This was not unknown to the 
 heathens, who represented all things as done by the nod 
 of Jupiter; thus Maximus Tyrius: At thenod of Jupiter 
 the earth sprang forth, and all that it contains ; the sea 
 sprang forth, and all that it produces ; the air, and all 
 that is in it; the heaven, and all that is therein: all 
 these things the nod of Jupiter produced. God claims 
 this work to himself—«*I am the Lord, that maketh all 
 things, that stretcheth forth the heavens alone, that 
 spreadeth abroad the earth by myself,” (Isaiah xliv. 24 ;) 
 and by these works he distinguishes himself from all the 
 false gods of the nations. “The gods that have not 
 made the heavens and the earth, even they shall perish 
 from the earth ;”—* all the gods of the nations are idols ; 
 but the Lord made the heavens.” (Jer. x. 11: Psalm 
 xcvi. 5.) And one of the heathen writers thus speaks: 
 He who desires to be called God, let him set about mak- 
 
OF THE WORKS OF CREATION. 121 
 mg a world like to this, and be able to say, This is my 
 
 own. 
 
 The act of creating is so peculiar to God, that it can- 
 not be shared with any creature; for no creature is cap- 
 able of a work of infinite power, and God would give his 
 glory to another, if he were to communicate infinite 
 power to the creature. Nor can we conceive of any in- 
 sirument employed in the work of creation; all being 
 done by a single act of will on the part of the Creator. 
 No change took place in God when creating; for he did 
 not conceive (as it were) any new will, but it was only a 
 new external work proceeding from his eternal will. 
 new relation indeed took place, but this relation made 
 no change in God. 
 
 CHAPTER III. 
 OF THE WORKS OF CREATION. 
 
 Berore we speak particularly of the works of creation, 
 two questions are to be considered. First, whether the 
 world was created in a single moment, or in six days. 
 Secondly, whether each work was produced without any 
 succession of time. To the first question we reply, that 
 the narrative of Moses does not permit us to believe that 
 the world was created in a single moment; for he ex- 
 pressly mentions siz days, and ascribes to each day its 
 particular work; and it is a proof of absurd infatuation 
 to turn this narrative into a mere allegory. Besides, it 
 is plainly said, that “The earth was without form and 
 void, and darkness was upon the face of the deep," 
 which could not have been said, if all things had been 
 accomplished in a single moment. Nor again could 
 there have been any reason for the divine command, by 
 which God enjoined the Sabbath day to be sanctified, 
 because he created the world in six days, and rested on 
 the seventh. Nor can the words of the son of Sirach, 
 (Eccles. xviii. 1.) be objected; for besides that the apoc- 
 ryphal writings are not to be set in opposition to the 
 canonical, the expression in general is in the Greek not 
 11 
 
122 OF THE WORKS OF CREATION. 
 
 ipa, but xo», i. e. equally or commonly, so that the mean- 
 ing is that all things have one common creator. With 
 regard to the second question it is not so easy to deter- 
 mine. I incline, however, to the opinion of those who 
 maintain that some things were created in a single mo- 
 ment, as those which were produced out of nothing, (for 
 the passing from non-existence to existence does not re- 
 quire any delay and succession,) but that many things, 
 which were made out of pre-existent matter, were not 
 made without some succession of time, as the drying of 
 the earth, and the gathering together of the waters into 
 one place; for it is not conceivable that water should be 
 moved from place to place in a moment. 
 
 These things being premised, let us now examine the 
 particular works of each day, according to the narrative 
 of Moses. But God forbid that we should be of their 
 opinion, who maintain that the story of the creation is a 
 mere parable, only related by Moses because, they say, 
 he was not at liberty entirely to leave out the subject of 
 the world’s origin, and the creation of things, since the 
 surrounding nations had their cosmogonies (or stories 
 of the world’s creation) which were, for the most part, 
 false and inimical to the true religion, which traditions 
 the Israelities would have embraced, had they not been 
 taught differently. Who can endure that the earliest 
 narrative of an inspired writer should be reckoned 
 among the mythologies of heathens; or is it likely that 
 Moses would deliver fables to the people, in order to di- 
 vert their attention from other fables? 
 
 The works of the first day were the heaven and the 
 earth (Gen. i. 1.) i. e. the whole fabric of this world, 
 though still destitute of the beauty and splendour which 
 it afterwards received, —the heaven which was after- 
 wards the place of the stars, and that which is the habi- 
 tation of the blessed, and the throne of the divine Ma- 
 jesty—the earth, surrounded with water, destitute of in- 
 habitants, and of all that beauty which was afterwards 
 given it; for by the words 1: wn (Gen. i. 2.) is meant 
 desolation and emptiness, such as prevails in countries 
 without inhabitants and without cultivation; and differ- 
 ent versions are indeed given of these words, but per- 
 haps nothing better answers to the Hebrew than the 
 phrase used by Ovid, rudis indigestaque moles, (a rude 
 and disordered mass.) But since “ darkness was upon 
 the face of the deep" (by this name the sacred history 
 calls the immense bodies of waters, or the whole mass 
 
OF THE WORKS OF CREATION. 123 
 
 of earth and water) it pleased God to create light. (Gen. 
 i3.) The question is, what that light was. If we be- 
 lieve some, it was nothing else bat that subtle matter, 
 quick in motion, which at that time alternately enlight- 
 ened both hemispheres, and afterwards was collected 
 together into the starry globes. But we had rather 
 confess our ignorance on this point, than come to 
 any decision. 
 
 The works of the second day were, the expanse or fir- 
 mament, comprehending all that space which extends 
 from the surface of the earth to the highest point of the 
 visible heaven. Now this was made, inasmuch as it re- 
 ceived the form of air; and also the separation of the 
 “waters above the firmament,” i. e. the clouds and ra- 
 pours situated in the upper regions of the air, from the 
 “waters under the firmament,” i.e. rivers, fountains, 
 and seas. The firmament served to separate the waters 
 above from those below; for although the waters are 
 said to be above the firmament, we must not imagine 
 that they were above the whole breadth of it, but only 
 above a part of it, i. e. above the lower part of it. Some 
 think that the gathering together of the lower waters in- 
 to certain receptacles, and their separation from the 
 earth, which was afterwards called *the dry land," as 
 the * gathering together of the waters" was called * sea," 
 (Gen.i 9.) may be reckoned among the works of this 
 day. According to this opinion the second day was not 
 without a blessing; others are of a different opinion, and 
 maintain that the second day was without a blessing for 
 this reason, that what God had begun was not finished 
 on this day; it is however of no consequence which 
 opinion be followed. 
 
 The works of the third day were, according to some, 
 that gathering together of the waters, &c. of which we 
 have just spoken; and also the bringing forth of the 
 plants and fruits of the earth, and of “trees yielding 
 fruit :” for it was not enough for the earth or “ dry land" 
 to “ appear," unless it were adorned with the plants and 
 fruits belonging to it. God therefore was pleased to 
 clothe the naked and destitute face of it with a kind of 
 beautiful garment, made up of herbs, flowers, trees, and 
 fruits of every kind, whereby provision was made for 
 the advantage and delight of the living creatures that 
 were to inhabit it. 
 
 The works of the fourth day were the creation of 
 “lights in the firmament of heaven:” for the earth being 
 
124 OF THE WORKS OF CREATION. 
 
 furnished, the heaven was also furnished, i. e. with the 
 sun, moon, and stars. The sacred historian carefully 
 describes the creation of these, in order that he might 
 show that the stars were not deities, as the heathen be- 
 lieved, but only instruments by which the supreme Being 
 benefited mankind. Several uses are ascribed to them, 
 viz. to distinguish the times of day and night; to distin- 
 guish the seasons of the year; and by their light and heat, 
 to act upon the things that are below. They are called 
 signs because they divide the year intoits seasons, spring, 
 summer, autumn and winter; and by this means point 
 out the times of sowing, harvest, and vintage: perhaps 
 also they are called signs because they proclaimed the 
 stated festivals among the Jews, as was the opinion of a 
 celebrated Rabbi. But they are certainly not called 
 signs, as if they were the signs of future events, such as 
 are the subjects of judicial astrology. This was the 
 Gpinion of the Priscillianists, the impious offspring of the 
 Gnostics, who bound the destinies of men to their seve- 
 ral stars. "These have had, and still have, many fol- 
 lowers. But this astrology must be condemned from 
 the following considerations. 1. That this art professes 
 to pry into the secret things of God, and presumes with 
 impious daring to determine those futurities which are 
 known only to God. 2. That the knowledge of the 
 future is set forth in scripture as a mark by which the 
 true God is distinguished from idols, (Isaiah xli. 21, 92; 
 Dan. ii. 28) which would not be laid down, if future 
 events could be known from the contemplation of the 
 stars. 3. That God often inveighs against the falsehood 
 of this art, and the credulity of its professors, and of 
 those who are deluded by them (Isaiah xlvii. 12, 13.) 
 4. That this art was acknowledged to be false, and even 
 pernicious, by the heathen themselves; and therefore 
 we read that Augustus banished astrologers from the 
 city; Tiberius and Claudius banished them from Italy ; 
 Vitellius from the city, and even put them to death, as a 
 class of men treacherous towards those in power, and 
 deceitful towards those who trusted to them. 5. That this 
 art was condemned by the fathers, and by all the an- 
 cients of sound principles, as appears from the works of 
 Augustine, and the decrees of various councils. 6. That 
 it is ridiculous, and altogether absurd, to believe that the 
 free will of man is dependent on certain constellations, 
 and that an astrologer, who cannot predict a heat or 
 shower, acalm or tempest, can ascertain beforehand any 
 
OF THE WORKS OF CREATION. 125 
 
 rticular events in the life of mankind; such as that 
 
 olycrates shall be crucified; Cyrus elevated to the 
 throne; Timon shall find a treasure ; Socrates shall die 
 by poison, &c. &c. &c. 
 
 The work of the fifth day was the bringing forth of 
 Jishes out of the waters, and of fowls and birds out of the 
 earth ; (Gen. i. 20,) and the work of the sizth day was 
 the creation of terrestial animals, such as reptiles, or 
 creeping things, wild and tame beasts, and also the crea- 
 tion of man. Thus were the works of God finished: 
 and then he is said to have vested, i. e. he ceased to will 
 the creation of any thing more, or the existence of any 
 new form; which not being understood by the heathen, 
 afforded them an opportunity of ridiculing the Jews, and 
 reproaching them with worshipping a wearied God. 
 
 And now we must observe that all things were not 
 created in the same manner ; forthere were some things, 
 every individual of which was created in a condition 
 that would remain perpetually fixed; others were only 
 to preserve their species by propagation; some were 
 created in themselves, others in their causes; as insects, 
 meteors, &c.—some things were created out of nothing, 
 others out of unshapen materials. We must observe 
 also that the three persons of the adorable Trinity were 
 concerned together in this great work. Of the Father's 
 agency no one doubts; the agency of the Son is de- 
 clared in John i. 3; for when he says, * The Word was 
 in the beginning," and that * By him all things were 
 made," he doubtless alludes to the words of Moses, in 
 Gen. i. 1, 3. Now by that Word, by which Moses says 
 that ight and other things were produced, cannot be 
 understood any articulate word uttered by God; for at 
 the time that nothing existed what use could there have 
 been for any such a word, and who could have listened 
 to it? Nor can it be said that this word has the force of 
 a command, by which these things sprung forth which 
 God chose to be made, since every command which is 
 issued is addressed to creatures capable of receiving it ; 
 but at this time there was no such creature. Neither 
 can it be understood of some thought of the divine mind, 
 or act of the divine will: for if Moses only meant this, 
 there was no necessity to mention it so often: for who 
 could doubt that God, when he made all things by his 
 power, had previously thought concerning the work. 
 And again, it cannot be said, that the sacred historian 
 only meant that God was pleased not to make use of 
 
126 OF THE WORKS OF CREATION, 
 
 any tools or instruments in the creation of the world; 
 but created all things with as much facility as any one 
 could do a work, if he were to use only a single word 
 for that purpose, such as was meant by the man in the 
 gospel, when he said, “Speak the word only, and my 
 servant shall be healed.” If Moses meant no more than 
 this, why does he use so many circumlocutions? why 
 not have said at once that all things were made by the 
 single word of the deity ; why repeat it so often, and not 
 merely once or twice? In short, if there were no mys- 
 tery in the narrative, the frequent inculcation of the 
 same point would seem intolerable. But what that mys- 
 tery is, is explained by John. With regard to the Holy 
 Spirit, it is plain from the second verse, that he also was 
 concerned in the creation ; for it is there said, that “ the 
 Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters ;" now 
 to explain this of the wind, gives a frigid and meager 
 sense of the words. For at that time, as there was no 
 air, so there was not any exhalation, which either by its 
 own motion, or by any extraneous impulse, could agi- 
 tate the air. 
 
 We observe once more, that, together with the world, 
 time was created, which is nothing else than the dura- 
 tion of a created thing, or that mode of thinking, by 
 which we measure the duration of a created thing ; and 
 therefore we cannot conceive time to have had any ex- 
 istence before the creation of things; since we can no 
 more conceive of duration without the existence of crea- 
 ted things, than we can conceive of space without body. In 
 what part of the zodiac the sun was placed by God in 
 the beginning of the world, and how many years have 
 elapsed since the creation, we leave to be settled by the 
 chronologists. We only add, that the Jews acted fool- 
 ishly in not permitting the history of the creation to be 
 read by any, except those who had arrived to years of 
 maturity, which was with them the thirtieth year, in 
 which a man was eligible to the priesthood ; as also the 
 bezinning and the end of Ezekiel, and the Song of Solo- 
 mon. Every Christian ought to contemplate these noble 
 works of God, “ Lift up your eyes on high, and behold 
 who hath created these things," (Isaiah xl. 26.) By these, 
 as by a ladder, he ought to ascend to God, and admire 
 his perfections; his immense power, at whose .bidding 
 all things sprang forth; his infinite goodness, to which 
 alone the creatures are indebted for every thing; his 
 wonderful wisdom, which has arranged all things in so 
 
OF THE CREATION OF ANGELS. 127 
 
 beautiful an order. ** When I consider the heavens, the 
 work of thy fingers, the moon and the stars which thou 
 hast ordained, what is man, that thou art mindful of him, 
 and the son of man, that thou visitest him! O Lord, 
 how manifold are thy works! in wisdom hast thou made 
 them all.” (Psalm viii. 3, 4; civ. 24.) 
 
 CHAPTER IV. 
 OF THE CREATION OF ANGELS. 
 
 Since the sacred scriptures so often mention angels, we 
 may here inquire, whether they were created by God, 
 and when they were created; for we do not think it 
 necessary to prove, in opposition to the Sadducees, that 
 angels really exist. Now, that they were created, is 
 shown by Paul, who says, “By him were all things 
 created, that are in heaven, and that are in earth, visible 
 and invisible, whether they be thrones, or dominions, or 
 principalities, or powers,” (Col. i. 16.) Reason also con- 
 firms it; for whatever is not God, is created, since eter- 
 nity is the attribute of God only. Reason also shows 
 that they were created out of nothing, not out of any of 
 the inferior elements, as some of the Jews dreamed ; for 
 it is absurd to maintain, that spirits were created out of 
 — matter. It cannot be said, moreover, that angels were 
 created before the heavens and the earth, because ac- 
 cording to the style of speaking adopted by the scrip- 
 tures, nothing existed before the world, which was not 
 eternal, and in no other way do they describe eternity to 
 us (i. e. than by saying, “in the beginning,” &c.) But 
 on what day they were created, is altogether uncertain ; 
 it is probable on the first day, whence it is said, that 
 when “ the foundations of the earth were laid, the morn- 
 ing stars sang together, and all the sons of God shouted 
 for joy,” (Job. xxxviii. 7.) Indeed the greatest part of 
 expositors think that Moses speaks of them, when he 
 says, “ The heavens and the earth were finished, and all 
 the host of them,” (Gen. ii. 1.) 
 
 It appears at first sight strange, that Moses should not 
 
128 OF THE CREATION OF ANGELS. 
 
 nave mentioned the creation of angels; but it will not 
 appear strange, if we consider the reason, which was 
 not, because the Israelites were prone to idolatry, (for if 
 this had been the case of the sacred historian's silence, 
 he never would have mentioned angels at all) nor be- 
 cause of the ignorance and dullness of the Jewish peo- 
 ple, but because his object in writing was to make up a 
 history of the church only, and therefore it was sufficient 
 to describe its origin from the beginning of the world, 
 and to make mention of angels, only as the nature of 
 his plan admitted, while prosecuting the history of that 
 church. We may only add that they were created in 
 vast numbers, as appears from various passages of scrip- 
 ture, (Dan. vii. 10. Rev. v. 11, &c.) With regard to 
 their nature, it appears from scripture, that they are 
 “spirits,” for they are so called, (Heb. i. 7, 14,) and ?n- 
 visible, (Col. i. 16,) consequently they are immaterial 
 substances. Many of the ancients, and several of the 
 schoolmen, were of a different opinion, and maintained 
 that angels were corporeal. They are also immortal, 
 which necessarily follows from their being immaterial ; 
 see Luke xx. 36, where the glorified after the resurrec- 
 tion are represented as unable to * die any more," be- 
 cause they shall be “equal unto the angels.” Very 
 great power and strength is also attributed to them; 
 hence their mighty works, as the slaying of 185,000 men 
 in one night, with other acts surpassing human power, 
 though they are not miracles. It cannot indeed be de- 
 nied that they appeared in human form, when they had 
 to execute the commands of God, but no one can infer 
 from this that they are corporeal, since they appeared in 
 bodies, not belonging to themselves, but only assumed ; 
 but from whence they had those bodies, whether they 
 were created out of nothing, or from some materials 
 previously existing, or whether they took possession of 
 the bodies of some particular men, whose souls were de- 
 prived of reason and intellect, merely for a time, that 
 they might be unconscious of what is doing with them, 
 it appears rash to determine; this however is certain, 
 that the angels did not always keep possession of these 
 bodies. 
 
 As to their knowledge, the mode in which they hold 
 intercourse with each other, and as to their power, we 
 think it unprofitable to speculate, nor ought we to * in- 
 trude into those things which we have not seen ;” it is 
 enough to know that their knowledge is not infinite, 
 
OF THE CREATION OF ANGELS. 129 
 
 that they are ignorant of many things, and know not the 
 hearts of men, which God only knows; (1 Kings viii. 
 39,) they are said in scripture “ not to know the day of 
 judgment,” (Mark xiii. 32,) and to know or learn many 
 things by means of the church, (Ephes. iii. 10.) Nor 
 have they power to do any thing without God's permis- 
 sion: they cannot work miracles, such as create things, 
 raise the dead, &c., yet they can do many things which 
 are beyond the power of human nature. The scripture 
 attributes speech to angels, as in Rev. xiv. 18, where one 
 angel speaks to another ; but it is difficult to explain the 
 meaning ofthis. As to their order, or degrees, we must 
 not rashly decide any thing. That there are thrones 
 and dominions, principalities and. powers, says Augus- 
 tine, 7 firmly believe ; but what is the distinction between 
 them, let those tell us who can; if they can prove what 
 they tell us: I confess I amignorant of these things. In- 
 deed the three orders of the three hierarchies, which 
 Dionysius the Areopagite (falsely so called) so arranged, 
 as if he had been mingled with the angelic ranks, and 
 had taken a survey of their then abode, sprung from the 
 school of Plato. 
 
 They are called angels, because they are sent by the . 
 Lord (ayye\ovrar) to perform various services, and to ex- 
 ecute his commands. "They are also distinguished by 
 other names; some are called seraphim, others cher- 
 ubim, others thrones, &c., concerning which names the 
 commentators on sacred literature may be consulted. 
 The scripture does not speak of a plurality of archan- 
 gels, but of one only, (Jude 9.) They were all created 
 by God in holiness and innocence, but because they were 
 created with a liability to fall, all did not continue in 
 “their first estate." We shall speak of their fall here- 
 after; at present we shall only speak of good angels. 
 Now these are called holy, elect, angels, angels of light, 
 (Matt. xxv. 31; 1 Tim. v. 21 ; 2 Cor. xi. 14.) who never 
 fell from the condition in which they were placed. God 
 employs them in various services, not because he needs 
 them, but simply because he so far deigns to honour 
 them; and for other reasons. "Their perpetual employ- 
 ment is to worship God, (Isaiah vi.) to stand in his pre- 
 sence, as attendants and ministers, to see his face, to 
 undertake, and to execute his commandments. "They 
 ministered to Christ while upon earth, and are also of 
 very great service to the faithful, whom they preserve 
 and deliver from dangers, (Psalm xci. 11; xxxiv. 7,) as 
 
130 OF THE CREATION OF MAN. 
 
 in the cases of Lot, Elijah, Elisha, and Peter. Gud also 
 employs them in chastising his people, and conveying 
 their souls to heaven, as in the case of Lazarus, and 
 also in executing judgments on the ungodly. And at 
 the last day, Jesus will employ them in gathering to- 
 gether his saints, and on that occasion they will be his 
 attendants, (Matt. xxiv. 31. 1 Thess. iv. 16.) 
 
 We must not, however, believe that every one of the 
 faithful has a guardian angel assigned to him, which the 
 scripture nowhere teaches, but which originated with 
 the heathens, who assigned to each man his particular 
 genius or demon, who was the secret guide of his whole 
 life. This notion was taken up by the Jews; and some 
 attempt to prove it from Acts xii. 15, where Luke re- 
 lates, that the damsel Rhoda having said that she knew 
 Peter's voice, the rest declared that it * was his angel.” 
 All will allow that angels ought to be honoured, but no 
 sound person will assert that they ought to be worship- 
 ped, for this is expressly condemned by Paul; “Let 
 no man beguile you of your reward in a voluntary hu- 
 mility, and worshipping of angels,” (Col. ii. 18.) Angels 
 themselves have refused this worship, “ See thou do it 
 not; for I am thy fellow-servant, and of thy brethren, 
 worship God,” (Rev. xix. 10; xxii. 9.) The scriptures 
 nowhere enjoin it, but on the contrary claim religious 
 worship for God alone, (Matt. iv. 10.) The more en- 
 lightened of the ancients wholly disapproved of it, as 
 might easily be proved from Origen, Lactantius, Augus- 
 tine, and others; and Theodoret relates that the council 
 of Laodicea even branded with the crime of heresy, 
 those in Phrygia, and elsewhere, who worshipped 
 angels. 
 
 CHAPTER V. 
 OF THE CREATION OF MAN. 
 
 We have already said that man was created by God; 
 but we must now treat of his creation in particular: 
 and first, we observe that he was the last of God's 
 
OF THE CREATION OF MAN. 131 
 
 works; for God was pleased to build the house, and 
 furnish it with every thing, before the inhabitant of it 
 was introduced, who is himself a microcosm, a world in 
 himself. Secondly, We observe that God proceeded to 
 the creation of man in an extraordinary manner; for he 
 did not simply say, Let man be made, as he said, Let 
 there be light, but he is represented as it were deliberat- 
 ing or consulting, “ Let us make man in our own image ;” 
 not that he needed any greater wisdom or power for 
 the formation of man, but to point out the excellency of 
 the intended work. Now it has been believed by Chris- 
 tians, from the very age of the apostles, that God in 
 these words is not addressing angels, as some Jews 
 maintained, nor the heaven and earth, according to 
 others, but his only begotten Son and the Holy Ghost; 
 hence, ina very ancient epistle, ascribed by some to 
 Barnabas, by others to Polycarp, these words are found 
 concerning Christ: The Lord was pleased to suffer for 
 our souls, though he is the Lord. of the world, to whom 
 the Father said in the beginning, Let us make man. 
 
 In the creation of man, we must consider the distinct 
 formation of his body and soul—for of these he consists. 
 His body, Moses teaches us, was formed of the dust of 
 the ground (Gen. ii. 7); not of rich materials or precious 
 metal, but of the earth which we tread under our feet; for 
 we pass by the dreams of the Jews, who maintained that 
 a sort of quintessence, or celestial material, was used in 
 the formation of the first man's body. He was called 
 Adam, from the earth of which he was made, although 
 the great Ludolphus maintains a different etymology of 
 the word; for he thinks that our first parent was called 
 Adam from his beauty, deriving the word from the Ethi- 
 opie root Adama, which signifies, to be beautiful, elegant, 
 pleasant. God was pleased to create man in this way, 
 that he might remember his origin, and thus constantly 
 carry with him grounds for humility, nor ever set him- 
 selfup against his Creator. Nor was this unknown to the 
 heathen, who feigned that Prometheus, the son of Japhet, 
 formed earth mixed with water into an image of the gods, 
 who ruled all things. On this body the Lord bestowed 
 an erect form, that man might be admonished to look 
 down upon this earth and all earthly things, as placed 
 beneath him, and look up to heaven, and God his Crea- 
 tor. No one hath ever, or will ever, enough admire the 
 wonderful symmetry of every part of this body; whence 
 Galen, in the very beginning of his work, On the use of 
 
132 OF THE CREATION OF MAN. 
 
 the parts (of the body,) could not refrain from breaking 
 forth into the praise of the Creator. We cannot suffi- 
 ciently admire the goodness of God in condescending to 
 form the human body as it were with his own hands; 
 whence the Christian poet Prudentius thus sings :— 
 
 “Tantus amor terre, tanta est dilectio nostri, 
 Dignatur prepinguis humi comprendere mollem 
 Divinis glebam digitis; nec sordida censet 
 Herentis masse contagia. Jusserat ut lux 
 Confieret; facta est ut Jusserat. Omnia jussa 
 Imperitante novas traxerunt edita formas. 
 Solus homo emeruit Domini formabili dextra 
 Os capere, et flabro Deitatis figmine nasci." 
 
 So great his love towards our human race, 
 
 T'hat with his heavenly fingers once he deign'd 
 
 To handle earth's mean clods, nor deem'd his hands 
 Defil'd with sordid clay. His mighty voice 
 
 Had said, * Let there be light," and light there was ; 
 T'he same command had bade all other things 
 
 Into existence start; to man alone 
 
 This high behest was given— To draw his life 
 
 From God's creating hand and breath divine. 
 
 Into the body thus formed, God is said to have 
 “breathed the breath of life," (Gen. ii. 7. 1 Cor. xv. 
 45,) that is, *a living soul," which inspiration or breath- 
 ing is not to be explained literally, as if God had a mouth 
 to breathe with, like man; but it is thus expressed to 
 signify, that it was as easy for God to create the soul, as 
 for man to breathe out of his mouth, (which is the inter- 
 pretation of Theodoret,) and also to make it appear, that 
 the rational soul was not produced from matter, but in- 
 troduced from without into the body by God himself. 
 The word nny: properly signifies breath, but in the 
 above-cited passage from Moses, it signifies two things, 
 viz. breath and life, and the rational faculty which we 
 call the soul; for these two are joined together in man. 
 Indeed the word nsv:is sometimes taken for the soul of 
 man, as in Prov. xx. 27. “The spirit of man is the 
 candle of the Lord, searching all the inward parts of the 
 belly.” The human soul, therefore, is of heavenly ori- 
 gin; thus we must think of our souls, which are given 
 us, not by transmission, but by immediate inspiration 
 from God. "Therefore in scripture God is said to * give 
 the spirit" and to “form the spirit of man within him,” 
 (Eccl xii. 7. Zech. xii. 1.) Nor was this unknown to 
 the heathens: No origin of souls, says Cicero, can be 
 
OF THE IMAGE OF GOD IN MAN. 133 
 
 found on the earth, for there is nothing in them which is 
 mized and concrete, or which appears to have been made 
 out of earth, §c. Thus whatever this principle is, which 
 thinks, and wills, and acts, it is heavenly and divine. 
 God is said to have “ breathed into man’s nostrils,” sim- 
 ply because by the omnipotent will of God the nostrils 
 of Adam began immediately to send forth breath. 
 
 But the Lord God was pleased to create, not only 
 man, but woman, to be “a help-meet for man;" he 
 would not form her out of the clay of the earth, but out 
 of man himself, that the husband might be more closely 
 united to his wife, cherishing her as a part of his own 
 body; and also to denote the superiority of the man 
 over the woman. She was brought forth from him, 
 while asleep; not so much that the taking of the rib 
 from his side might be unattended with pain, but that 
 Adam might admire the work when finished, rather than 
 be a witness to the wonderful operation, and to the 
 mode in which it was performed. For it is God’s will, 
 that we should contemplate his works, but it is not his 
 will that we should be acquainted with the mode of his 
 operations. Several mysteries on this subject are sought 
 after by commentators, who may be consulted, and who 
 wil give you various reasons, why the woman was 
 made out of Adam's rib, rather than out of other parts 
 of the body, and who represent Adam asleep, as a type 
 of Christ dead on the cross, out of whose side came forth 
 blood and water, by which his church was formed. But 
 these things we pass by as too refined and far-fetched. 
 
 CHAPTER VI. 
 OF THE IMAGE OF GOD IN MAN. 
 
 Is the creation of man this thing is particularly worthy 
 
 of observation, that God created him after his own image, 
 
 (Gen. i. 27.) We may inquire in what this image con- 
 
 sists. But first let it be observed, that there is a very 
 
 wide difference between the manner in which Christ is 
 
 ‘the image of God, and — in which man was created 
 I : 
 
134 OF THE IMAGE 
 
 after this image. For Christ is called the image of God 
 in the most complete sense, inasmuch as he most fully 
 possesses whatever the Father possesses; which it would 
 be impious to say of man. Now we believe that the 
 image after which man was created, did not consist in 
 the participation of the divine essence, as though the na- 
 ture of man were divine aure particula, (a particle of 
 the divine air or spirit,) as the heathens expressed it, nor 
 in any bodily form, as was the dream of the Anthropo- 
 morphites, but in these four things—in the spiritualit 
 and immortality of his soul—in the qualities of that so 
 —and in the uprightness of his understanding and will— 
 in the immortality of his soul and body—in the dominion 
 which he had over the inferior creatures. 
 
 That these particulars may be clearly proved, let us 
 see, first, whether the image of God can be said to con- 
 sist in these things; and secondly, whether these things 
 really belonged to the first man. The first is easily 
 proved; for this is the general argument—the image of 
 God must consist in that which makes us like God ; now 
 nothing makes us more like unto God, than spirituality, 
 immortality, holiness, righteousness, authority, and do- 
 minion. Again, the same image was bestowed on man 
 in his natural state, which is renewed in us by grace, 
 and will be perfected in glory; for the “new man” is 
 said, by Paul, to be * renewed after the image of him that 
 created him," (Col. iii. 10.) Now the image which is re- 
 stored by grace, and which will be perfected in glory, 
 consists in * knowledge, righteousness, and holiness,” 
 as all willallow. Nor will it be useless to mark the force 
 of the word renewed (dvaxawepevov ;) for renovation sup- 
 poses that which is renewed to have existed before, but 
 to have decayed through age, or to have been obliterated, 
 or altogether destroyed. As to dominion, we need not 
 say. much to prove that the image of God consists also 
 in this; it is plain from what God adds, after he had said, 
 “Let us make man in our image,” viz. * And let them 
 have dominion over the fish of the sea," &c.; unless we 
 prefer saying that dominion is the consequence of God's 
 image; for some translate the passage, not “and let 
 them have," but, “but let them have dominion.” It is 
 plain at any rate, from 1 Cor. xi. 7, where the man, on 
 account of the authority granted him over the woman, 
 is called *the image and glory of God." 
 
 This being proved, let us now examine, secondly, 
 whether all these things are applicable to the first man; 
 
 \ 
 
OF GOD IN MAN. 135 
 
 and this we will prove in each particular. 1. That his 
 soul was spiritual, not extended, (i. e. taking up space 
 as a body) appears from this single argument; that it is 
 impossible for any thing extended to think or to possess 
 thought. Indeed, as philosophers have rightly observed, 
 only those things come under the idea of thought which 
 take place in us while we are conscious of their taking 
 place. Now it cannot be conceived how a body can be 
 capable of this kind of action or passion, and be con- 
 Scious of it: for we do not observe any other motion in 
 bodies than what is local, and we can plainly conceive 
 no other effect of this motion, except the separation of 
 the parts of the body, the variation of its figure, and the 
 change of its situation. Truly, if any one conceives a 
 body to be capable of thought, I would fain ask him, 
 whether the thoughts can be round er square, or of any 
 particular colour! 2. That the soul of the first man was 
 immortal, and consequently the souls of other men, is 
 roved by many arguments. First, from scripture, from 
 cl xii. 7. * Then shall the dust return to the earth, 
 and the spirit shall return to God who gave it;" and 
 from those passages in which Paul expresses his desire 
 * to depart, to be absent from the body, to be with Christ, 
 to be present with the Lord," (Phil. i. 23; 2 Cor. v. 6, 8.) 
 Also from Christ's argument against the Sadducees, in 
 which he quotes, “I am the God of Abraham,” &c. to 
 show that God is not the God of the dead, but of the liv- 
 ing;" which argument incontestably proves the immor- 
 tality of the soul: for if the soul died with the body, God 
 would be the God of the dead only. Secondly, it is 
 proved from reason: for if the soul died, this would hap- 
 pen, either because its parts were separated from each 
 other, or because it destroyed itself, or was destroyed 
 by some other created being, or was annihilated by God 
 himself. None of these cases can be affirmed; for the 
 soul has no parts, being of a spiritual nature: nor can it 
 be conceived how the soul could destroy itself, or be de- 
 stroyed by any other created thing. Nor can it by any 
 argument be proved, that God is willing to annihilate 
 the soul; on the contrary it can be proved that he is un- 
 willing to do so; for since his justice requires that the 
 good should be rewarded, and the wicked punished, and 
 yet by the all-wise counsei of God this is not always 
 done in the present life, another life must necessarily be 
 expected, in which the distribution of rewards and 
 punishments shall take place. Yet this would not be 
 
136 OF THE IMAGE 
 
 the case, if the soul were annihilated by God. Not to 
 mention what modern philosophers observe, that no 
 argument or example can prove that any substance is 
 capable of being reduced to nothing. To which we may 
 add that all religion is overthrown, if the same end is re- 
 served for the godly and ungodly as for the beasts; and 
 that there is in all mankind a natural desire for immor- 
 tality, which it is highly improbable has been implanted 
 by the Deity to no purpose. This immortality of the 
 soul was acknowledged by all the wiser heathens, such 
 as Socrates, Plato, Cicero, &c. 
 
 With regard to the third particular, viz. that man 
 was endued with what divines call original righteous- 
 ness, and which consists in the light and purity of the 
 understanding, the holiness of the will, the regularity of 
 the senses and passions, and an entire inclination to 
 what is good; this is proved from the consideration, that 
 whatever God created was good, and indeed of such 
 goodness as was necessary to the end for which all 
 things were designed. Now since man was designed 
 for the glory of God, for his knowledge and worship, it 
 was necessary that he should be created with such good- 
 ness, as would render him capable of knowing God, and 
 glorifying him. Such goodness therefore must have 
 comprised wisdom, holiness, and righteousness. This is 
 further evident from his being created in order to exer- 
 cise dominion over the other creatures, which he could 
 not have done, had he not been endued with wisdom 
 and holiness. It is also confirmed by the positive testi- 
 mony of scripture, “God made man upright,” (Eccl. vii 
 29.) Now concerning this righteousness be it observed, 
 that it was called natural, because it was created with 
 man, and was so necessary to the perfection of man in a 
 state of innocence, that without it he could not have 
 been in that state. Again: when we say that man was 
 endued with wisdom, we do not imagine that he was 
 omniscient—for we doubt not that he was ignorant of 
 many things—but we must on this head avoid the two 
 extremes. On the one hand we must not ascribe so 
 great a knowledge to the first man, as to maintain that 
 all sciences were known to him. Wonderful things are 
 mentioned by the schoolmen concerning Adam's know- 
 ledge, just as if they had heard him teach, or had read 
 books written by him. On the other hand we must not 
 reckon him among the dull and ignorant. We must 
 hold the medium, and believe that he was endued with 
 
 " 
 
OF GOD IN MAN. 137 
 
 so much wisdom as was necessary in the state in which 
 God had placed him, and that he had the capacity of ac- 
 quiring further knowledge by reason, experience, and 
 revelation. We must also remark that he was not en- 
 dued with such righteousness as rendered him altogether 
 impeccable, or incapable of sinning, but only with that 
 which rendered him able to preserve himself from sinning. 
 
 With respect to the fourth particular, viz. that the 
 whole man was immortal, (body as well as soul,) is abun- 
 dantly proved from those passages in which it is said, 
 that “ by sin death entered into the world," that “ death 
 is the wages of sin," (Rom. v. 12; vi. 23,) and from Gen. 
 ii. 17; iii. 19, where God threatens death as the punish- 
 ment of sin. But here it must be observed, that man 
 had not that immortality which is applicable only to 
 God, or that which the blessed enjoy in heaven, which 
 will be an absolute impossibility of dying, and for the 
 preservation of which no. means are required. For we 
 allow that man, by reason of the earthly materials of 
 which he was formed, had in himself the possibility of 
 dying; but he was said to be immortal, because he had 
 the power of not dying; he had no seed or matter of 
 disease within him, and he possessed most certain ex- 
 emption from actual death, by the goodness of God, in 
 the event of his not sinning. This was maintained by 
 one of the ancient councils, which condemned those 
 who affirmed, that the first man was created mortal, so 
 that, whether he sinned or not, he was to die bodily, not 
 through the desert of sin, but through the law of his na- 
 ture. Once more, it appears from the very words of 
 God, that dominion was given to man over the rest of 
 the creation,—“ Multiply and replenish the earth, and 
 subdue it, and have dominion over the fish of the sea,” 
 &c. (Gen. i. 28,) whence Adam is said to have given 
 the living creatures their names, (Gen. ii. 19,) which 
 names, if we take Philo’s opinion, were not improper, nor 
 unsuitable, but exactly expressive of the peculiar pro- 
 
 erties of the subjects, so that the nature of each could 
 e known as soon as the name given to it was pronounced. 
 
 We have said that Adam was not impeccable; it fol- 
 lows, therefore, that he had a free will in his state of 
 innocence. But let us first inquire what is meant by 
 free will: by it we understand nothing else than the 
 power of doing what we please, under the guidance of 
 our own judgment and counsel, so as not to feel ourselves 
 impelled by any external influence. To this liberty is 
 
 12 
 
138 OF THE IMAGE OF GOD IN MAN. 
 
 opposed that physical or natural necessity, which is seen 
 in natural agents, that are by the law of their nature 
 determined or influenced towards one object, as fire to 
 burn; and also the necessity of compulsion, which arises 
 from an external agent, the subject of that compulsion 
 not contributing any thing towards it, on the contrary 
 resisting it, as if a man were to be dragged by force to 
 an idol, or to prison; but to this liberty is not opposed 
 that necessity of dependence, by which all the creatures 
 depend on God, and from which a rational creature can- 
 not be exempted; nor that rational necessity, which 
 arises from the deliberate judgment of the mind; for 
 instance, when I necessarily embrace what appears to 
 me the chief good; for although I do this necessarily, it 
 is not done the less freely. In order that any agent may 
 be said to be free, it is enough that he act voluntarily, 
 and with judgment, which evidently appears in the case 
 of God himself, who is a very free and independent 
 Being, and yet is necessarily determined to what is 
 good: and the same is the case with the angels and glo- 
 rified spirits. Liberty therefore does not consist in in- 
 difference, for otherwise God himself would not be free, 
 and the more man was determined to good, i. e. the 
 more perfect he became, the less free would he be, which 
 is absurd. 
 
 From these observations, then, we easily conclude, 
 that Adam possessed free will, since this liberty is the 
 essential property of a rational creature: it being impos- 
 sible to conceive of a rational creature without the 
 power of doing any thing under the guidance of a deli- 
 berate judgment; indeed to act from reason is always 
 to act freely. It appears also from hence, that this liberty 
 of Adam did not consist in independence, as though he 
 were at his own disposal; for as a creature, he was 
 always to depend on his Creator, and upon the pleasure 
 of that Creator: this liberty simply consisted in his act- 
 ing freely, and with judgment, without being impelled 
 by any external agent. Nor did his liberty consist in 
 indifference, as though his will were equally balanced 
 between an inclination to good, and an inclination to 
 evil, for such indifference would have been sin, and 
 therefore Adam would have been corrupt from the very 
 first, since we cannot without sin be equally inclined to 
 good and to evil; and yet to say that Adam was created 
 by God in a corrupt state, is to make God the author of 
 sin, which is impious. We cannot however deny that 
 
OF THE COVENANT OF NATURE. 139 
 
 Adam was mutable; he was placed in such a state, that 
 he could stand or fall, sin or not sin; but this mutability 
 cannot be called liberty; it does not deserve to be hon- 
 oured with so distinguished an appellation; it was a 
 kind of appendage to Adam’s liberty, which so peculiarly 
 belonged to him, that it has never again been found in 
 any man. Let us not therefore confound this mutability 
 with indifference; for it is possible for a man to be 
 placed in such a state, as that he can sin, or not sin, 
 although he should always continue holy, and without 
 any corruption; on the contrary, no one can be said to 
 be indifferent to (or equally inclined) to good and to evil, 
 without being corrupt. 
 
 CHAPTER VII. 
 OF THE COVENANT OF NATURE. 
 
 We have proved that man was created after the image 
 of God. We also do not doubt that God entered into a 
 covenant with him, although this is not expressly inti- 
 mated in the scripture, unless we admit, as evidence, 
 that passage in Hosea vi. 7, where it is said, “ They, like 
 men, have transgressed the covenant,” i. e. as it is ren- 
 dered by some, “They, like Adam, have,” &c. The He- 
 brew word signifying covenant (m3) is derived, either 
 from x73, which in pihel signifies to cut or divide, because 
 animals were thus cut, when covenants were thus en- 
 tered into, and those who covenanted were accustomed 
 to pass between the divided parts of the victim ; or from 
 «^i, signifying not only to create, but also to ordain or 
 appoint, in the same sense as the word «zie» among the 
 Hellenist Jews, (hence Peter calls the authority appointed 
 by man, «rics, an ordinance, 1 Peter ii. 13;) or from n3, 
 to choose. lt matters not which etymology be adopted ; 
 only, we may observe, the word n^3 is sometimes taken 
 for an unchangeable decree concerning any thing, as in 
 Jer. xxxiii.20; though it strictly means, a mutual agree- 
 ment upon something between two parties. The Greeks 
 use the word $à05«, which sometimes denotes a testa- 
 ment, as Budeus also proves from several passages in 
 
140 OF THE COVENANT OF NATURE. A 
 
 Isocrates, /Eschines, Demosthenes, and others; some- 
 times it denotes a Jaw; thus, as Grotius observes, the 
 followers of Orpheus and Pythagoras called the rules of 
 life, presented to their disciples, datjxa; but it frequently 
 denotes agreement, or covenant ; hence Hesychius ren- 
 ders it by the word c UVaOnocta. 
 
 It is true, that, speaking strictly, there cannot be any 
 covenant between God and man, because there is no 
 proportion between God and man, and between the 
 goodness of the one, and the duty of the other; because 
 also man is bound without any covenant to pay obe- 
 dience to God, and is not able of himself to contribute 
 any thing towards it; nor does God owe any thing to 
 his creature, or in any way has need of his crea- 
 ture. But God, under the influence of pure kind- 
 ness, was pleased by means of a covenant, to invite 
 into communion with himself and by this bond of love 
 and mutual agreement, more effectually to win over his 
 creature, who was already subject, and owed every 
 thing to him. Now in this covenant we must consider 
 who were the contracting parties, and what was the 
 covenant itself. 'The contracting parties were God and 
 man; God, as Creator and Lord, who, as an all-wise 
 Being, cannot disregard his creature in any way, cannot 
 govern it, except in a, manner agreeable to his own 
 nature, and by means of suitable laws, and cannot but 
 love and reward it, while discharging its duty—and man, 
 considered as upright, and therefore having power to 
 perform the duty enjoined, considered also as the first 
 man, the head and chief of the human race, and therefore 
 representing the whole of that race which was to de- 
 scend from him. 1 
 
 With regard to the covenant itself, we must observe, 
 what was the duty required by God; what was the 
 promise made to the performance of that duty; what 
 was the threat denounced against the neglect of it. 
 Now the duty consisted in all that Ánowledge of God 
 which could be derived from contemplating the divine 
 work, and from revelation, as much as could be acquired 
 by a perfectly upright mind; but especially in obedience 
 to the law of God, both the natural law, which was en- 
 graven on man's heart, and any special commandments, 
 which God might choose to impose (such as was the 
 command to abstain from the fruit of the tree of the 
 knowledge of good and evil;) in short, such an obe- 
 dience was required, as was true and sincere (having 
 
OF THE COVENANT OF NATURE. 141 
 
 respect not merely to some, but to all and each of God’s 
 commands) constant and persevering, perfect and com- 
 plete in all its parts. Moreover, man had sufficient 
 power given him by his Creator to perform this obe- 
 dience. The threatening denounced against the neglect 
 of this obedience, was death, (Gen. ii. 17,) by which we 
 understand the death of the body, (Gen. iii. 19,) together 
 with all the miseries and calamities of life preceding ; 
 the death of the soul, on its separation from God, and 
 from communion with him, (Ephes. iii. 1,) and eternal 
 death, consisting of the most dreadful torments both of 
 soul and body. With regard to the promise of the cove- 
 nant, though it is not expressly laid down, it is suffi- 
 ciently clear from the threatening of death, which is op- 
 posed to it; for although God owes nothing to his crea- 
 ture, yet as the whole scripture sets him forth to us as 
 slow to anger and abundant in mercy, it is not at all 
 probable, that God denounced upon man the threat of 
 eternal punishment, and at the same time gave him no 
 promise. But if any one wonder why God should speak 
 about punishment, and be silent concerning reward, we 
 may give this as the probable reason of it, viz. that inno- 
 cent Adam needed to have distinct mention made to him 
 both of sin forbidden, and of death its consequence, 
 seeing that in his upright state he was ignorant of death 
 and sin, but it was not so necessary to make mention to 
 him of the /ife which was to be bestowed upon him, on 
 condition of his persevering in holiness; for he already 
 enjoyed a most blessed life, from which he could very 
 easily judge of the life that was to come. We must 
 therefore form a judgment of the reward, from the pun- 
 ishment, and therefore, as the former comprehended all 
 evil, especially eternal death, so the latter contained all 
 that was good, particularly eternal life, and the most in- 
 timate communion with God in unchangeable holiness. 
 This is further confirmed from the covenant of nature 
 being the same as the covenant of works, as we shall see 
 hereafter. Now the covenant of works promised eternal 
 life, saying, “ Do this, and live.” 
 
 We cannot believe that Adam would, if he had per- 
 severed, have enjoyed the same life which he already 
 had; it is far more probable, that God promised him 
 something greater and better, after the course of his obe. 
 dience was finished, than what he already possessed, 
 otherwise he could not have been said to have given him 
 any reward at all. Now this covenant is called the cove- 
 
142 OF THE COVENANT OF NATURE. 
 
 nant of nature, because it was founded on the nature of. 
 man, as it was created by God, and upon the strength of 
 that nature; it is called also the legal covenant, because 
 the condition required on man’s part, was the keeping of 
 the law of nature; and it was called the covenant of 
 works, because it was founded on works to be performed 
 by Adam. It had no mediator, since man was perfectly 
 righteous, and free from sin; and being such, he needed 
 no mediator. But since in every covenant there are 
 usually some external symbols or signs, to remind the 
 contracting parties of their duty, and to set before them 
 the promises of the covenant, it pleased God todeal with 
 man in this form under the first covenant; and the visible 
 sign, by which God chose to confirm his faith, was the 
 tree of life which stood in the midst of the Paradise, 
 where Adam had been placed by his Maker. 
 Concerning this Paradise (the word is of Persian 
 origin,) I do not intend to say much, nor to inquire in 
 what part of the earth it was, whether in Palestine, or in 
 the neighbouring country of Damascus, or in any part 
 of Southern Mesopotamia, or of Babylon; what was its 
 circuit and extent, and what was the exact course of the 
 rivers Pison and Gihon. Let it be enough to observe, 
 that this Paradise no longer exists, although it is uncer- 
 tain what occasioned its ruin and desolation, whether it 
 was fire sent from heaven, or the neglect of cultivation 
 after man's banishment from it, or the waters of the 
 deluge, or all these causes together. We may observe 
 also that the fame of Paradise was known among the 
 heathen: for what else does Homer mean by the gar- 
 dens of Alcinoüs, and Plato by the garden of Jupiter ? 
 What else is meant by the gardens of the Hesperides, 
 which were, according to Pliny, the admiration of the 
 ancients? And very possibly the ;&ov» (pleasure) of the 
 Greeks was derived from the jy (Eden) of the Hebrews. 
 But what we are most concerned to notice is, that there 
 were two remarkable trees in this Paradise ; the one 
 was the tree of life, so called because it was the symbol 
 of life already received from God, and of life that was to 
 be received and enioyed in heaven, and not because it 
 had any power of giving life to man, or bestowing im- 
 mortality upon him, like the fabled ambrosia of the hea- 
 then deities; although it is possible, that the fruit of it 
 was very good, and excellent food for the preservation. 
 of animal life. It is disputed, whether this tree was a 
 figure of Christ: now Christ is undoubtedly the true tree 
 
OF PROVIDENCE IN GENERAL. 143 
 
 of life, from which we derive the life that is heavenly, 
 which is in the midst of the Church, as the other was in 
 the midst of Paradise, which bears the most abundant 
 fruit, for the supply of the twelve tribes of Israel, i. e. all 
 the members of the Church, which bears that fruit 
 “every month” in the year, i. e. perpetually, and whose 
 Jeaves, ever green and fair, “are for the healing of the 
 nations.” The other tree was the tree of the knowledge 
 of good and evil, so called, not because its fruit had any 
 wonderful power of inspiring or increasing knowledge, 
 nor because Satan gave this name to it, but from the 
 lamentable event, inasmuch as by the eating of it man 
 actually experienced what good and evil were; how 
 much good he had lost: and how much evil he had 
 brought upon himself. But what that tree was, whether 
 a fig-tree, or an apple-tree, or any other, it is-vain curi- 
 Osity to inquire; nor is it altogether necessary to ex- 
 amine, whether this tree was a sacrament or not; some 
 maintain the negative, because they say, sacraments 
 were given to be used, but the use of this tree was for- 
 bidden to man, and because sacraments are signsof a 
 blessing, which blessing they seal, but the use of this 
 tree brought a curse. Others maintain the affirmative, 
 because, they contend, the use of some sacraments con- 
 sists in contemplation, as the rainbow, and because it is 
 not inconsistent with the nature of sacraments, to be - 
 epe or seals of death to those who do not rightly use 
 them. 
 
 CHAPTER VIII. 
 OF PROVIDENCE IN GENERAL. 
 
 We have treated of the creation of all things. Now we 
 are not to imagine that God left those things he had cre- 
 ated to themselves, and that he has no regard at all to 
 the affairs of this lower world, as was the opinion of 
 Epicurus, who imagined to himself a kind of Deity, Aav- 
 ing no trouble himself, nor giving it to any other. We 
 must rather believe that God preserves, governs, and 
 
144 OF PROVIDENCE IN GENERAL. 
 
 directs to certain ends, every thing which he has created. 
 There is nothing, says Augustine, in this vast and im- 
 mense commonwealth, which is not either commanded, or 
 permitted, by edicts from the court of the Supreme Gov- 
 ernor. This care over all things we call Providence, 
 concerning which we must first inquire, whether it real- 
 ly exists, i. e. whether there is a Providence. Now this 
 is proved by many arguments. 
 
 The first is derived from the nature of God, as an all- 
 perfect Being; for who would call that Being perfect, 
 who should sit inactive at the helm of the universe, and 
 give up every thing to the direction of the creatures? 
 At least, who would not conceive of something more 
 perfect than such a Being as this? "The second argu- 
 ment is derived from the nature of the creatures; for 
 since they were produced out of nothing, they would 
 relapse into nothing, if they were not preserved by the 
 same power which formed them, nor would the world 
 continue for a moment, did not God pervade all, as the 
 poet says, T'errasque tractusque maris, celumque pro- 
 Jundum (the seas, the lands, and the lofty skies.) For 
 the essence of the creatures does not involve in it any 
 idea of existence; and thus because they exist at one 
 moment, it does not follow that they will exist at the 
 next moment. And this was the reason why the author 
 of the Book of the World (Philo), compares the Deity to 
 those stones, which the Greeks call ó«9a, and the Latins 
 Umbilici, which keep firm together the whole mass of 
 arched work; thus God supports and holds together 
 every part of the universe. TheZhird argument is drawn 
 from the wonderful order and harmony of the creatures ; 
 for who can believe that so great a number of creatures, 
 of so many different natures, could continue for so many 
 ages, without the special care of a deity? Who can be- 
 lieve that the courses of the stars, and the changes of the 
 seasons, and other things of the same nature, could con- 
 tinually revolve in an immutable order, without the 
 watchful eye, and the powerful hand, of Him who or- 
 dained them? The fourth argument is taken from vari- 
 ous passages of scripture, where it is said, that he “ up- 
 holdeth all things by the word of his power"—that “ he 
 giveth to all life, breath, and all things," and “in him 
 we live, and move, and have our being"—that he “ pre- 
 serveth man and _ beast”—* giveth to all their meat in 
 due season,” that he * sends forth the rain, and snow,” 
 &c., governs the winds, the sea, the rivers, takes care 
 
OF PROVIDENCE IN GENERAL. 145 
 
 of “sparrows” and “ lilies,’ forms men in the womb; 
 with other things of this kind. The fifth argument is 
 derived from the conviction of conscience ; for if every 
 thing is given- up to chance or fortune (as it is called), 
 and there is no such thing as Providence, why is con- 
 science alarmed at the remembrance of sin? Why do 
 the wicked turn pale at the sight of lightning, or at the 
 hearing of thunder, and start with terror at the first 
 noise of the heavens ? 
 
 We must therefore allow a Providence; since to deny 
 it, is to deny the very being of God, and to overthrow 
 all religion. Many of the heathens acknowledged it; 
 thus Lucilius Balbus, a Stoic, is introduced by Cicero, 
 speaking thus—If any one were to enter a house, or 
 school, or forum, and to behold the method, the order, and 
 the government of all things in it, he could not imagine 
 that these things were done without a cause, but would 
 believe that there was some one who presided and direct- 
 ed, and to whom obedience was paid: mmch more then, in 
 such great operations and vicissitudes, in the movements 
 of things so numerous and so important, in which nothing 
 has ever been false for an immense series of ages past, is 
 it necessary to determine, that such mighty operations of 
 nature are governed by some divine mind. 'This perhaps 
 was the reason, why zpsvoa (providence) was worshipped 
 as a goddess in the isle of Delos, and was said to have 
 assisted Latona at her labour; by which was signified, 
 that nature, which was represented by Latona, could 
 do nothing without providence,as a midwife, to assist 
 her in her labour, and bringing forth of ber children. 
 The philosopher Zeno defined God to be, an immortal 
 
 ' being, who presided over the world, and the things in the 
 world. 
 
 There is no necessity to doubt concerning providence, 
 merely because of the many inequalities which we see 
 in this world. They appear indeed to be unequal and 
 irregular, but they are not really so, as we should see, 
 if we were allowed to penetrate the secrets of the Most 
 High. But it is not our province to pry into his designs, 
 or to measure them by the narrow rule of our own un- 
 derstanding. How, indeed, is it possible for finite mor- 
 tals to comprehend all the actions of an infinite Being ? 
 All that we have to conclude from this is, that God has 
 not been pleased to discover the ends of all that he does, 
 although they are most holy, and most worthy of an all- 
 perfect Being; and we MGE M less to wonder at this, 
 
 1 
 
146 OF PROVIDENCE IN GENERAL. 
 
 since even earthly sovereigns do many things, the rea- 
 sons of which are unknown to us. It is admirably said 
 by Salvian—I can indeed most reasonably and deliberate- 
 ly say, I am totally ignorant of the secret counsel of the 
 Deity. The saying of the divine oracle is enough for me 
 to the establishing of this point—God says that all things 
 are seen, governed, and judged by him. But do not ask 
 of me, why God thus does the things of which we are 
 speaking. I am a man—I do not understand, I dare not 
 investigate the secrets of God, indeed I dread to attempt 
 it ; moreover, it is a kind of sacrilegious rashness, to de- 
 sire to know more than you are permitted to know. Let 
 it be enough for you that God plainly declares that all 
 things are ruled and governed by him. Excellently also 
 Thomas Bradwardine (Archbishop of Canterbury): 
 Blush, O philosopher, proud of thy knowledge, and no 
 longer think it right to esteem God so little a Being, as 
 that thou, little as thou art, canst comprehend the whole 
 of him in thy puny mind, and search into all his secrets, 
 and. fully conceive of him as he altogether is. We ob- 
 serve further, that it is no objection to a Providence that 
 it often appears “to be ill with the righteous," and “to 
 be well with the wicked," or that the innocent are often 
 involved in calamities with the guilty; this will be easily 
 explained, by considering that many persons under the 
 mask of piety conceal an ungodly heart, that many 
 things appear to be evil, which are really good, that 
 many are believed to be good, which are not so, that no 
 one is innocent in the sight of God, that God often de- 
 livers his own people from the calamities with which he 
 overwhelms the wicked, as in the cases of Noah, Lot, 
 and the Christians before the destruction of Jerusalem, 
 that God frequently punishes the wicked in this life. Fi- 
 nally, we must not imagine that it takes away any thing 
 from the felicity of God, to be occupied in the govern- 
 ment of the world ; since he performs every thing by the 
 single act and motion of his will; hence he is called by 
 Augustine the God who governs the world without labour, 
 and upholds it without burden. 
 
OF THE OBJECTS AND ACTS OF PROVIDENCE. 147 
 
 CHAPTER IX. 
 OF THE OBJECTS AND ACTS OF PROVIDENCE. 
 
 Tuts Providence overrules all things, every single thing, 
 even the most minute,in heaven and in earth, things 
 certain and contingent, good and evil The wise men 
 among the Jews, according to Maimonides, maintained 
 that God nourished and supported every thing, from the 
 horn of the unicorn to the eggs of the meanest and vilest 
 insect. Among the Arabian Mahomedans, there was a 
 sect, as the same Maimonides relates, which believed 
 that God superintended the fall of every leaf, and the 
 ereeping of every ant. Nor was this doctrine entirely 
 unknown to the heathens, although some among them 
 limited providence to the sphere of the moon, and main- 
 tained that the gods took care of great, but neglected 
 small things; but far different was the opinion of Soc- 
 rates, who is said to have maintained, that it is known 
 to the Deity even when we move ourselves. There is, 
 in fact, nothing so mean and inconsiderable, which God 
 does not know and direct. What can be meaner than 
 the hairs of the head, the flowers and grass of the field ; 
 than ravens, quails, locusts, insects, &c? And yet the 
 scripture teaches us that the providence of God is over 
 such as these. * Are not two sparrows sold for a farth- 
 ing, and one of them shall not fall to the ground without 
 your Father? But the very hairs of your head are all 
 numbered,” (Matt. x. 29, 30.) “He watereth the hills 
 from his chambers; the earth is satisfied with the fruit 
 of thy works. He causeth the grass to grow for the 
 cattle, and herb for the service of man, that he may bring 
 forth food out of the earth,” (Psalm civ. 13, 14.) “Con- 
 sider the ravens, for they neither sow nor reap, which 
 neither have storehouse nor barn, and God feedeth 
 them,” (Luke xii. 24.) We need not quote any more 
 passages. 
 
 Nothing is so contingent or accidental, as not to fall 
 under the Providence of God. What more accidental 
 than the death of one man, killed unintentionally by an- 
 other? Yet this is attributed to God, (Exod. xxi. 13.) 
 What more a matter of chance than lots? Yet is the de- 
 
148 OF THE OBJECTS 
 
 cision of them ascribed to God—* The lot is cast into the 
 lap, but the whole disposing thereof is of the Lord," 
 (Prov. xvi. 33.) Away therefore with any such repre- 
 sentation, as that of fortune blindfolded, and standing on 
 a wheel, directing the affairs of mankind. Nothing also 
 so depends on the human will, as not to be under the di- 
 rection of Providence. “The preparations of the heart 
 in man are from the Lord." (Prov. xvi. 1.) “The king's 
 heart is in the hand of the Lord, as the rivers of water; 
 he turneth it whithersoever he will" (Prov. xxi. 1.) 
 Examples of this could be shewn in Esau, the Egyptians, 
 Balaam, Saul, and others. That this Providence also is 
 concerned in evil actions, the scripture declares in those 
 passages in which it is said, that “the Lord hardened 
 Pharaoh’s heart," (Exod. iv. 21,) and * gave up the wives 
 of David unto his neighbour." (2 Sam. xii. 11.) Yea, 
 that even “ God did (by Absalom) before all Israel, what 
 David did secretly," (v. 12,) that God “commanded 
 Shimei to curse David," (2 Sam. xvi. 10,) that * he mingled 
 a perverse spirit in the midst of the Egyptians," (Isaiah 
 xix. 14) and “ put a lying spirit in the mouth of the pro- 
 phets," (1 Kings xxii. 23,) &c. : 
 
 Upon the whole, we must not think it strange that 
 God should order and direct the least things; for if it 
 was not beneath God's majesty to create the least and 
 meanest, why should it be beneath his glory to preserve 
 them? even as it is not beneath the glory of the sun to 
 cast the rays of his light upon the foulest places. Be- 
 sides, if God neglected the least and meanest things, he 
 would neglect all things, because all things are very little 
 and mean in comparison with himself Nor must we 
 imagine that Paul in 1 Cor. ix. 9, denies that **God taketh 
 care for oxen,” for it is plain from an attentive examina- 
 tion of the passage, that Paul's intention was to shew 
 that God, in commanding by the law that *the mouth 
 of the ox that treadeth out the corn should not be muz- 
 zled," did not so much desire to shew his regard to ox- 
 en, as to shew that the greater care was to be bestowed 
 on men who labour faithfully in their calling, inasmuch 
 as they were far superior to all oxen. In what way God 
 orders things contingent, and things that depend on the 
 will of man, without infringing on their liberty, and how 
 he orders things that are sinful, without injuring his own 
 character, will be explained hereafter. 
 
 With regard to the acts or operations of Providence 
 there are two, the preservation and the government of 
 
AND ACTS OF PROVIDENCE. 149 
 
 allthings. The scripture teaches us the former—* Thou, 
 O Lord, preservest man and beast,” (Psalm xxxvi. 6.) 
 * In him we live, and move, and have our being.” (Acts 
 xvii. 28.) *'Thou openest thy hand, they are filled with 
 good; thou hidest thy face, they are troubled; thou 
 takest away their breath, they die, and return to their 
 dust; thou sendest forth thy spirit, they are created, and 
 thou renewest the face of the earth.” (Psalm civ. 28—30.) 
 Two things prove the necessity of this preservation, first, 
 the weakness of the creatures, which cannot exist of 
 themselves, even for a moment, for from their existing 
 at the present, it does not follow that they will exist for 
 the future. The ideas of selfexistence, and self-preser- 
 yation, stand or fall together; and therefore, as no finite 
 beings can exist of themselves, so none can be preserved 
 by themselves. Secondly, their dependence upon God; 
 for being dependent on him, it is impossible to conceive 
 how they could exist a moment without his preserva- 
 tion; otherwise they would be for that moment inde- 
 pendent. 
 
 Now this preservation must not be conceived, as if 
 God merely permitted to exist, or abstained from de- 
 stroying ; but it is an act of God's will, by which it pleases 
 him that the creature should remain in the state in which 
 it was created. Whence it has been justly observed, 
 that this preservation is a kind of perpetual creation ; 
 for by the same will by which he created all things, God 
 preserves all things. Creation differs from preservation 
 only in this respect, that, when the existence of the thing 
 follows the will of God, it is called creation ; when the 
 same thing continues by the same will in its existence, 
 it is called preservation. Whence it follows, that, if 
 God chose to annihilate any creature, it would be enough 
 for him to command it to exist only for a certain time, 
 after which it would cease to exist, not by any new act 
 on the part of God, but simply by a cessation of the 
 former act. All these things would be easily conceived 
 by us, if we would form a just and proper idea of the di- 
 vine Being; but because men are in the habit of forming 
 an idea of the relation which God bears to his own world, 
 as they do of the relation which an architect bears to a 
 /house built by him, they imagine that the creatures, 
 when they have come out of the hands of God, no longer 
 need his assistance, any more than the house needs the 
 assistance of the architect after it has been completed by 
 him; whereas they are Son uM in error on this sub- 
 
 3 * 
 
150 OF THE OBJECTS 
 
 ject, by comparing things that are widely different. 
 For the architect contributes nothing tothe building, but 
 the just and proper arrangement of its parts; he does 
 not form those parts; he finds them made, he does not 
 make them; and therefore it is quite natural, that those 
 parts which do not derive their existence from the archi- 
 tect, should be able to exist without him, according to 
 the law of nature. If we may compare human things 
 with divine, I should prefer comparing the creatures to 
 the light which continually proceeds from the sun; 
 though here the comparison will in many respects fail 
 us. 
 
 The second act of Providence is government, which is 
 that operation of the divine will, by which he wisely 
 orders all things, and not only concurs or co-operates 
 (if we may use such a word, though not strictly proper), 
 with second causes, and the operation of them, but also 
 directs every thing to its peculiar end, and makes every 
 thing the instrument of his own glory. 'l'hat God does 
 thus govern, as well as preserve all things, is proved 
 from all those passages of scripture, in which the opera- 
 tions of second causes are ascribed to God ; which would 
 be said without reason, if the whole nature of Provi- 
 dence consisted only in the preservation of things. In- 
 stances are innumerable; for example, God is said to 
 have sent Joseph into Egypt, (Gen. xiv. 7,)—to have 
 * the king's heart in his hand, turning it withersoever he 
 will,” (Prov. xxi. lj—to make use of the ungodly as 
 an axe, a saw, a rod, a staff, &c. (Isaiah x. 15, &c.) Now 
 such instruments do not work of themselves, except a 
 man apply his hand to them; and all these expressions 
 wouid be very tame indeed, if they denoted nothing else 
 than the preservation of certain powers in the creature. 
 The same point is evident also from the consideration, 
 that the creatures are no less dependent upon God for 
 their operation, than for their existence, and need his 
 power noless for the former than for the latter, which 
 will very plainly appear by observing, that there are 
 many creatures whose very essence consists in opera- 
 tion; as for instance, a spirit, whose essence consists in 
 thought. Now how can we conceive that a spirit con- 
 stantly needs the concurrence of the Deity to the pre- 
 servation of its essence, and does not need this concur- 
 rence to the production of its thoughts, seeing that its 
 essence and its thoughts are so intimately connected, 
 that the one cannot subsist without the other? 
 
AND ACTS OF PROVIDENCE. 15 
 
 But since the subject of the divine concurrence or co- 
 operation is very difficult, we will ilustrate it by several 
 propositions. First, this co-operation must not be con- 
 sidered as some power which passes from God into the 
 creatures; it is nothing more than the will of God, by 
 which it pleases him that second causes should operate 
 at a particular time, under particular circumstances. 
 For God does every thing by a single act of his will— 
 he spake and it was done. Secondly, the motion which 
 is produced in the creatures, and in second causes, by 
 the will of God, is not a motion different from that of se- 
 cond causes, For we must not conceive the operation 
 of God in concurring, and the operation of the second 
 cause which admits that concurrence, to be two different 
 actions, like those of two persons who draw the same 
 rope. On the contrary, the operation or motion which 
 is produced by the first cause in the second, is the same 
 with the operation of the second cause—they are one 
 and the same. For co-operation is nothing else but the 
 acting of second causes, produced in them, not by their 
 own power independent of God, but by the power of that 
 act of his will, by which he says, as it were, J will ; 
 whence alone it is that this action is produced by that 
 creature. Thirdly, this co-operation is not merely ge- 
 neral and indifferent, so as to be directed to its particu- 
 lar end by the second cause, as some think, wbo illus- 
 trate their position by the example of the sun, which in- 
 differently concurs with the things beneath it, according 
 to their nature, so that the indifferent and general ope- 
 ration of this luminary is directed to its particular ends, 
 by the action of those inferior things; whence it comes to 
 pass, that the action of the sun at one and the same time 
 hardens some things, melts others, whitens these, and 
 blackens those. Now if this position were true, then the 
 first cause would be dependent on the second, not the 
 second on the first. Also the decree of God would be 
 rendered uncertain, and his prescience fallible, since 
 they would both depend on the changeable will of 
 human beings. Further, the creature would be more 
 active than God, for a particular direction is superior to 
 a general co-operation. Moreover in this case, God 
 would not be the cause of good, more than of evil. 
 Fourthly, we can form no conception as to the nature of 
 this general and indifferent co-operation of God, allowing 
 it to exist. It must have some subject, and this can be 
 no other than the will; now the co-operation, which is in 
 
152 OF THE MODE OF 
 
 this will, either produces a fitness to act, or the act itself. 
 Whichever is said, that co-operation cannot be indiffer- 
 ent. Fifthly, the divine co-operation prevents our will, 
 which is proved by considering that the aets of the 
 divine will precede those of our will, since God hath de- 
 creed from eternity what should be done in time, and 
 that our will being of its own nature indifferent to any 
 motion, the event or result could not be predicted with 
 certainty, unless the will were influenced by God. 
 Lastly, this co-operation by no means destroys the 
 liberty of the creature, as will be shewn presently, when 
 we treat of the manner in which all things are ordered 
 by 4 nempe 
 
 CHAPTER X. 
 OF THE MODE OF DIVINE PROVIDENCE. 
 
 Tur manner in which Providence governs all things, 
 differs according to the nature of its objects, some of 
 which are inanimate, others animate, and others ra- 
 tional beings. With respect to the two former, there is no 
 difficulty, seeing that God bestows upon them such a 
 nature, endued with certain properties, that they neces- 
 sarily produce particular effects, according to their 
 several objects, as the sun shines, fire burns, &c. Thus 
 we easily conceive how they are governed by God, who 
 preserves and supports their essence and the power 
 given them by creation, and furnishes them with suitable 
 objects to which their powers are devoted. As it re- 
 gards human beings there is a greater difficulty ; but 
 thus much we may observe, — that there are three 
 kinds of actions which are done in man, viz. natural, 
 animal, and rational ; with the two former God is con- 
 cerned in the same manner as with inanimate things, or 
 as with the brute creation, although it must be allowed, 
 that God watches over human affairs in a particular 
 manner. Butthe case is different with rational actions: 
 
 with regard to these we may observe, that there are 
 
DIVINE PROVIDENCE, 153 
 
 three sorts of them, as done by man, viz. indifferent, 
 € and evi/,—with the first God is concerned in these 
 ifferent respects, viz. he preserves man’s nature and 
 his powers of action—he causes objects to be presented 
 to him—he removes other objects, which might prevent 
 him from directing his attention to those that are set be- 
 fore him—he gives these objects such properties or quali- 
 ties, as may influence man to act in this or that manner 
 —he acts upon man's body and mind, and influences to 
 action either both, or one of them, according asit is 
 necessary. As to good actions, we believe the case to be 
 nearly the same. For God preserves man's nature and 
 his power of doing what is good—he presents an object 
 tending to call this power into action—commands him 
 by his word thus to act—works on man's mind by his 
 Spirit, correcting its depraved inclination, and rendering 
 it capable of acting well—removes out of the way what- 
 ever could divert man from his good intention — in- 
 fluences the powers of the soul to act—and fills the mind 
 with such pleasure and satisfaction, that it perseveres 
 till it has accomplished its work. With respect to evil 
 actions, we shall treat the subject in a separate chapter. 
 Now ifit be inquired, in what way divine Providence 
 can consist with human liberty? we reply, that although 
 we were ignorant of this, yet we should not the less be- 
 lieve that Providence governs us, and that yet weare free; 
 for we certainly know that we are dependent on God, 
 and are equally conscious of our own freedom. 'We can 
 also reconcile Providence with our own liberty by con- 
 sidering, that the former influences second causes in a 
 manner agreeable to their nature, and does not take 
 away from any of them their own particular mode of 
 action ; it does not force the will to act, —does not physi- 
 cally determine it, as it does an inanimate thing which 
 is without will and judgment, but infiuences the will 
 rationally, in a manner that is agreeable to its nature. 
 Again, should it be asked, how the doctrine of a Provi- 
 dence is consistent with the contingency of events, I 
 reply at once, that a necessary event, with reference to 
 second causes, is not properly contingent, since God has 
 decreed or determined albthings. But if any thing ap- 
 pears contingent to us, it is because we do not know 
 what God has decreed, nor what connexion the things 
 which we call contingent have with other things. 
 Besides, the manner of divine Providence varying ac- 
 cording to the difference of its objects, it varies also in 
 
154 OF THE PROVIDENCE 
 
 these several respects. Sometimes God acts in the gov. 
 ernment of the world, without the instrumentality of se- 
 cond causes. Sometimes he employs second causes, 
 animate or inanimate, angelic or human, not because he 
 needs their services, but of his own good pleasure. 
 Sometimes, also, he works according to the nature and 
 powers which he has bestowed on things by creation, 
 and according to the order he originally appointed ; at 
 other times he does not observe that order, but either 
 suspends it, or performs miraculous works, i. e. which 
 exceed the powers of nature. 
 
 CHAPTER XI. 
 OF THE PROVIDENCE OF GOD OVER SIN. 
 
 Tuat the Providence of God is concerned with sin, we 
 cannot be ignorant; for it is beyond all doubt, that no- 
 thing takes place in the world without the knowledge 
 and will of the Omniscient and Omnipotent Being; but 
 in what way it is thus concerned, is a point of the great- 
 est difficulty. Far be it from us to think with the Mani- 
 chees, and other ancient heretics, that God is the author 
 ofsin; much less to say with Homer's Agamemnon, in 
 order to excuse our guilt—I am not the author (of it,) 
 but Jupiter ; hence Jupiter is represented as complain- 
 ing of mankind— They say that evil is of us. For this is 
 both contrary to the character of God, as a most holy 
 Being, and to the scripture, which teaches us that God 
 perfectly hates sin. How could he indeed, as Basil ob- 
 serves, be the author of those things, of which he is the 
 revenger ? for God would not, nor could he with justice, 
 punish what he himself did and approved. But that we 
 may form some just conceptions of the manner in which 
 God is concerned with sin, we shall consider sin in re- 
 ference to its beginning, its progress, and its end; for in 
 these three relations is it connected with Providence. 
 With regard to the beginning of sin, God is concerned 
 with it in various ways, first, by permitting it. This the 
 scripture teaches us—*1 gave them up unto their own 
 
R, 
 
 ‘OF GOD OVER SIN. 155 
 
 hearts’ lust, and they walked in their own counsels,” 
 (Psalm Ixxxi. 12.) * Who in times past suffered all na- 
 tions to walk in their own ways," (Acts xiv. 16.) But 
 here we must carefully observe, that permission does not 
 imply approbation ; far be it from us to say this of God. 
 Again, we must not imagine that it is a mere cessation 
 of the divine will as though God either ignorantly, or 
 unwillingly, or even indifferently, permitted what he 
 does permit; for this is contrary both to his wisdom and 
 to his power, since there is nothing more unworthy of 
 God, than to suffer any thing to take place, and at the 
 same time to wink at it, or to behold any thing taking 
 place, while he himself (if we may so speak) remains an 
 inactive spectator of it. Further, to permit is not simply 
 not-to-prevent, as is evident from this one argument—lIf 
 God permits sin by not preventing it, he either wills not- 
 to-prevent it, or he puts forth no act of volition at all; 
 if the latter, then the event takes place, either against 
 God's will, and without any regard on his part, which it 
 were impious to assert; ifthe former, then that permis- 
 sion will not be a simple non-prevention, but an effectual 
 volition on the part of God, whereby he suffers man to 
 use his own liberty, and puts no hindrance in the way 
 of sin. This permission also includes the preservation 
 of man’s life and faculties, which God could take away, 
 if he wished to prevent sin, as he took away life from 
 Pharaoh, Sennacherib, and Ahaz’s soldiers (Exod. xiv; 
 2 Kings xix. 37; i. 10, 12;) and as he took away strength 
 and power from the Sodomites, from Balaam, from Jero- 
 boam, from the Syrian hosts (Gen. xix. 10; Numb. xxiii. 
 12, 26; xxiv. 13; 1 Kings xiii. 4; 2 Kings vi. 18, 19.) Tt 
 implies also the not opposing a superior strength and 
 power by way of hindrance. This then is the first act 
 of God in reference to sin. Do not ask why God hath 
 permitted it; for it is not for us to pry into these secrets: 
 we are sure he has permitted, the reason why is un- 
 known; this only we know, that God brings forth out 
 of the darkness of sin the light of his own glory. 
 
 'The second act, by which God is concerned with sin, 
 is that by which he forsakes the sinner, giving him up to 
 himself, taking away from him the light which he has 
 abused, and the Spirit which restrained him, so that, all 
 barriers being removed, he rushes headlong, the reins 
 being as it were thrown loosely on his neck. Thus God 
 is said to have *given up the Gentiles to vile affections, 
 fo their own lusts, and to a reprobate mind,” (Rom. i. 
 
156 OF THE PROVIDENCE 
 
 24, 26, 28;) and so Zechariah the son of Jehoiada, said 
 to the people, * Because ye have forsaken the Lord, he * 
 hath also forsaken you,” (2 Chron. xxiv. 20.) Thus we 
 read of God’s smiting men with madness, blindness, and 
 hardness of heart, making heavy or stopping their ears, 
 
 c. 
 
 The third actis that by which God presents opportu- 
 nities in objects not evil in themselves, but which by cor- 
 rupt man are turned into evil; now these objects God 
 proposes, either by not preventing the things which offer 
 themselves to man voluntarily and in a natural order, or 
 else by some particular influence on them; and that 
 these opportunities and objects do not of their own na- 
 ture force to evil is evident from this, that very often the 
 same objects produce different effects in different sub- 
 jects, as one and the same food is sweet to one, and 
 tasteless to another—healthful to this man, but injurious 
 to that, on account of the different constitution of their 
 bodies. Thus we see that David was tempted to adul- 
 tery by only looking at Bathsheba; while Joseph could 
 not be drawn to the same sin, even by the repeated so- 
 licitations of his mistress. Under this head comes that 
 also, by which God does not remove the occasions of 
 sin, and those objects in reference to which men feel in- 
 clined to coramit sin, as he prevented Saul from killing 
 David, Ahab and Jezebel from killing the prophets, and 
 the forty Jews from killing Paul, (1 Sam. xix. 11, 12; 1 
 Kings xviii. 4; Acts xxiii. 12.) 
 
 The fourth act is that, by which God, being angry 
 with the sinner, gives the reins to Satan, who being thus 
 free to act, * worketh in the children of disobedience;" 
 (Eph. ii. 2) And the jifth act is that, by which God 
 stirs up in the mind some thoughts, which are good in 
 themselves, but which sinful man can abuse; thus he 
 willed that Joseph's brethren should think that he was 
 specially beloved by their father, which thought con- ~ 
 sumed them with envy, and uxged them on to wicked 
 and murderous designs. 
 
 These points can be very plainly proved from scrip- 
 ture; but the question is, Whether God does any thing 
 more in respect to sin, than what we have already laid 
 down! Now many parts of scripture appear to inti- 
 mate that he does something more; for instance, he is 
 said to have * hardened Pharaoh’s heart,” to have given 
 David's wives to Absalom, to have commanded Shimei 
 to curse David, and to send “a lying spirit," &c. What 
 
 * 
 
 La 
 
OF GOD OVER SIN. 157 
 
 is the exact meaning of such expressions, I will honestly 
 ‘confess I am ignorant. Most divines attempt to explain 
 it by saying, that God is the author of the essence of 
 human actions, by virtue of his concurrence in produc- 
 ing them, but not the author of their sinfulness. To 
 prove this, they observe that it is not an unusual thing 
 for one and the same action to have two causes ; for in- 
 stance, the soul of a Jame man is the principle or cause 
 of that man's motion, when he walks, inasmuch as it 
 sends out of the brain, where it is situated, animal spirits 
 into the nerves and. muscles of the man's legs; but if 
 the man is lame, the soul is not the cause of that lame- 
 ness, although the cause of the walking, but the bad af- 
 fection either of the leg, or of the man himself: and in 
 the same manner a king is the cause of the death which 
 is inflicted on a criminal by the executioner, yet he is 
 not the cause of any cruelty which may be shown in 
 that death, or of the hatred under the influence of which 
 the executioner may put the man to death, as having 
 been previously his enemy. 2. That actions cannot be 
 said to be essentially good and evil, but that they are so 
 according to their different circumstances (which indeed 
 is the case with at least the most part) ; for instance, to 
 kill may be a good or a bad action ; good, if command- 
 ed by the magistrate; bad, if done by a private individ- 
 ual. 3. That most affections or passions are of them- 
 Selves neither good nor bad, as love, desire, hatred, &c., 
 they have nothing evil in themselves ; and, consequently, 
 God may excite these affections, without directing them 
 to whatis evil. 4. That there are many actions, which 
 are good in regard to the essence of the action, but 
 which become evil in reference, not to the action, but to 
 the mode in which it is done, (which mode does not ne- 
 cessarily go along with the action) and which may, 
 therefore, spoil an action otherwise good, and command- 
 
 'ed by God, as in the cases of praying, fasting, or giving 
 
 alms, to be seen of men. In these things it is easy to 
 comprehend how the action is from God, but the evil of 
 it from man. 5. That these two points may be distin- 
 guished even in sins of omission ; for it is not true, that 
 in such sins there is no action at all. Every omission 
 has an act of the will, either preceding or accompanying 
 it, which is the cause of that omission. These, then, are 
 the considerations by which divines endeavour to illus- 
 trate the difficult question of the Providence of God over 
 'evil actions. T 
 1 
 
158 OF THE PROVIDENCE 
 
 But there are certain actions which appear to be evil 
 in their very nature, such as hatred of God, &c. In 
 these it is very difficult to distinguish the essence of the 
 action from the wickedness of it. Now divines reply, 
 that in these, as well as in those before treated of, the 
 act itself may be distinguished from the sinfulness of the 
 act. But because I know that many cannot conceive 
 this, it has sometimes occurred to me, that we may put 
 it in this form: God in these actions is the author of the 
 motions which precede them; for instance, the motions 
 which precede the hatred of God, but not the author of 
 the act of hatred. And these are the arguments which 
 have occurred to me in proof of this position: first, in 
 order that hatred of God may be stirred up within the 
 mind, certain motions must be previously stirred up in 
 the body, and also certain thoughts in the soul, by which 
 it is inclined to hate any object which may be presented 
 to it. These motions and thoughts are not at all evil 
 of themselves, but that direction of them towards God, 
 which takes place by our own will, is the greatest of all 
 sins (hatred of God). Secondly, there is no reason why 
 God should not be said, by acting on the blood, or on 
 the spirits, or on the mind, to excite those motions, nay, 
 even that very affection which we call hatred. But be- 
 cause the affections always select some objects, and are 
 very frequently directed towards those which are pre- 
 sented to them, it comes to pass, that corrupt man, in 
 whom the affection of hatred has been excited, having 
 his thoughts at the time about God, wickedly hates, or 
 feels a hatred of him. Thirdly, if any one cannot con- 
 ceive how the affection of hatred can be excited, with- 
 out any direction to an object, let it be observed, that 
 we are very often in such a state, as that all things dis- 
 please us, and we are prepared to hate whatever objects 
 may be presented to us, although there is no object par- 
 ticularly before us at the time. Be it observed also, 
 that no man can feel a hatred of God, except many 
 things have before preceded in his mind, which it would 
 be too tedious to detail. When I have been asked upon 
 ' this subject, Why God should excite such an affection 
 of hatred in man, as he knows will produce a great sin? 
 I have asked in my turn, Why God has at any time per- 
 mitted a sin, which he was able to prevent? why he 
 permits objects to be presented, which he knows will 
 influence men to sin? why he preserves the faculties or 
 powers of man, which he knows he will abuse? I re- 
 
a 
 
 OF GOD OVER SIN. 159 
 
 plied further, That God ought in no wise to be blamed: 
 because those affections, opportunities, and objects do 
 not of themselves influence men to sin, but only through 
 man’s corruption, of which God is not in any way the 
 author; and because he by no means forces to sin, but 
 on the contrary, forbids sin, and threatens punishment 
 to the transgressor; it is man, who by his natural pro- 
 pensity freely commits sin. This is the way in which 
 we have ventured to illustrate our opinion; perhaps it 
 will satisfy some ; if not, let them maintain other views, 
 such as we have before given. So much for God's pro- 
 vidence in respect to the beginning of sin. 
 
 The acts of divine Providence in regard to the pro- 
 gress of sin, or sin while it is being committed, are three. 
 'The first consists in God's directing sinners unconscious- 
 ly to themselves, so that they sin in reference to one ob- 
 ject rather than another, not that he inspires men with 
 an evil inclination, but he overrules their natural pro- 
 pensities in such a manner, that they direct them to an 
 object, which God hath determined to punish. This is 
 exemplified in the king of Assyria, whom God designing 
 to send to the Jews in order to punish their impiety, so 
 directed the oracles which he consulted, being doubtful 
 whether he should make war upon the Ammonites, or 
 upon the Jews,that having passed by the former, he 
 marched against the latter. The second act consists in 
 God's causing the sin not to reach the end designed by 
 the sinner, but another end designed by God long be- 
 fore; thus he so overruled the sin of Joseph's brethren, 
 that they contributed to accomplish his exaltation, which 
 they designed to prevent. The third is that, by which 
 God sets limits or bounds to sin, so that it may not in- 
 crease to a greater height, or spread to a greater extent, 
 or last a longer time; and this he accomplishes in va- 
 rious ways, such as by enlightening the mind, restrain- 
 ing the desires, removing evil opportunities, &c. Thus 
 God did not suffer the bones of Christ to be broken; 
 (John xix. 36,) or Joseph to be destroyed by his breth- 
 ren, Peter by Herod, Job by Satan. The acts of divine 
 Providence in regard to the end of sin, or sin when it has 
 been committed, are various. One act is, the direction 
 of the sin to a good end, as the selling of Joseph to the 
 preservation of Jacob's family, and the crucifixion of 
 Jesus Christ to the redemption of mankind. Just as a 
 judge may make use of lions and other beasts for the 
 punishment of criminals, or a physician leeches which 
 
160 OF VARIOUS PASSAGES OF SCRIPTURE 
 
 will not let go the skin till they are full of blood; and 
 also vipers, for the curing of sick persons. Another act 
 is the punishing of sin, both in this life, and in the life to 
 come, and also the forgiving and pardoning of it. But 
 we have now said enough on this subject; only we 
 must in the next chapter explain some passages of scrip- 
 ture, which seem to make God the author or worker of 
 sin. 
 
 CHAPTER XII. 
 
 OF VARIOUS PASSAGES OF SCRIPTURE CONCERNING GOD'S 
 PROVIDENCE OVER SIN. 
 
 Nornrma now remains but to explain these passages of 
 scripture; and first, God is represented as blinding and 
 hardening men. (Exod. vii. 3; Isaiah vi. 9, 10; Matt. 
 xiii. 14; John xii 40.) To understand this, we must 
 observe that this blinding and hardening is attributed to 
 three persons:—to man himself, (Jer. v. 3; Ezek. xii. 2; 
 Zech. vii. 11,) that Pharaoh is said to have hardened 
 himself, (Exod. viii. 15, 19, 32:)—to the devil, (2 Cor. iv. 
 3, 4:)—and to God himself, who commands the prophet 
 to blind the heart of the people, (Isaiah vi. 9, 10, com- 
 pared with John xii. 40) and who is said to have har- 
 dened Pharaoh and the Jews. 
 
 But this hardening or blinding is in very different 
 senses ascribed to God, to the devil, and to man. Man 
 blinds and hardens himself, when he will not hear, un- 
 derstand, and obey the preached word, but gives him- 
 self up entirely to his passions; he is born with this 
 hardness of heart, but in this manner he increases it. 
 The devil, as an executioner, blinds men's minds by pre- 
 senting fit objects to stir up the affections by which the 
 mind is blinded, and by raising ideas of sin through the 
 excitement of the animal spirits, and by other means of 
 thissort. But when I say that the devil does this, as an 
 executioner, I mean that God permits him to harden 
 man, and thus makes use of him as an executioner, to 
 whom he gives up man as a criminal; in the same way 
 as the Assyrian is called *the rod of God's anger." 
 
a 
 
 CONCERNING GOD'S PROVIDENCE OVER SIN. 161 
 
 (Isaiah x. 5.) But as for God, he, as an angry judge 
 hardens man on account of his past and present sins; 
 but if we be asked how this is done, we reply,—1. By not 
 enlightening, or by not softening, man's heart. 2. By 
 withdrawing his grace, which man has abused, just asa 
 master takes away light from his servants, when he sees 
 them abuse it to surfeiting and drunkenness; now as 
 darkness follows, when light is withdrawn, and darkness 
 is attended by blindness, stumbling, falling, &c., so the 
 light of reason being obscured, and the light of grace, 
 such as it is, being extinguished, there follows darkness 
 in the understanding, alienation in the will, evil motions 
 in the affections; the mind is blinded, conscience is laid 
 asleep, man is hardened. 3. By delivering him up to 
 Satan, who assaults him in various ways. 4. By not 
 restraining his passions, but allowing them free liberty. 
 5. By furnishing him with objects, opportunities, and 
 means, which are calculated to bring him back to God, 
 but which he abuses, and by which his lusts are stirred 
 up, just as cold water being thrown upon lime draws 
 forth the heat of it. 6. By granting him many temporal 
 blessings; for, judging from this external happiness, that 
 he is beloved by God, he more and more entangles him- 
 self in worldly affections. 7. By bearing with his un- 
 godliness for a long time, or by punishing it but slightly. 
 8. By not causing his conscience to be stirred to repent- 
 ance by any feeling of remorse; hence sinners are said 
 to be ** past feeling," (Ephes. iv. 19.) From these things 
 it is plain, that God is properly said to barden man, as a 
 Judge; nor can it be objected, that a judge is bound to 
 give to every man his due; for when God deserts man, 
 and gives him over to a reprobate mind, when he leaves 
 him to Satan, and withdraws from him that grace which 
 he had given, he does give to sinful man nothing but 
 what is his due, and what he justly deserves. 
 
 Pharaoh furnishes an example of a man thus hardened , 
 for God hardened him by bestowing upon him numerous 
 blessings, which he afterwards abused, nay, by elevat- 
 ing him to the royal dignity—by not softening his dispo- 
 sition, naturally cruel, and therefore naturally disposed 
 to oppress and enslave the Israelites—by sending to him 
 Moses, who was his own subject; for the command was 
 grievous, sent as it was, from an unknown God, by 
 a subject of his own kingdom—by not first bringing 
 him to the knowledge of himself; hence he asked, * Who 
 is the Lord '"—by pene Qu to let the people go, 
 
162 OF VARIOUS PASSAGES OF SCRIPTURE 
 
 which would be a loss to a covetous prince—by perform- 
 ing signs and wonders, which amazed, rather than 
 affected him, or which were capable of being imitated 
 by the magicians, and were injurious and destructive to 
 the whole kingdom, consequently, rousing his indigna- 
 tion—by removing the plagues, which, by the grace of 
 God, might have a little softened his heart—by giving 
 him up to his own passions—and by other methods, 
 which may be gathered from what has already been 
 said. But for the better understanding of this subject, 
 we may observe in the first place, that there was in 
 Pharaoh, a very great attachment to idolatry, supersti- 
 tion, and magic; hence he did not worship any other God, — 
 than the God whom his ancestors worshipped ; therefore, 
 when Moses and Aaron first delivered to him the com- 
 mands of the Almighty God, the superstitious prince . 
 thought that they did not proceed from the divine influ- 
 ence of the true Deity, but from one of an inferior kind, 
 or else were the inventions of Moses and Aaron; in 
 which imagination he was confirmed by seeing his own 
 magicians imitate the first miracles performed by Moses. 
 Again, at the second plague of the frogs, Pharaoh ap- 
 peared softened for a little time, because he was sensible 
 that only the God of Israel could deliver him from this 
 calamity, who was therefore more powerful than his 
 own deities; but he was again hardened, because the 
 frogs were taken away. The plague of the lice, which 
 the magicians could not imitate, did not soften his heart, 
 because this calamity appeared to him less than those 
 which had preceded; whence he believed that he should 
 be more easily delivered from it. Moreover, the suc- 
 ceeding plagues rather hardened than softened him, 
 because he was delivered from them; thus he resembled 
 a river, which, when it is banked up on both sides, 
 swells and rises the higher, and having burst these bar- 
 riers, overflows with greater impetuosity; or, like an 
 anvil, which grows harder by frequent strokes of the 
 hammer. Once more, by the last plague he seemed to 
 be entirely subdued; but the result proved that he was 
 not even by this means softened, after he had heard 
 what route the Israelites had taken; because he hoped 
 that he might be able yet to bring them back to their 
 former slavery; God thus permitting it, because he 
 would destroy Pharaoh, and bring him to the waters 
 of the Red Sea, in which that proud and eovetous — 
 miserably perished. 
 
CONCERNING GOD'S PROVIDENCE OVER SIN. 163 
 
 - Again, God is said to tempt men, (Gen. xxii. 1. Deut. 
 viii 2;) but we must observe that temptation is of two 
 kinds, one good, the other evil; the former for trial, the 
 latter for deceiving; the first is ascribed to God, the 
 second is denied concerning him, (James i. 13.) God is 
 said to tempt, when he enjoins upon men those things, 
 which try their faith and constancy, as when he required 
 of Abraham to sacrifice his son. Moreover he is said to 
 seduce and deceive the prophets and the people, (Ezekiel 
 xiv. 9. Jer. iv. 10.) But by this is only meant that he 
 permits men to be deceived, delivering them up to dark- 
 ness, error, or impostors, and in no way enlightening 
 their minds. The passage in Jer. xx. 7, where the pro- 
 phet says, * O Lord, thou hast deceived me, and I was 
 deceived," can be better rendered, **thou hast allured or 
 persuaded me,” i. e. thou hast drawn me to undertake 
 the ofüce; and therefore he simply shows by these 
 words, that the oifice of predicting those calamities to 
 the Jews was divinely put upon him, although he suf- 
 fered such dreadful persecutions on account of these 
 predictions. The words following prove this, for he 
 says, that, when he had resolved not to speak what had 
 been commanded him, he was driven and compelled to 
 do so by adivine providence. Or else, we may say, 
 Jeremiah uttered these words with a mind confused, and 
 from the infirmity of the flesh, thinking he was deceived 
 by God, because from the words of God ill-understood, 
 he had experienced far different things than those he had 
 imagined. Or the words may be understood hypotheti- 
 cally, as if the holy prophet had said, If I have been de- 
 ceived in order to deceive others, as the Jews slander- 
 ously afürm, then it was God who deceived me; thus 
 all the calamities of the Jews fall back upon God. 
 Nothing can be concluded from the passage in Job xiii. 
 16, “The deceived and the deceiver are his;" for the 
 holy man shows in these words, that all things depend 
 upon God, that no one wanders out of the right path, no 
 one deceives another without God's permission, and that 
 he who is deceived, and he who deceives, are both 
 equally observed by God. 
 
 Again, God is said to have *commanded Shimei to 
 curse David," (2 Sam. xvi. 10—12.)) But these words 
 are not to be taken literally, neither did David so take 
 them. For had he believed that God had really com- 
 -manded Shimei to curse him, he would not have believed 
 
164 OF VARIOUS PASSAGES OF SCRIPTURE. 
 
 that Shimei sinned in so doing, nor would he, when 
 dying, have commissioned Solomon to punish him. The 
 words therefore mean that God caused to occur a favour- 
 able opportunity of cursing David, which Shimei was 
 tempted to embrace for that purpose, just as if God had 
 said in so many words Curse David. Shimei was hos- 
 tile to David, for he was a Benjamite of the family of 
 Saul, and therefore was vexed that the kingdom, form- 
 erly governed by Saul, had fallen to David ; he secretly 
 cherished his hatred, and was ready to show forth that 
 hatred, whenever the opportunity should offer. God in 
 his providence affords him an opportunity of giving vent 
 to his spleen, by bringing in his way David whom he 
 hated, and that too under circumstances, in which he 
 could curse him without danger to himself, viz. when 
 David was deprived of rank and dignity; thus God did 
 not prevent his evil disposition, but directed it to the 
 punishment of David, that he might be humbled. The 
 king, being sensible of this, regarded this direction of 
 Providence, as if it were a command divinely given for 
 his own chastisement. Again, when God is said to 
 “send a lying spirit to deceive Ahab,” (1 Kings xxii.) far 
 be it from us to think that God actually was the author 
 of this disposition to falsehood; it simply denotes, that 
 God, to punish Ahab, permitted him to be deceived by 
 many false prophets, and being thus deceived, to join 
 battle with the Syrians at Ramoth, and thus to suffer the 
 punishment of his sins. 
 
 Further, God is said to have “ given David’s wives to 
 his son Absalom,” (2 Sam. xii. 11, 12.) Now in this case 
 we must separate the giving up of David’s wives to Ab- 
 salom, from Absalom’s lying with them; the former 
 was from God, the latter at the instigation of the wicked 
 Ahithophel. We must also observe, that it pleased God 
 to punish David for his adultery; for this purpose he 
 chose to give the honours of royalty to Absalom his 
 son, and to deprive David of them; hence God attri- 
 butes to himself the giving of such a power or liberty 
 to Absalom, and such as served for the punishment of 
 David, in the same way as he elsewhere attributes to 
 himself the persecutions raised against his church, 
 which however take place to the very great guilt of 
 the persecutors. Once more, when God is said, (2 
 Thess. xi. 11,) to * send men strong delusion, that they 
 should believe a lie," it only denotes what he does in 
 
CONCERNING GOD’S PROVIDENCE OVER SIN. 165 
 
 regard to those, who despise and reject his truth, 
 which has been confirmed by so many miracles. To 
 such persons God permits to be preached false doc- 
 trine, which allows them to indulge their carnal lusts, 
 and is confirmed by “lying wonders.” God also per- 
 mits the arguments, which are got up from every 
 quarter to defend the *lie," to draw them away en- 
 tirely from divine truth, and bestows no grace upon 
 them; on the contrary, he deprives them of the light 
 he had given, which they abused, and delivers them 
 over to a reprobate mind, and thus being left to them- 
 selves, they believe a lie. Other passages of scripture 
 may be easily explained from what has been already 
 said. 
 
 But before we close the subject of providence, we 
 must make the following observations. First, we must 
 be very careful never to murmur against God's pro- 
 vidence, or to accuse it of injustice, but rather, with 
 Job, David, and others, to adore his ways, as most holy 
 and righteous, and to acquiesce in them with all 
 humility. Secondly, we must never accuse providence 
 as the cause of our wickedness, but only our own 
 depraved nature, which inclines us to every kind of 
 sin. Thirdly, we must not, under the pretext of every - 
 event being immovably ordained by providence, in- 
 dulge in idleness and inactivity, or rashly encounter 
 any kind of danger; butto attend to and make use of 
 the means appointed by God, being at the same time 
 careful not to rest too much in second causes, as if God 
 could not preserve us without means.  Fourthly, we 
 ought not to be over-anxious about our temporal 
 affairs, but to cast ourselves upon the paternal care of- 
 God, neither carelessly neglecting, nor rashly confiding 
 in, human means, and frequently remembering Abra- 
 ham's watch-word, * The Lord will provide.” We will 
 now conclude with addressing God in the words of Ar- 
 nobius; O great and mighty Parent of things invisible ! 
 O thou who art unseen, and incomprehensible to ail 
 other beings; thou art worthy to receive from every 
 living and intelligent being, unceasing praise and grati- 
 tude ; before thee.it would be becoming to fall on the 
 bended knee for our whole lives, and to worship thee with 
 continual supplications. For thou art the Pest cause, 
 the very place and space and foundation of all things 
 that exist, infinite, self-existent, immortal, everlasting, 
 
166 CONCERNING GOD’S PROVIDENCE OVER SIN. 
 
 independent, confined by no corporeal form, circum- 
 
 scribed within no limits, without quality, quantity, lo- 
 
 cality, motion, and habit, concerning whom nothing 
 
 can be properly expressed in mortal language —to 
 
 compet thee at all, we must hold our peace and be 
 ent. 
 
CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY. 
 
 BOOK THE FOURTH. 
 
 OF THE FALL. 
 
 CHAPTER I. 
 OF THE FALL OF ANGELS. 
 
 As God decreed to create angels and men, so he decreed 
 to permit their fall. For since nothing in the world takes 
 place without his knowledge and will, it would be ab- 
 surd to believe that some of the angels, and also man, 
 fell from their original state of innocence without the 
 foreknowledge, or without the permission, of the great 
 Arbiter of events. We believe then that the Almighty 
 by the same act by which he decreed to create angels 
 and man, at the same time decreed to permit them to use 
 or abuse the freedom of action bestowed upon them; 
 how they abused this freedom is the subject of the fol- 
 lowing book; and first we shall speak of the fall of 
 angels. 
 
 It has been before observed, that the angels were cre- 
 ated by God holy and innocent: let no one imagine that 
 they were created with any of that corruption which 
 they afterwards fell into; for thus God would be viewed 
 as the author of sin, the very thought of which is impi- 
 ous. But although they were all created by God ina 
 state of holiness, they did not all continue in that state, 
 as the following passage of scripture declares—* e a 
 
 rf 
 
168 OF THE FALL OF ANGELS. 
 
 devil) was a murderer from the beginning, and abode 
 not in the truth,” (John viii. 44.) “The angels which 
 kept not their first estate. but left their own habitation, 
 he hath reserved in everlasting chains under darkness 
 unto the judgment of the great day,” (Jude 6.) The fall 
 of angels has been known almost through the whole 
 world: there are some well-known verses of Empedo- 
 cles, in which demons or devils are represented as fall- 
 ing from heaven into Pontus, and there suffering the 
 punishment of their wickedness. There is also the story 
 of the giants hurled down to the infernal regions, and of 
 Ate cast out of heaven. 
 
 These fallen angels are called devils, evil, unclean, 
 lying spirits, spiritual wickednesses, and angels of dark- 
 ness. They have a prince set over them, who is called 
 Beelzebub, Matt. x. 25; xii. 24, the same as the god of the 
 Ekronites, (2 Kings i.2.) He is also called “Satan,” 
 (Job i. 6.) “the devil,” “the accuser of the brethren,” 
 “the ruler of death,” * the prince of this world,” “ the god 
 of this world,” “the great dragon, the old serpent;” (1 
 Peter v. 8; Rev. xii. 10; Heb. ii. 14; John xii. 31; 2 Cor. 
 iv. 4; Rev. xii. 9.) He is called by the ancient Rabbins 
 Sammael, i. e. revolting from God, the angel of death. 
 He is no where called Lucifer: for the passage in Isaiah 
 xiv. 12, does not allude to the devil, but to the king of 
 Babylon; in the same way the king of Tyre is called 
 “the anointed cherub,” (Ezek. xxviii. 14.) Nothing cer- 
 tain can be said of the time when the angels sinned; it 
 is not probable that they sinned immediately after the 
 creation, though most likely it was not long after; this 
 however is certain—that angels fell before men. As to 
 the nwmber of the fallen angels, it is rash, to say the least, 
 to attempt the settling of this point, as the schoolmen 
 and other ancient writers did, making a false application 
 of Rev. xii. 4, though without doubt their number is very 
 
 reat. 
 
 B Nor can we determine any thing certain concerning 
 the nature of their sin. The author of the book of Wis- 
 dom, says, that the devil was moved with envy against 
 man, and the cause of this envy was, that God had con- 
 ferred upon man, and not upon angels, the whole uni- 
 verse, and dominion over the creatures. Others main- 
 tain that the cause of his fall was pride, which indeed 
 Paul calls “ the condemnation (or judgment) of the devil,” 
 (1 Tim. iii. 6.) Hence it is that devils have claimed di- 
 vine worship. It is disputed what kind of pride this 
 
OF THE FALL OF ANGELS. 169 
 
 was, whether aspiring to be gods, or rebellion against 
 the Son of God. Some have even ascribed fornication 
 to these evil spirits, from a misunderstanding of the 
 passage in Gen. vi. 2. On all these subjects however, it 
 is better to be silent, when the scripture is silent. It is 
 not improbable that the want of a due regard and at- 
 tention to the nature of God, and to the duties imposed 
 upon them, caused the angels to grow remiss in the con- 
 templation of their Creator, so that turning the powers 
 of their understanding from God to themselves, they 
 began to grow proud, from an overweening self-love, 
 which was quickly followed by rebellion. 
 
 These evil angels, by every method, although to no 
 effectual purpose, are endeavouring to obscure the glory 
 of God, and they altogether oppose the salvation of men ; 
 and God sometimes gives them full liberty, both for the 
 punishment of the wicked, and for the trials of the godly, 
 and also to preserve the latter from sin: thus there was 
 given to Paul, the angel or * messenger of Satan to buffet 
 him," that he might not be *exalted by the abundance 
 of revelations.” (2 Cor. xii. 7.) The scriptures plainly 
 teach us that they tempt men to sin, (1 Peter v. 8; 2 
 Cor. xi. 3.) that they * work in the children of disobe- 
 dience," and take possession of their hearts, (Eph. ii. 2; 
 Acts v. 8; John xiii. 2.) They are always on the watch, 
 to ascertain the particular inclinations or passions of 
 men; they generally keep their ends in view from a 
 distance, and often arrive at them by a long series of 
 turnings and windings. 
 
 But here it must be remarked, that their power is not 
 unlimited, but limited. * The Lord said unto Satan, Be- 
 hold all that he (Job) hath is in thy power; only upon 
 himself put not forth thine hand," (Jobi. 12.) So the 
 devils besought Christ, saying, *If thou cast us out, suffer 
 us to go away into the herd of swine," (Matt. viii. 31.) 
 Future events also are not known to them ; for this is 
 the attribute of the true God. But if they have ever re- 
 vealed future things, as some would infer from the case 
 of oracles, (of which however there may be some doubt,) 
 this has taken place, either because they stole this know- 
 ledge (as it were) from the secrets of the prophets, or by 
 their amazing quickness of motion, gained the know- 
 ledge of events that took place at a great distance, or 
 because they were able to ascertain from natural causes, 
 what would take place, as Tertullian observed; or else, 
 we may say, they ans which it had been di- 
 
 1 
 
170 OF THE FALL 
 
 vinely permitted them to perform. Further, it is diffi- 
 cult to say, and it can hardly be conceived, how Satan 
 acts upon the body, and upon the mind, and how he can 
 produce those things which are commonly attributed to 
 him. We must not, however, imagine that Satan can 
 dispose the will of man to evil at his own pleasure for 
 the will of man, assisted by divine grace, can easily re- 
 sist him. Nor are all sins to be attributed to the agency 
 of the devil, for man himself has inclination and power 
 enough to commit many sins. Finally, be it observed, 
 that the only means of driving far away from us these 
 evil spirits, are to fortify ourselves with piety, faith, and 
 constant prayer; to apply ourselves to the practice of 
 Christian virtues; and to trust confidently in the divine 
 assistance. In the mean time the existence of evil spi- 
 rits shows us the inability of the creatures, when they 
 are left to themselves, and the entire liberty and power 
 
 of the supreme Being. E 
 CHAPTER II. 
 
 OF THE FALL OF OUR FIRST PARENTS. 
 
 Ix a former book we described the happy condition of 
 the first man, when he lived in innocence, and enjoyed 
 the favour of his God. His happiness did not continue ; 
 for in a little time he became miserable, when from be- 
 ing upright he became sinful. An account of this most 
 lamentable fall must now, therefore, be given. In order 
 to this, it must be observed, as before, that God impos- 
 ed upon man a law, or prohibition, not to eat of the fruit 
 of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, that on 
 the one hand he might try man's obedience; and on the 
 other show him that he was his sovereign Lord; and 
 that man might be sensible of his own subjection, and 
 might profess it by some act of obedience, such as vas- 
 sals are accustomed to perform, as a token of acknow- 
 ledgment. Man, forgetting his duty to God, violated 
 this law, easy as it was, and consisting only of a single 
 prohibition. It is to no purpose to inquire how long he 
 
OF OUR FIRST PARENTS. 171 
 
 stood, and at what time he fell: for to be ignorant of 
 this is no sin. Some maintain that he continued in holi- 
 ness for thirty three years, as many as Christ lived in 
 the flesh. Others hold that he fell forty days after his 
 reation; others think it was sooner. Some have ven- 
 to maintain that Adam was created at nine in the 
 morning, fell at one in the afternoon, and was driven 
 from Paradise at three o'clock ; or, as others think, on 
 the sixth day ; but all these are vain speculations. 
 
 It was the devil who tempted man to sin, because he 
 envied man's happiness, and the divine glory; and in 
 order to accomplish this his horrid purpose, he assumed 
 the form of the serpent, the most crafty of all living crea- 
 tures Now that this was a real serpent, is evident from 
 the words of Moses, from the description given of the 
 serpent as the most “ subtle of all the beasts in the field,” 
 and from the punishment inflicted by God upon him, as 
 a mark of his temptation; and that the devil spoke by 
 this serpent is equally evident, not merely because only 
 a spirit could have spoken by a serpent, and only an 
 evil spirit could have spoken what was false, but also 
 from those scriptures, in which the devil is called *a 
 murderer from the bezinning," (John viii. 44,) *that old 
 serpent, the devil" (Rev. xii. 9; xx. 2) Hence Paul 
 expresses his fears lest the same * serpent, that beguiled 
 Eve by his subtilty, should corrupt the minds of the Co- 
 rinthians from the simplicity which is in Christ,” (2 Cor. 
 xi. 3.) It is true, Moses does not mention the devil, be- 
 cause he was performing the part of an historian, not an 
 interpreter ; he relates the fact, he does not explain the 
 mystery. The Jews rightly understood this, who re- 
 presented Sammael, the angel of death, as riding upon 
 the serpent. Nor was this unknown to the heathens. 
 For a very ancient Syrian writer among them calls the 
 leader of the demons who were hurled down from hea- 
 ven by Jupiter, Ophioneus, or Serpentinus. And no doubt 
 from the scripture history sprung the story of the watch- 
 ful dragon, celebrated by the poets, as the keeper of the 
 golden apples of the Hesperides. To the same source 
 also may be traced the custom of showing or exhibiting 
 a serpent in the most ancient mysteries of the Greeks. 
 
 This, therefore, was the first plot of the devil, to con- 
 ceal himself under the form of a serpent; nor should it 
 appear more strange for this creature to speak with a 
 human voice, than for Balaam’s ass to do the same. We 
 have no occasion, therefore, with Josephus, to believe 
 
172 OF THE FALL 
 
 that speech was natural to the serpent, as Basil also be- 
 lieved, and Plato before them, who maintained that in 
 the golden age men and beasts conversed together. 
 Under the appearance then of a serpent, the devil as- 
 saulted Eve; nor is it strange that she was not at all as- 
 tonished when she heard the creature speak, because 
 she had no experience whatever of this and other things. 
 The crafty tempter began his attack on the woman, in 
 the absence of her husband, and thus accosted her, “ Yea, 
 hath God said, Ye shall not eat of the trees of the gar- 
 den?" As if he had said, ‘Is it likely that God having 
 given you dominion over all things, should have forbid- 
 den you to eat of the trees of the garden? it were impi- 
 ous even to think so.’ He does not at first arraign the 
 divine prohibition, which would not have pleased Eve, 
 but he first asks, as if ignorant, whether it were true, 
 that God had forbidden the use of all the trees; to which. 
 the woman replies, that God had only forbidden the fruit 
 of the tree which was in the midst of the garden. Satan 
 then proceeds to the threatening which was added to 
 the commandment, and endeavours to make light of it, 
 saying, ** Ye shall not die;" for who, he insinuates, can 
 believe that a tree, more excellent than the rest, and 
 placed in a beautiful garden, is of a deadly nature? Thus 
 he wishes it to appear that he doubted whether such was 
 the prohibition of God, as if Adam had not faithfully re- 
 peated to Eve the divine injunction ; or else he contends 
 that God was not really serious in the injunction. “ Ye 
 shall not die,” says he; but lest any scruple should re- 
 main in Eve’s mind, he added, that this tree possessed 
 so great a power of conferring knowledge, that they 
 should be made equal to God, and that God well knew 
 this: * God doth know, that, in the day ye eat thereof 
 your eyes shall be opened, and ye shall be as gods, 
 knowing good and evil.” He concludes, therefore, that 
 she ought nolonger to hesitate, and that the inviting 
 fruit was fairly open before her, without any guard 
 around it. 
 
 To this temptation the woman yielded, and ate of the 
 fruit of the tree, and drew her husband also into a parti- 
 cipation of her guilt. It is of no consequence to know 
 what arguments Eve used; whether she related to him 
 her conversation with the serpent, or whether Adam was 
 influenced by his great affection for his wife; one thing 
 is certain, that he ate the forbidden fruit. Therefore 
 when. Paul declares that * Adam was not deceived,” (1 
 
 RB 
 
OF OUR FIRST PARENTS. 173 
 
 Tim. xi. 14,) he clearly means that he was not deceived 
 the first, nor by the serpent; but it is evident that he 
 was not the less sinful. Indeed some maintain that his 
 was the greater sin, inasmuch as he yielded without 
 seeing the enemy, being allured merely by the charms 
 of his wife, whom he ought to have controlled by his 
 superior prudence. 
 
 On this subject various questions are raised, which 
 must be briefly resolved. The first question is, when 
 the first sin commenced. To which we reply, that pro- 
 bably it commenced, when Eve began to doubt whether 
 she had rightly understood the intention of God in for- 
 bidding the fruit of the tree. Afterwards, when she 
 ought to have consulted God upon this subject, she be- 
 lieved the devil, who said that they should noé die; in 
 the next place, she was flattered with the vain hope, 
 held out by Satan, of knowing all things, and becoming 
 equal to God ; and at last, she reached forth her hand to 
 the fruit. On the other hand, the commencement of the 
 sin may have been a thoughtless inattention to the divine 
 precepts; which if she had always kept in her mind, she 
 never would have listened to the tempter; and from 
 this want of consideration arose unbelief, by which she 
 began to doubt God's word, and to pay undue attention 
 to that of the devil. The second question is, What was 
 the cause of Adam's fall? It is replied, that this cause is 
 not to be sought for, either in God, or in the devil, or in 
 the forbidden tree: not in God, for he used neither per- 
 suasion nor authority towards man in this matter; on 
 the contrary he expressly forbade him to touch the fruit: 
 he had created him holy and upright; he had given him 
 sufficient strength to fulfil his commandments; he had 
 not withdrawn any inward grace which he had before 
 given. Neither is the cause to be looked for in the devil ; 
 for he used persuasion only towards man; nor was 
 there any irresistible power in his temptations; since he 
 spoke contrary to God's express injunction. The devil 
 would not have ensnared man, says Augustine, had not 
 man already begun to please himself. Nor is the cause 
 to be sought for in the ¢ree ; for neither the beauty of its 
 fruit, nor the desire of knowledge, ought to have weigh- 
 ed against the divine commandment. It was, therefore, 
 only the free will of man which was the cause of his 
 transgression, and which, by its own spontaneous act, 
 directed itself towards a forbidden object, set before it 
 by an alienated mind; si ie the mind, as Augustine 
 
 5 * 
 
174 OF THE FALL OF OUR FIRST PARENTS. 
 
 observes, be thrown down from the seat of lawful gov- 
 ernment, except by the will. 
 
 The third question is, how it was possible for man, 
 holy and upright, to fallt We reply, that this should 
 not appear strange; for although man was created holy 
 and upright, yet his holiness was not so confirmed and 
 unchangeable, that he could not fall from it; he was cre- 
 ated holy and righteous, but mutable, so that he could 
 stand, if he would, and also fall, if he would; it is there- 
 fore no more to be wondered at, that changeable man 
 should have changed, than that man, at first quiescent, 
 should afterwards begin to move. But if you ask why 
 God created man mutable—ask also, why he created 
 him a man, and not a god. But the reason why man so 
 easily gave ear to the seductions of the devil, seems to 
 be, the natural desire which man has, of obtaining the 
 good which he does not possess. 
 
 Fourthly, it is inquired, how God concurred, or what 
 God did, in this fall? We reply, that it is far better on 
 this subject to keep silence, than to speak much, since 
 the scripture is altogether silent. It is certain, however, 
 that God did not influence man to sin, nor Satan to 
 tempt him, and that he did not withdraw from Adam 
 any grace that had been given him, since such with- 
 drawing would have been a punishment, for which there 
 is no cause where there is no guilt preceding. Yet it is 
 equally certain that God of his infinite foreknowledge 
 did foreknow this fall, and did decree to permit it. For 
 if he had not decreed to permit it, he could not have cer- 
 tainly foreknown it, because the changeable nature of 
 man could not be the foundation of certain and absolute 
 foreknowledge. And truly, if not even a sparrow falleth 
 to the ground without his knowledge, who can imagine 
 that this fall, which disturbed the whole order of nature, 
 happened without either the knowledge, or the will of 
 God? It is certain, moreover, that God allowed Satan 
 to tempt Adam—that he afforded an opportunity to the 
 former of assaulting the latter—that he did not prevent 
 the latter from yielding to the temptation of the former 
 —that he did not give man any new grace in addition 
 to what had already been given him, nor yet refuse bim 
 any that he sought, for he sought none—and that he 
 preserved the faculties and powers of man. We must 
 not inquire into any thing more that God may have done 
 in this mysterious transaction; it is better to check our 
 curiosity, and to confess our ignorance, than to speak 
 
OF SIN. 175 
 
 rashly. In all God's proceedings in this matter he was 
 most holy, so that not the least stain of sin can be attri- 
 buted to him. 
 
 We may only add that Adam's sin was very great; 
 for it consisted of inordinate desire; aspiring to equality 
 with God ; rebellion against his sovereign Lord; ingra- 
 titude and contempt of God. The greatness of this sin 
 will further appear from considering who was the offen- 
 der; one loaded with so many blessings from God, 
 furnished with so many endowments, having no motives 
 to sin;—and when it was that he sinned; viz. having 
 scarcely come out of his Creator's hands, or at least not 
 long afterwards;—and the sin itself; one that could 
 easily have been avoided, in the midst of so great an 
 abundance of good things. Augustine therefore very 
 justly observes— Whoever thinks the condemnation of 
 Adam too severe or unjust, cannot properly conceive how 
 great iniquity there was in transgressing, where it was 
 so very easy to abstain from sin; and as therefore the 
 obedience of Abraham, is justly declared. to be great, be- 
 cause the command given him, to slay his son, was most 
 difficult, so in Paradise the disobedience was so much the 
 greater, in proportion to the easiness of the command. 
 
 CHAPTER III. 
 
 OF SIN. 
 
 By the fall of our first parents, “sin entered into the 
 world,” Rom. v. 12. Now sin is expressed by various 
 terms, in the Hebrew and Greek originals, which have 
 each their peculiar emphasis, and which, though they 
 all denote sin, yet set it forth under different forms. 
 Thus it is termed sin, iniquity, offence, transgression, 
 trespass, &c., which respectively signify, a wandering 
 from the mark, a being contrary to justice or right, 
 stumbling, overstepping the bounds, &c. But its nature 
 is clearly shown by the apostle, when he says, “ Sin is 
 the transgression of the law,” | John iii. 4. Now by the 
 law we understand here the law of God, who is the only 
 
176 OF SIN. 
 
 * lawgiver, who is able to save and to destroy," James 
 iv. 12. For human laws do not bind the conscience of 
 themselves, or by their own right, but only in reference 
 to the law of God, which binds us to obey our superiors, 
 and these, only as far as they do not enjoin any thing 
 contrary to the law of God, Acts iv.9; v.29. Now since 
 the law of God commands some things, and forbids oth- 
 ers, we transgress that law, by leaving undone what it 
 commands, and by doing what it forbids; and these are 
 called sins of omission and commission, of which we shall 
 speak more particularly hereafter. Again, since the law 
 requires all holiness and rectitude, internal as well as 
 external, we transgress it, when we are destitute of that 
 i gor vi and when we feel any inclination towards what 
 is evil. 
 
 The essence of sin therefore consists in a contrariety 
 to the divine law, and it is the absence of that rectitude, 
 which ought to be in a rational creature according to 
 the requirement of that law. Hence in order to ascer- 
 tain whether any thing is sinful, we must examine 
 whether it is contrary to the law ; for nothing else is 
 required. It is not always required that it should be 
 voluntary, i. e. that it should be done knowingly and 
 deliberately, as will appear from what we shall have to 
 say of original sin. Neither is there required a fixed 
 resolution to do evil, as evil, and as forbidden by God. 
 Nor is it also required, that the action should be 
 undertaken for an evil end, although that evil end in- 
 creases the greatness ofthe sin. But because we have 
 said that sin is the absence of rectitude, we must not 
 hence conclude that it it is a mere privation, as death is 
 the privation of life; for it is not only the privation of 
 that righteousness which the law requires, but also a 
 positively depraved quality, opposed to that righteous- 
 ness. We must judge of the evils of the soul, as we do 
 of those of the body: now as bodily disease is not only 
 the withdrawing of the proper temperature and mixture 
 of the humours, but is also a disorderly and improper 
 mixture of those humours, so it is in the disease of the 
 soul, which is sin; this sin is not only the absence of 
 good, but it is like a mortification pervading and cor- 
 rupting all its powers; and hence the scripture frequently 
 calls sins by the names of spots, and stains, which God 
 washes and cleanses away. 
 
 There are two principal effects of sin—it corrupts and 
 disorders the soul, and it makes us liable to punishment 
 
OF SIN. 177 
 
 —in other words, it makes us impure, and it makes us 
 guilty. With regard to the former effect, sins are called 
 h, diseases, wounds, &c.; in reference to the latter, 
 they are called crimes, offences, debts, &c. The former 
 has a reference to the immaculate holiness of God, to 
 which it is contrary; the latter to his avenging justice, 
 and to the penalty of the law. Now sin makes us liable 
 to punishment, both from the natural and indispensable 
 right of God, founded on his justice, which cannot be- 
 . hold sin without hating, nor bate without punishing it, 
 and also from the dictates of the law, which must be ful- 
 filled, and therefore must denounce punishment against 
 sin. But to speak more distinctly of the punishment of 
 sin, we must reckon as parts of this punishment, the fol- 
 lowing evils both natural and moral. 1. The ignorance 
 and blindness of the human mind, the depravity of the 
 will, the disorder of the affections, under the influence of 
 which, sinners plunge into every species of iniquity. 
 2. 'The most severe remorse and terror of conscience. 
 3. The innumerable diseases and calamities to which the 
 body is subject. 4. The very remedies employed in 
 curing diseases, many of them most painful in operation, 
 which often change, instead of removing, the disease, 
 and prove rather tortures than remedies. 5. The evils 
 which arise from the want of the necessaries of life, 
 whereby many have perished of famine. 6. Death, which 
 greatly torments men with the fear of its approach. 
 7. The rebellion of the creatures against man. 8. Those 
 great calamities, which men experience from thunder 
 and lightning, from floods, from the winds, from the sea, 
 and from earthquakes. 9. Dreadful wars, in which men 
 miserably destroy each other. 10. The awful evils of 
 the future world, * outer darkness, weeping and gnash- 
 ing of teeth, chains of darkness, the worm that dieth not, 
 the lake that burneth with fire and brimstone,”— in short, 
 the most exquisite torments. ; 
 
 We must observe that sin deserves infinite punish- 
 ment, because it is committed against an infinite Being. 
 But the question is, whether sin deserves punishment 
 that is infinite in degree? This is the opinion of almost 
 all orthodox divines; but then they maintain, that, since 
 human nature is not capable of enduring punishment 
 which is infinite in degree, infinity of intenseness (as they 
 express it), is made up for by infinity of duration. In- 
 deed there can be no doubt that sin deserves the latter 
 punishment, because it is agreeable to reason, that he 
 
178 OF THE CONSEQUENCES 
 
 who has once sinned against an infinite Being, like God, 
 should never be restored to his favour, unless he can 
 make satisfaction. But it does admit of a doubt, whether 
 sin deserves a punishment which is infinite in degree. 
 For since man is a finite creature, it appears incon- 
 gruous for him to have been threatened with a punish- 
 ment of which heis not capable. Besides, if he deserved 
 this punishment, there could not be an inequality of 
 punishments, since God, for the satisfaction of his justice, 
 would have inflicted as great a punishment as the crea- 
 ture could suffer, and therefore there could be no de- 
 grees. But although the sinner always deserves punish- 
 ment, yet he is not necessarily subjected to it, if any 
 surety can be found to satisfy divine justice in his stead ; 
 hence, as Paul says, * there is no condemnation to them 
 that are in Christ Jesus,” Rom. viii. 1, because Christ 
 hath delivered them from it by his death. As to the 
 stain of sin, that is washed away by the influence of the 
 Holy Spirit sanctifying us. 
 
 CHAPTER IV. 
 OF THE CONSEQUENCES OF THE FIRST TRANSGRESSION. 
 
 WE have spoken of the effects of sin in general; we 
 must now speak of the effects of the first sin in particu- 
 lar; for as it was very great, so it drew with it the 
 most evil consequences, both to our first parents, and to 
 all their posterity. With regard to its effects on our 
 first parents, they lost their holiness and righteousness, 
 and the principal features of the divine likeness were de- 
 stroyed ; though not the whole likeness, since there re- 
 mained some traces, like the fragments of a miserable 
 shipwreck, which it pleased God to preserve, in order 
 that from them might be seen the excellence of the ori- 
 ginal image, and that the world might not degenerate 
 into complete confusion; as well as that a new edifice 
 might be built out of the ruins of the old. This loss of 
 the divine image was followed by a universal corruption 
 of the powers of the soul, and by a rebellious love of self 
 
 —_—— — 
 
OF THE FIRST TRANSGRESSION. 179 
 
 and of the creatures, which kindled within them un- 
 lawful passions. It was in this way that they began to 
 die, since they revolted from God the author of life; and 
 thus the divine sentence began to be put in force—* In 
 the day that thou eatest thereof, thou shalt surely die.” 
 This loss of holiness was followed by a sense of naked- 
 mess; for then, as Moses relates, “their eyes were 
 opened, and they knew that they were naked.” More- 
 over, they incurred the wrath of God, and became sub- 
 ject to eternal death and condemnation ; whence God, 
 immediately after the commission of the offence called 
 Adam, saying, * Where art thou?” Which words were 
 uttered by God, as though he was ignorant, but they 
 were words of rebuke, by which he summoned the 
 criminal to his bar, and reproached him with his 
 apostasy. Further, they were cast out of Paradise, 
 out of that happy region, as it were, into another 
 world. Finally, calamities of all kinds were poured 
 forth;and especially death, to which they became sub- 
 ject to the very moment they sinned, though they did 
 not die at that time—* Dust thou art, and unto dust 
 shalt thou return.” Here we may introduce the verses - 
 of Hilary on this subject — 
 
 Postquam primus homo vetito se pascere ligno 
 Non timuit, captusque dolis se prebuit angui, 
 
 Stat reus, et nudus dejecto lumine vestem 
 Eaplorans, Dominumque fugit, vultumque recondit 
 Culpa comes sequitur, peccato obnoxia vita 
 Debilitat vires. Cceli venientia dona 
 
 ZEthere demissus paulatim deficit ignis, 
 
 Frigore peccati torpentia corda rigescunt, 
 
 Cura cibi ventrisque subibat, cura tegendi 
 Corporis, et sacrum subeunt mortalia pectus. 
 
 When the first man had fearless touched the fruit 
 Of the forbidden tree, and caught with guile, 
 Obeyed the serpent's voice, he guilty stands 
 
 With downcast eyes, and seeks a garb to hide 
 
 His naked frame ; yea, flees his Maker’s face: 
 
 But sin attends his steps, brings down his strength, 
 And makes him mortal—for the immortal fire, 
 
 The gift of heaven, now dies away, and sin 
 
 Hath chilled his torpid heart; now anzious thoughts 
 Of food and raiment, and all earthly cares, 
 
 Rend and distract the bosom, once divine. 
 
 These effects were common to both our first parents, 
 Adam and Eve, but there were some peculiar to each. 
 
- 
 
 180 OF THE CONSEQUENCES 
 
 On the woman, who had first transgressed, and had 
 tempted the man to transgress also, a double punishment 
 was inflicted—the bringing forth of children with sorrow 
 —and a greater subjection to her husband. The pun- — 
 ishment peculiar to the man was labour and trouble of 
 various kinds ; *the ground was cursed for his sake, 
 bringing forth thorns and thistles." 
 
 Although some of the ancients, as Tatian, maintained 
 that our first parents were damned, we cannot subscribe 
 to this opinion; we do not doubt that soon after their 
 fall they were received into favour, since they had the 
 Jürst promise given to them, and doubtless exercised 
 faith in it. There was formerly extant a book concern- 
 ing Adam's repentance, but by a decree of the Roman 
 council under Gelasius, it was numbered with the apo- 
 cryphal writings. Many of the ancients also maintained 
 that Adam was buried on Mount Calvary, on ‘which 
 Christ was afterwards crucified and buried, in order that 
 he, who had been the first author of sin, might first ex- 
 perience the efficacy of Christ's blood shed for sin. But of 
 this we may well doubt. It is a ridiculous conceit of the 
 Rabbins, who, mentioning the repentance of Adam, say 
 that, after his fall he offered to God a bull having only 
 one horn in the midst of his forehead, which represented 
 the horn ofthe Messiah. It is no small proof of God's 
 mercy to the first man, that, though he had passed upon 
 him the sentence of death, he would not immediately 
 execute it, but suffered him to live and rule in the world 
 for a long time, and extended his life to the term of 930 
 years. It is also a proof of the divine mercy, that some 
 remains of the divine image, some fragments of the pre- 
 cious tablet, were preserved in man, that he might make 
 use of this small remnant in the various employments of 
 human life. 
 
 But what are the effects of the first sin on all Adam's 
 posterity? For these also he ruined, and not himself 
 only. For since he was the head and father of the hu- 
 man race, and represented that race in the covenant 
 which God made with him, he could not violate this 
 covenant, without involving in his sin the whole of his 
 descendants. A prince with his subjects constitutes one 
 political body ; they are reckoned as one; and therefore 
 the fault of the prince is often visited upon the people, 
 and vice versá, as the very words of the heathen 
 testify— 
 
OF THE FIRST TRANSGRESSION. 181 
 IToÀAákt kàt Füpraca TOs kakóv dvópóg &ravpet— 
 
 Oft a whole city pays for one man's sin. 
 
 Quicquid delirant reges, plectuntur Achivi. 
 The Greeks are punish’d for their chieftains’ crimes. 
 
 This imputation of the first transgression is usually 
 proved from Rom. v. 12—14, where the Apostle givesa 
 reason why death prevails over all men, viz. because 
 “all have sinned.” ] " 
 
 But that the force of this argument may be under- 
 stood, it may be observed, first, that the words alluded 
 to are introduced by Paul for the purpose of illustrating 
 and confirming the doctrine of justification, because it 
 seemed a strange thing that the righteousness of Christ 
 Should be imputed to his people; the Apostle therefore 
 shows that it is no more strange, than that Adam's sin 
 should be imputed to his posterity. Again, £o sin in 
 these passages does not signify to suffer punishment ; 
 for although sin is unquestionably sometimes taken for 
 the punishment of sin, yet it is no where read that he 
 sins, who suffers punishment without desert; and even 
 were it otherwise, an attentive reader will observe, that 
 the word cannot be so understood in the passages in 
 question, for it would make the meaning of the Apostle 
 ridiculous and unworthy of his wisdom. Thirdly, to sin 
 does not here simply denote corruption, or the habit of 
 sin, but to commit some actual sin; for it is one thing 
 to be, or to be born a sinner, and another to sin in act 
 and deed. Now if death passed upon all men because 
 all have sinned, and if it must be said that Adam’s pos- 
 terity sinned in act and deed, when they did not yet 
 exist, we conclude that they are said to have sinned, be- 
 cause they are considered in Adam, and are reckoned 
 to have committed sin, because he committed it. But 
 how can this be, without allowing the imputation of sin? 
 Fourthly, it is contended that the expression ij ó may 
 be rendered in whom, as well as for that (all have sin- 
 ned,) and it is so rendered in other passages of the New 
 Testament. Now if this be the true rendering, Adam’s 
 posterity cannot be said to have sinned in him, except 
 his sin is imputed to them. t 
 
182 OF THE CONSEQUENCES 
 
 This imputation is further proved from the 17th, 18th, 
 and 19th verses of the same chapter; but it is particularly 
 confirmed by the comparison which the Apostle, treat- 
 ing of justification, here draws between Adam and 
 Christ; whence he calls Adam “the figure of him that 
 was to come;” for we are made sinners in Adam in the 
 same way, in which we are made righteous in Christ, 
 viz. by the imputation of his righteousness. Therefore 
 we are made sinners in Adam by the imputation of his 
 sin, for “ by the offence of one, judgment came upon all 
 men unto condemnation, and by one man's disobedi- 
 ence many were made sinners.” The same point is 
 established from 1 Cor. xv. 22, * As in Adam all die, even 
 so in Christ all shall be made alive;" for these words 
 appear to mean, not merely that we derive from Adam 
 original sin, which is the cause of death; since in this: 
 point of view we might be said to die in our parents, as 
 we derive original sin from them, which yet we no 
 where read of;—the conclusion therefore is, that if all 
 men die, only because they have sinned, they must be 
 said to have sinned in him, in whom they all thus die. 
 Now we all die in Adam—therefore we all sinned in: 
 Adam. Divines further prove the doctrine from the 
 consideration, that if Adam's sin is not imputed to his 
 posterity, no reason can be given, why God should have 
 permitted that hereditary and inherent corruption to be. 
 transmitted from parents to children; for this is a very 
 great evil, which God would not have allowed to be ex- 
 tended to innocent persons, but only as a punishment 
 for some sin, which can be no other than the sin of 
 Adam. 
 
 Nor ought it to bea matter of surprise that Adam's. 
 sin should have been imputed to his posterity, when they: 
 were not yet born, and therefore had not consented to 
 his sin. For Adam must be considered as the root, the 
 father, the head, or chief, of the human race, for it was 
 in this relation, or with this understanding, that he en- 
 tered into covenant with God, and God with him. Be- 
 sides, there is nothing we read of more frequently in the 
 sacred volume, than such imputations of guilt. Thus 
 God punished the Israelites for Achan's sin, and imputed 
 to them the sin of this individual; for he says—* Israel 
 hath sinned, and they have transgressed my covenant; 
 they have taken of the accursed thing." (Josh. vii: 11.) 
 God punished the. Israelites with three years' famine, 
 because Saul had injured the Gibeonites contrary to his 
 
OF THE FIRST TRANSGRESSION. 183 
 
 ‘solemn agreement; and in the general deluge, and in 
 the burning of Sodom, children perished for the guilt of 
 their parents. For the sin of Ham, his son Canaan and 
 all his posterity were reduced to slavery. (Gen. ix. 25.) 
 All the first-born of the Egyptians were destroyed for 
 Pharaoh’s rebellion. For the abominations of the Cana- 
 anites, their wives and children were devoted to destruc- 
 tion. (Deut. xx. 16.) The Amalekites, four hundred 
 years after they had opposed the Israelites during their 
 journey from Egypt, were destroyed by Saul, at the 
 command of God. (1 Sam. xv. 2, 3.) We read the fol- 
 lowing curse in Lev. xxvi. 38, 39, * Ye shall perish 
 ‘among the heathen, and the land of your enemies shall 
 eat you up. And they that are left of you shall pine 
 away in their iniquity in your enemies' lands; and in 
 (or because of) the iniquities of their fathers shall they 
 pine away with them.” Our Saviour also declares to 
 the Jews, that upon them should come the punishment 
 of those sins which had been committed long before by 
 their fathers. (Matt. xxiii. 35.) Indeed, this imputation 
 of the parents’ sin to their children, is proved by that 
 threatening in the law, that God would “ visit the iniqui- 
 ty of the fathers upon the children,” (Exod. xx. 5,) which 
 must not be merely understood of children who follow 
 the bad examples of their parents; for most of the ex- 
 amples just brought forward prove the contrary; and 
 besides, if this were the meaning of the law, it would 
 not be the sins of the fathers which God visited, but 
 those of the children. Nor was this fact altogether 
 unknown to the heathens; hence we have the following 
 record of the Delphic oracle— 
 
 At scelerum auctores divinum persequitur jus, 
 Nec pote vitari, non si genus a Jove ducant, 
 Sed capiti ipsorum, quique enascuntur ab illis 
 Imminet, inque domo cladem subit altera clades. 
 
 Justice divine pursues the guilty heads, 
 
 Nor can they 'scape, not e'en if sprung from. Jove ; 
 O'er them it hangs, and o'er their guiltless sons— 
 Stroke after stroke falls on the hapless race. 
 
 We acknowledge, indeed, that it is difficult to con- 
 ceive how God imputes the sin of Adam to his unborn 
 posterity. But it is far more dificult to conceive how 
 God permits the descendants of Adam to be born with 
 that depravity, which is the effect of the first transgres- 
 
184 " OF ORIGINAL SIN. 
 
 sion, if that transgression is not imputed to them in any 
 way ; for this corruption is the greatest of all evils, be- 
 ing the fountain and origin of all sin, and consequently 
 the cause of man's everlasting destruction. Who, in- 
 deed, can conceive that God, who could by various 
 means have prevented this propagation of sin, if he had 
 chosen, should yet have chosen that all should be born 
 corrupt from one corrupt man, and that our whole race 
 should be infected with sin, and incur eternal wrath, had 
 he not been pleased to execute an act of his justice upon 
 man, on account of some sin before committed by Adam, 
 and imputed to his posterity? In this matter, indeed, 
 we must adore the judgment of God, and hold our 
 peace, saying only, O the depth ! 
 
 CHAPTER Y. 
 OF ORIGINAL SIN. 
 
 WE now proceed to show that the corruption of Adam ~ 
 was transmitted to his posterity ; first observing, that 
 this corruption goes by the name of original sin, a term 
 first employed by Augustine against the Pelagians, sig- 
 nifying that corruption is inherent in us from our birth, 
 from the very moment we begin to exist. Cyprian call- 
 ed it malum domesticum (a domestic or family evil.) 
 That it really exists may be proved by many arguments. 
 The first is taken from Psalm li. 5, * Behold, I was shap- 
 en in iniquity, and in sin did my mother conceive me." 
 In these words David traces the actual sin he had com- 
 mitted to its original source, and confesses that he was 
 corrupt from his very birth; for surely so much is 
 implied in the expressions, shapen and conceived in ini- 
 quity; now this is original sin. The argument will 
 appear to us still more valid by considering that David 
 is here confessing his own sin, not that of any other per- 
 son, such as his father or mother. 
 
 The second argument is derived from John iii. 6, 
 * That which is born of the flesh, is flesh.” The term 
 
OF ORIGINAL SIN. " 185 
 
 flesh here signifies our unregenerate nature, as it is also 
 taken in Rom. viii 8; Gal. v. 19. If, therefore, every 
 one that is born of the flesh, as all men are, is flesh, 
 namely, corrupt; then there will be no single human 
 being free from this natural corruption. The ¢hird ar- 
 gument is drawn from the curse of death, which belongs 
 to all; for death reigns even over infants, and therefore 
 sin must necessarily be in them, for death can be only 
 “the wages of sin.” By what justice, says Fulgentius, 
 is a child subject to the wages of sin, if there is no pollu- 
 tion of sin in him? We do not indeed deny that children 
 are said, in various passages of scripture, to be inno- 
 cent ; but they are not so called because they are free 
 from all sin, but only in comparison with adult persons, 
 who sin actually and grievously. Again, they are called 
 holy, Y Cor. vii. 14, not because they are free from all 
 corruption, but because they are born within the church, 
 out of which those who live are profane and unclean. 
 The fourth argument is drawn from the consideration, 
 that, if infants were not born corrupted by original sin, 
 they would have no need of Christ as a Redeemer: for, 
 where there is no sin, there is no need of redemption. 
 The fifth argument is drawn from the universal corrup- 
 tion of mankind ; for this corruption proves that the very 
 nature which we derive from the first parent, is faulty 
 in its very beginning; otherwise, in so great a multi- 
 tude of human beings, one at least would be found, to 
 whom at his birth nature had been more favourable and 
 kind, and who therefore would be holy. The sixth ar- 
 gument is drawn from the administration of circumci- 
 sion formerly, and now of baptism, to infants; both 
 these sacraments being seals of the righteousness of 
 faith, and of remission of sins, certainly not actual 
 sin in infants, therefore original. The seventh argument 
 arises from experience, which proves this secret corrup- 
 tion to be innate, even in infants. For how comes it 
 that sins show themselves in children, as soon as reason 
 commences, yea, even before, and grow and increase of 
 their own accord to such an extent, that by the most 
 diligent care of instructers, they can hardly be lopped 
 off, much less rooted out. Of this depravity of nature 
 they sometimes complained, who had nothing but the 
 ‘wisdom of nature to guide them. Thus Cicero laments 
 that man is introduced into life by his step-mother Na- 
 ture, with a body, naked, frail, and weak, with a mind 
 anxious at troubles, didis es fears, effeminate to la- 
 * 
 
186 OF ORIGINAL SIN. 
 
 bours, prone to evil passions, in which the celestial fire 
 of genius and intellect is smothered. And such was the 
 opinion of the orthodox fathers, as is evident from their 
 writings, and also of the various Christian councils. We 
 only add, that it should not appear strange that original 
 sin is not among the prohibitions of the law, hecause the 
 law supposes man to be holy. 
 
 With respect to the nature of original sin, we must 
 observe that it does not consist in the corruption of the 
 very substance of the soul, because every substance is 
 created by God (who is not the author of sin,) and be- 
 cause the scripture makes a distinction between our 
 nature and the sin that is inherent in it; and moreover, 
 if this were the case, Christ would have taken sin upon 
 himself, when he took our nature. And it would also 
 follow, that man, when he is regenerated, becomes es- 
 sentially different from the being he was before. We 
 observe also, that original sin does not mean merely the 
 being destitute of original righteousness, but also that 
 universal disorder which came into the place of original 
 righteousness: it is not only the want of wisdom in the 
 mind, and rectitude in the will, but it is blindness and 
 error in the understanding, perverseness in the will, 
 alienation from the chief good, inability to do good, and 
 inclination to do evil. 
 
 Only Jesus Christ was free from this corruption, for 
 he did not descend from Adam in the ordinary way, but 
 was conceived in an extraordinary and miraculous man- 
 ner, by the power of the Holy Ghost. Therefore the 
 blessed Virgin, his mother, was not free from this sin, 
 for this is nowhere asserted in scripture; and besides, 
 she acknowledged that she needed a Saviour, which she 
 would not have done had she not beena sinner. She 
 also died, like other sinners. It was the clear opinion 
 of the ancients, that Christ was the only exception to 
 the general rule. Thus Augustine speaks, J£ remains to 
 say, whether there is, or ever can be, any mortal man, 
 who hath, or will have, no sin at all. Here was a fair 
 opportunity for excepting the Virgin. But he goes on, 
 It is most certain, that there neither is, nor has been, 
 nor will be, any one (free from sin) except the one Media- 
 tor between God and man, the man Christ Jesus. To 
 the same effect is the testimony of Ambrose, Cyril, Ter- 
 tullian, and others. 
 
 This sin is inherent in the whole of man, both in his 
 soul and in his body; nor is it voluntary, in the sense in 
 
OF ORIGINAL SIN. 187 
 
 which we commonly say that a thing is voluntary; 
 though it may be called so, inasmuch as it affects the 
 will, and defiles it. It is not, indeed, necessary that any 
 thing should proceed from the will, in order to constitute 
 sin: for there are many sins that are sins of ignorance. 
 This original sin is very often called lust, which John 
 reduces to three heads—* the lust of the flesh, the lust 
 of the eyes, and the pride of life.” (1 John ii. 16.) It is 
 sin not only in the unregenerate and unbelieving, but 
 also in the regenerate and faithful; nor is it only a dis- 
 ease or infirmity of nature, as is evident from Paul's 
 giving it continually the name of sin, (Rom. vi. and vii,) 
 not only because it is of sin, or inclines to sin, but be- 
 cause it actually opposes the Jaw of the mind, and the 
 law of the very first constitution of things, and resists 
 the Spirit, in which thing the true nature of sin consists: 
 in short, it is sin, and produces sin. (James i. 15.) 
 
 As to the manner in which original sin is propagated, 
 it is a most difficult question, in resolving which divines 
 have always laboured, and will always labour, without 
 being able to satisfy themselves; and there is no one 
 who is not compelled to say with Augustine, What is 
 the truth, I would more willingly learn, than say, lest 
 I should venture to say what I know not. All that we 
 may venture to advance on this subject is, that an infant, 
 while in the womb of its mother, and therefore most in- 
 timately united to her, has the same impressions made 
 upon its brain or heart by different objects, as are made 
 upon the brain or heart of its mother. We know that 
 the soul and body are so closely united, that the ideas 
 of the former, and the motions of the latter, mutually 
 affect each other; whence it may follow, that the 
 motions which take place in the brain of infants, and 
 make impressions on it, have the same influence on 
 them as they have on their mothers, namely, bind 
 down their newly-created souls to sensible and carnal 
 objects. This may be illustrated by the following ex- 
 ample: supposing God to place a body, into which he 
 intended to breathe also a soul, in the midst of some 
 burning liquid; the very moment the soul entered that 
 body, it would be sensible of a very grievous pain. 
 Thus it is that the body of the infant in its mother's 
 womb is moved in the same way as the body of its 
 mother, who sins every moment; and therefore from 
 the time that the soul enters the body so affected, the 
 same affections or inclinations are stirred up within it, 
 
188 OF ACTUAL SIN. 
 
 ‘as are stirred up in the mother, according to the corre- 
 sponding motions of the body ;—in some such way as 
 this we imagine that sin is propagated. 
 
 We shall only add,that it is no wonder that man, 
 from the time of his birth, becomes continually more and 
 more corrupt; for he sees nothing but bad examples, 
 which surround him on every side, and by the most 
 powerful influence urge him to wbat is sinful; while he 
 himself, possessing no resources within his own heart, 
 becomes as it were the sport of every sin. 
 
 CHAPTER VI. 
 OF ACTUAL SIN. 
 
 From an impure fountain only impure streams can flow, 
 and a corrupt tree cannot bring forth good fruit. From 
 original sin therefore’ proceeds actual sin, which is 
 nothing else than a deviation or wandering from the law 
 of God. There are various kinds of actual sin, which 
 must be considered separately. First, there is the sin 
 of omission, and of commission; the former is that by 
 which the good commanded is left undone, the latter, by 
 which the evil forbidden is done; for although the omis- 
 sion of the act commanded is not strictly an act itself, 
 and therefore does not appear to be actual sin, yet it is 
 properly so called, both because that sin of omission is 
 rather connected with some internal act of the mind, 
 whereby the sinner wills the omission of the precept, or 
 is referred to some preceding act, which is the cause or 
 occasion of the act being omitted, and also, because by 
 such omission man deviates from the law, and is liable 
 to its curse. We may also observe on this head—that a 
 sin of commission is very often the occasion of a sin of 
 omission, as suzfeiting may be the cause of neglecting 
 divine worship. Also, that in every actual sin there 
 may be traced both omission and commission, and that 
 
OF ACTUAL SIN. 189 
 
 the sin of omission deserves a very severe punishment. 
 * Every tree that bringeth not forth good fruit is hewn 
 down, and cast into the fire.” Matt. iii. 10. 
 
 Secondly, there is the sin of the heart, of the mouth, 
 and ofthe deed. The sins of the heart are “ evil thoughts,” 
 (Matt. xv. 19; Prov. vi. 18; Matt. v. 28.^) The sins of 
 the mouth are evil words, such as blasphemies, perjuries, 
 lies, &c., and even “idle words," (Matt. xii. 36.) The 
 sins of deed are outward actions, visibly and sensibly 
 performed, (if we may so express it;) though, let it 
 be observed, that these kinds of sin often involve 
 each other, so that what are done in act, have been 
 first conceived in the heart. Under this head may 
 also come the distinction between sins of *the flesh," 
 and sins of *the spirit;" not indeed as if the sin of the 
 flesh was performed by the flesh only; for the flesh and 
 spirit mutually act on each other, and without the latter 
 the former cannot perform any evil deed:—but we call 
 the sins of the spirit, those which for the most part take 
 place in the spirit or heart of man, and to the perform- 
 ance of which, the members of the body, though often 
 the cause of carnal actions, are not absolutely necessary ; 
 such as the sins of ambition, pride, hatred, envy, &c., 
 which therefore are numbered with *the works of the 
 flesh," (Gal. v. 19.) But the sins of the flesh are those 
 which are committed with the members of the body also, 
 and cannot be committed without them, such as murder, 
 adultery, theft, &c. 
 
 T'hirdly, schoolmen make a distinction between sin of 
 itself, and sin accidentally. The former is that which is 
 absolutely forbidden by the law. The latter is that 
 which is good in itself, but is done in an evil manner; 
 as alms-giving practised through ostentation; in this 
 point of view the works of the heathens have been called 
 splendid sins. It is a more accurate way of speaking to 
 say, that there is a distinction between sin, as to the es- 
 sence of the deed, and sin as to the circumstances of the 
 deed, for since the essence of things moral is principally 
 made up of circumstances, every sin appears to be sin 
 of itself, or absolutely. 
 
 Fourthly, there is sin of ignorance, and wilful sin. 
 The former is that ‘which is occasioned only by igno- 
 rance, and which is not committed by any one know- 
 ingly, (Lev. iv. 2; Numb. xxxv. 11.) Such was the sin 
 of Paul in persecuting the church, (1 Tim.i. 13.) But 
 here we must distinguish between ignorance of things 
 
190 OF ACTUAL SIN. 
 
 which we are bound to know, and ignorance of things 
 which we are not thus bound to know. The latter is 
 altogether involuntary and invincible, where a man is 
 ignorant of what he cannot know, because the object is 
 not revealed to him; the former is voluntary and vin- 
 cible ; and it is either deliberate, where a man is not wil- 
 ling to be instructed in the divine commandments, and 
 that in order that he may more carelessly rush into sin, 
 as those who say, * Depart from us; we desire not the 
 knowledge of thy ways," (Job xxi. 14,) or it arises from 
 negligence, wherea man does not use that diligence which 
 he ought, and which he could use. Now ignorance of 
 things which we are not bound to know, which ignorance 
 is invincible, clears us from the charge of sin, except, the 
 ignorance being removed, we approve of any act wehave 
 done through it; but deliberate and vincible ignorance, 
 or that which arises from negligence, is sin, although the 
 one may be more blamable than the other. Under this E 
 head we may also reckon reigning sin, and sin that does 
 not reign ; the former is that which has gained strength 
 by inveterate habit, so as to hold a man in complete 
 bondage; it is found in those who are said to “commit 
 sin.” (lJohniii 8. Sin that does not reign is that 
 which is committed from inadvertence, or from some 
 sudden emotion, and which a man resists either in the 
 very act, or after the act. Among the former 'kind are 
 reckoned those which are called “crying sins,” as the 
 shedding of innocent blood, (Gen. iv. 10,)—the ‘keeping 
 back the hire of the labourers by fraud, (James v. 4,)J— 
 the affliction or oppression of the poor, &c. (Exod. iii. 
 7; xxii. 23,)—the sin of the Sodomites. (Gen. xviii. 20.) 
 Fifthly, there is the sin of infirmity, which daily arises 
 from ignorance, or from any sudden and unguarded 
 affection preventing the judgment, as sudden fear, anger, 
 pleasure, or pain; and it is called a sin of infirmity, be- 
 cause we are in this case induced to sin, not so much by 
 the will, as by the weakness of our nature, hurried away 
 by our passions or affections; although it is certain that 
 no actual sin can be said to be absolutely and altogether * 
 involuntary; for the will has either not done what it 
 ought, or hath done what it ought not. There is also 
 the sin of malice or wilfulness, which is committed with 
 deliberation, with a fixed purpose, and with a full con- 
 sent of the mind. (Psalm xix. 13.) Now it is plain that 
 the will has fully consented to the deed, when the 
 oflender is not hurried away by any violent affection, 
 
OF ACTUAL SIN. 191 
 
 but has time for mature consideration, and to discover 
 the wickedness of the deed which he purposes to per- 
 form. 
 
 Sizthly, there is pardonable and unpardonable sin, 
 (Matt. xii. 31, 32); the former is the “sin unto death,” 
 the latter the “sin not unto death.” (1 John v. 16, 17.) 
 Sin is called unpardonable, and “ unto death," which is 
 never forgiven by God; as final impenitence, and sin 
 against the Holy Ghost, of which we shall speak here- 
 after. Pardonable sin is that which can be forgiven by 
 God, though it deserves death. For we know that there 
 are no sins which are not of their own nature deserving 
 of death—“ the wages of sin is death.” (Rom. vi. 23.) 
 “©ursed is every one that continueth not in all things 
 which are written in the book of the law to do them.” 
 (Gal. ii. 10.) * Whosoever shall keep the whole law, 
 and yet offend in one point, he is guilty of all.” (James 
 ii, 10.) For every sin is contrary to the divine glory; 
 disturbs the order appointed by God; opposes the love 
 of God; and violates his law, which commands us to 
 love him with all our heart. It must not, however be: 
 concluded from this, that we maintain with the Stoics, 
 the equality of all sins; as though we believed that the 
 man who steals herbs out of his neighbour's garden, sins 
 as greatly as the man who offers incense to idols, or im- 
 brues his hands in the blood of his parent. We grant that 
 prs ue unequal, but we maintain that they all deserve 
 
 eath. 
 
 Now that there is an inequality in sins cannot be de- 
 nied. There are some sins which more deeply wound 
 and injure the conscience; which prevent the operation 
 of justifying faith; and which, if we may be allowed so 
 to speak, constitute an entire unfitness for the kingdom 
 of heaven, such as those alluded to in 1 Cor. vi. 10. Col. 
 iii. 5. There are others which do not hinder the opera- 
 tion of faith, nor take away the hope of obtaining for- 
 giveness, such as the rebellious motions of inward lust. 
 Some sins are in scripture compared to a beam, others 
 to a mote, (Luke vi. 41,) some to a camel, others to a 
 gnat, (Matt. xxiii. 24). That sin is light, which is com- 
 mitted through ignorance ; that is heavier, which is com- 
 mitted through contempt of God; sin against God is 
 heavier than sin against man, but although some are 
 greater and some less than others, we are not from 
 thence to conclude that we are allowed to commit them: 
 for nothing forbidden by God should appear light or 
 
192 OF SIN AGAINST THE HOLY GHOST. 
 
 small. At the same time, a sin which is otherwise very 
 small, when committed deliberately, is rendered great, 
 and the intention of committing a sin that is light in 
 itself, renders us more guilty than the heaviest sin to 
 which we are hurried on by the violence of any passion 
 hence it is that God has most severely punished many 
 sins which seem small to us. The man, for gathering 
 sticks on the sabbath-day, was stoned by the command 
 of God. (Numb. xv. 32—36.) Moses, for smiting the 
 rock twice with his rod without divine authority, was 
 excluded from the land of Canaan. (Numb. xx. 11, 12.) 
 Uzzah, for touching the ark, was instantly punished 
 with death. (2 Sam. vi. 6—9.) Augustine, therefore, ex- 
 cellently observes, In weighing sins, let us not bring de- 
 ceitful scales in which we may weigh what wewish, and how 
 we wish, at our own pleasure, saying, This (sin) is heavy, 
 that is light; but let us bring the divine balances from 
 the sacred scriptures, as out of the treasury of the Lord, 
 and in them let us weigh our sins, or rather not weigh, 
 but acknowledge them to have been already weighed by 
 the Lord himself. 
 
 CHAPTER VII. 
 
 OF SIN AGAINST THE HOLY GHOST. 
 
 Tuar there isa sin of this nature, is clear from the words 
 of scripture, (Matt. xii. 31—37,) “ All manner of sin and 
 blasphemy shall be forgiven unto men; but the blas- 
 phemy against the Holy Ghost shall not be forgiven unto 
 men," &c. John calls it *a sin unto death," (1 John v. 
 16.) and the apostle seems to speak of it in Heb. x. 26, 
 “If we sin wilfully after we have received the know- 
 ledge of the truth, there remaineth no more sacrifice for 
 sins, but a certain fearful looking for of judgment," &c. 
 and in the twenty-ninth verse, it is called a **treading 
 under foot the Son of God, counting the blood of the 
 covenant an unholy thing, and doing despite unto the 
 Spirit of grace.” It is very difficult to determine what 
 
- 
 OF SIN AGAINST THE HOLY GHOST. 193 
 
 is the nature of this sin; but in order that we may ex- 
 amine into it, let us ascertain first, what it is not; and 
 we shall then more easily discover what it is. 
 
 In proving tne negative, we observe—1. That they do 
 not sin against the Holy Ghost, who break the command- 
 ments of the moral law ; otherwise all men would be 
 guilty of this sin, and none would have any hope of 
 pardon. 2. They are not guilty of it, who reject evan- 
 gelical truth through ignorance and unbelief; for al- 
 though this is a very great sin, God hath not made any 
 law that such offenders shall be without hope of pardon ; 
 on the contrary, he often brings many of them to the 
 true faith. 3. They are not guilty of it who profess false 
 religions, as the Pagans and Mahometans;; for it evi- 
 dently appears that those only can sin against the Holy 
 Ghost, who live under the dispensation of the gospel. 
 4. Neither do they commit it, who have contracted any 
 habit of sinning, and take pleasure in it; for although 
 this habit is incompatible with real regeneration, the 
 grace of God can change and subdue it, and it often 
 happens that such persons are converted. 5. Neither 
 those who through fear of death, or any great calamity, 
 deny Christ, or offer incense to idols, and bow the knee 
 to Baal; for, strictly speaking, such persons do not sin 
 voluntarily, but, we may say, partly voluntarily, and 
 partly involuntarily ; being as one who throws his cargo 
 overboard to avoid being shipwrecked; and therefore 
 when fear is removed from such offenders, they will of 
 -their own accord return to God, and their sins will be 
 taken away through repentance, followed by a sense of 
 the divine mercy; thus Peter, who denied Christ, cannot 
 be said to have sinned against the Holy Ghost; and 
 therefore he immediately repented of his sin, which did 
 not prevent him from afterwards becoming a distin- 
 guished minister of Christ. 6. Nor do those persons 
 necessarily sin against the Holy Ghost, who forsake 
 Christ for the love of gain and worldly goods, as Demas, 
 who “loved the present world;” or some temporary 
 professors, in whom the deceitfulness of riches and the 
 cares of the world choke the good seed. This denial, 
 indeed, is more sinful than the former kind; for the 
 objects of our fear, such as torture and death, are of such 
 a kind as to oppose themselves to our very nature, and 
 therefore it is not strange that nature should recoil from 
 them, whereas we can easily do without great riches 
 and honours, which are objects of our hope and desire; 
 
 17 
 
- 
 194 OF SIN AGAINST THE HOLY GHOSY. 
 
 still, as it is not impossible for such men as have thus 
 fallen to return to Christ, and to abhor their guilt, as ex- 
 perience sometimes proves, we cannot therefore believe 
 that they have committed the sin against the Holy 
 Ghost. 7. This sin is not final impenitence, as was the 
 Opinion of St. Augustine ; for all those that are not saved 
 die in this latter sin, and yet all these cannot be said to 
 have sinned against the Holy Ghost. 
 
 What then zs this sin? Here is the difficult question. 
 But if we go by the scripture, it is evident, 1. That this 
 sin is committed by those, who know the truth of the 
 gospel, for it is said of them that they “have been en- 
 lightened,” i. e. in the knowledge of the gospel doctrine, 
 that they “have tasted the heavenly gift, were made 
 partakers of the Holy Ghost, have tasted the good word 
 of God, and the powers of the world to come." (Heb. vi. 
 4, 5;) they are said, also, elsewhere to *have received 
 the knowledge of the truth ;" all which things prove that 
 they are so acquainted with the truth, as to be convinced 
 of its excellence, and to be unable even to open their 
 mouth against it, however they may wish it. 2. This 
 sin is committed by those, who have received some 
 grace of the Holy Spirit; and this may be signified by 
 their “ having been made partakers of the Holy Ghost ;” 
 although this may be understood of miraculous gifts. 
 But here we must observe that the grace of the Holy 
 Spirit is of various kinds. For sometimes it simply re- 
 strains the impetuous passions of sinners, so that they 
 abstain from grosser offences, and are kept within the. 
 bounds of external decency; in this way many of the 
 heathens were restrained; and sometimes it penetrates 
 further into the heart, and convinces men of the truth 
 and excellence of the gospel, adding various motives by 
 which they should be induced to embrace or hold fast 
 the gospel. Sometimes it thoroughly persuades them, 
 leads them to true holiness, and fills them with solid 
 consolation. Now that those who sin against the Holy 
 Ghost, have received convincing grace, is plain from the 
 description given of them, as having “tasted the good 
 word of God.” 3. This sin is voluntary, for they are 
 said to sin “ wilfully,” (Heb. x. 26,) i. e. from the heart, 
 contrary to the light of conscience. 4. It is a total fall- 
 ing away from, and denial of, the truth, which the sacred 
 writer appears to intimate, when he says that they 
 “tread under foot the Son of God,” &c. 5. This falling 
 away is joined with contempt of the truth, hence they 
 
M 
 
 “4 
 OF SIN AGAINST THE HOLY GHOST. 195 
 
 are compared with those “who despised Moses’ law,” 
 (Heb. x. 28,) and with Esau, “ who, for one morsel of 
 meat despised his birthright.” (Heb. xii. 16.) 6. This 
 contempt is sometimes joined with hatred, when they 
 perceive that the gospel is contrary to their passions, 
 and hence they often inveigh against it, and impugn 
 those who defend its truth; thus the Pharisees, upon 
 whom Christ charges this awful sin, persecuted his doc- 
 trine with a deadly hatred; and this is necessarily im- 
 plied by the term blasphemy, by which name this sin is 
 designated, as also by the term despite, which is else- 
 where used. 7. Those who commit this sin, persist and 
 are confirmed in it, whence it is said, “it is impossible 
 for them to be renewed again unto repentance.” (Heb. 
 vi. 4.) From all that has been said then, the sin against 
 the Holy Ghost may be defined to be, “a wilful rejection 
 and total renunciation of the gospel truth once known, 
 joined with a confirmed hatred and contempt, and often 
 persecution of it, and this not for a time, but constantly, 
 even to the end of life.” 
 
 But here different questions arise, First, How is it 
 possible, that a man who knows the truth and excellence 
 of the gospel, should yet afterwards deny, despise, hate, 
 and persecute it? We reply, that this ought not to ap- 
 pear strange, because those temporary professors who 
 fall into this sin, embrace the gospel, not so much out of 
 regard to its intrinsic value, as for something that is 
 good and pleasant, which attracts them either by its 
 novelty, or sweetness, or the majesty of its doctrines, or 
 rather, as something that is useful, and capable of con- 
 ferring upon them some substantial benefit; hence it ap- 
 pears that they are influenced more by selfish motives, 
 than by love for the gospel. It is no wonder, therefore, 
 that they forsake the gospel, when they find that they 
 cannot profess the truth which it teaches, without re- 
 straining their passions, renouncing their pleasures, ex- 
 posing themselves to persecution, enduring many evils, 
 and subjecting themselves to various reproaches. For 
 they find that they have been greatly deceived in imagin- 
 ing, that, in embracing the gospel, they could keep Christ 
 and the world, the gospel and their own interest, all at 
 the same time in possession; therefore, when persecu- 
 tion comes on, those who had no higher and better ob- 
 ject in view, than to obtain the advantages of the pre- 
 sent life, without caring for the future, voluntarily for- 
 sake Christ, and that too with a kind of rage and indig- 
 
196 OF SIN AGAINST THE HOLY GHOST. 
 
 nation at the thought that they were nearly losing for 
 the sake of Christ, their own ease, honour, glory, happi- 
 ness, and everything else which occupied the chief place 
 in their affections. Again, it must be observed that all 
 this does not take place at once, but gradually, for no 
 one reaches at once to the height of depravity. 
 
 Secondly, it is inquired, why this sin is called the sin 
 against the Holy Ghost? We reply, not because it 
 merely offends against the third person of the Trinity, 
 for all sins are against the whole three adorable persons; 
 but because it is committed against that peculiar opera- 
 tion of the Spirit which belongs to him in the economy 
 of grace, viz. the illumination of the mind. Thirdly, it 
 is inquired, whether this sin can apply to all men. We 
 answer that it cannot apply to the elect and faithful, 
 who, on account of God’s love towards them, cannot fall 
 into so deadly a sin, as will appear, when we come to 
 speak of their perseverance. Nor does it apply to those 
 who do not know the gospel, but to those whom we call 
 temporary professors, who receive the word with joy, 
 but afterwards renounce it. A fourth question is, 
 whether any persons are still found who may fall into 
 this sin? The ground of any doubt on this head is, that 
 Christ appears to charge with this sin, those only who 
 ascribed the miraculous works which he performed to 
 the devil, while all the time they were either persuaded 
 that such works were done by a divine power, or at 
 least were unable by any experience or argument to 
 prove what they asserted with so much boldness and 
 impiety. Many therefore, after Jerome, Athanasius, Am- 
 brose, and Basil, maintain that the sin of which Christ 
 speaks, (Matt. xii. 31,) is not the same as that of which 
 Paul and John speak. They believe that the sin of which 
 the apostle treats in Heb. vi. and x. is the sin of the Jews, 
 who, after having received miraculous gifts in their bap- 
 tism, returned to the synagogue, renounced Christianity, 
 and cursed Christ; and that the sin of which John treats, 
 is the sin of those, who remaining in the outward pro- 
 fession of Christianity, persisted in some grievous sin, 
 which brought upon them the excommunication of the 
 church. But this opinion is perhaps more refined than 
 solid. We think it far more probable that Christ and his 
 apostles allude to the same sin, though we grant that 
 there may be various species of it. We believe, then, 
 that this sin was not only committed by the Pharisees, 
 but that it may be seen in the present day committed by 
 
OF SIN AGAINST THE HOLY GHOST. 197 
 
 many; for there are many who “sin wilfully after hav- 
 ing received the knowledge of the truth, and count the 
 blood of Christ an unholy thing,” which is the descrip- 
 tion of this sin, as given by the apostle. This is further 
 evident from the circumstance of this sin being set forth 
 as the most grievous of all sins; now it is certain that 
 the sin of Christians who renounce, hate, despise, and 
 persecute the truth once known, is greater than that of 
 the Pharisees, who blasphemed the miracles of Christ, be- 
 ing blinded by many prejudices, and by their own malice 
 and envy; and that they are far greater offenders, who 
 crucify Christ afresh after having acknowledged him for 
 the true Messiah, than those, who originally crucified 
 him as an impostor. 
 
 This sin is said to be unpardonable ; “it shall not be 
 forgiven,” says Christ, “either in this world, or in the 
 world to come.” For there can be no remission where 
 there is no repentance, and it is plain from the Apostle, 
 that such persons cannot be “renewed unto repen- 
 tance," (Heb. vi. 6.) Neither does the justice of God 
 permit, that they should obtain pardon. And here the 
 learned observe that the Apostle uses the word arvaxatview 
 (io renew) in the active sense, thereby signifying that 
 this impossibility of renewal does not refer to the sin as 
 being in itself unpardonable, but to God himself as be-. 
 ing unable as it were to bring himself to cure and de- 
 stroy itin such persons. He who has broken the laws 
 of the Father, may find a remedy in the satisfaction of 
 the Son. He who hath through ignorance and unbelief 
 offended against the person of the Son, has some hope 
 left him in the grace of the Spirit, who can dispel his 
 ignorance, and subdue his unbelief. But he who does 
 despite unto the Spirit, can expect no further remedy of 
 grace. Let every one, therefore, study to avoid this 
 awful sin, and diligently shun every thing which appears 
 to lead to it, such as the disregarding of conscience, and 
 of God who speaks by it, the abuse of the truth for 
 worldly purposes, self-love, the love of the world, and 
 worldly objects, perseverance in sin, contrary to the 
 struggles of conscience, in short, every thing by which 
 the devil insensibly leads us astray, and which grieves 
 the Holy Spirit of God. 
 
 LE 
 
198 OF MAN’S FREE WILL . 
 
 CHAPTER VIII. 
 OF MAN's FREE WILL IN THE STATE OF SIN. 
 
 We have before treated of man’s free will.in his state of 
 innocence, and we then observed tbat his freedom con- 
 sisted in his voluntary acting with judgment, not com- 
 pelled by any other agent; and that such liberty is so 
 essential to a rational creature, that without it such a 
 creature cannot be conceived of in any state whatever ; 
 therefore when man became a sinner, he did not lose 
 this freedom, since he could not lose it without ceasing 
 to be man. But besides this essential freedom, we may 
 say that innocent man possessed also another kind, viz. 
 freedom from the slavery of sin; now this we maintain 
 that he lost, when he fell from a state of innocence. For 
 free-will is usually distinguished into essential and acci- 
 dental: the former is that by which man can act without 
 compulsion, under the guidance of his mind and judg- 
 ment; thelatter, by which he can act as freely as his 
 habits permit him to do. Now man lost not the first of 
 these, but the second, and that only in relation to what 
 is good, since his habits became evil. Hence his poster- 
 ity are born the slaves of sin; they are not, indeed, 
 without that natural power of willing which is essential 
 to man, but they abuse it only to the purposes of sin, 
 and they labour under an absolute inability to that 
 which is good. 
 
 It is true, that in natural things man has the same 
 powers now that he had when innocent; he can exer- 
 cise tbem, or not, at his pleasure ; thus hecan eat, drink, 
 sleep, &c. In civil matters also, those which- relate to 
 the conduct of human life, we allow that he has some 
 powers remaining, although very much weakened, since 
 even in these matters his mind is in many respects 
 blind, and his will corrupted by the fall; so that he com- 
 mits various errors in choosing and rejecting ; but with 
 regard to moral and spiritual good, we consider that 
 man is so corrupt of his own nature, that he can do 
 nothing acceptable in the sight of God. Now this is 
 proved by many testimonies of scripture. First, from 
 
IN THE STATE OF SIN. 199 
 
 .those passages in which ability or power is expressly 
 declared not to be in man, as when it is said tbat he 
 * cannot know the things of God, cannot subject himself 
 to the law of God, can do nothing without Christ, noth- 
 ing of himself, cannot bring forth good fruit," &c. (l 
 Cor. ii. 14; Rom. viii. 7; John xv. 5; 2 Cor. iii. 5; Matt. 
 vii. 18.) 
 
 There are passages, also, which represent man asa 
 servant of sin and of the devil, such a servant as is bound 
 with the chains of his lusts, the *servant of corruption," 
 (2 Pet. ii. 19,) who cannot be set at liberty except by 
 Christ; now servitude or slavery implies, both a perpet- 
 ual necessity of obligation, till deliverance takes place, 
 and the devoting of every work and action to the ser- 
 vice of the master. It appears, then, that the sinner has 
 no moral power to deliver himself from this slavery, or 
 to do any thing in which he is not wholly subject to the 
 master whom he serves, namely, sin. There are passa- 
 ges also in which man's understanding is described as 
 blind, darkened, nay darkness itself, (Eph. v. 8,) his heart 
 deceitful and desperately wicked, (Jer. xvii. 9;) hard as 
 adamant, (Zech. vii. 12;) stony, (Ezek. xxxvi. 26.) Now 
 what do these expressions denote, but that he has no 
 strength for heavenly things, either in his understanding, 
 or in his will; and that he can neither understand nor 
 do good without divine aid; for a stony heart can con- 
 vey no other idea than that of a heart insensible, inflext- 
 ble, earthly, destitute of life. 
 
 A further argument arises from those passages in 
 which man is said to be dead, (Eph. ii. 1,) not merely on 
 account of the afflictions to which he is liable, nor on 
 account of the mortality of his body, or the troubles of 
 his conscience, but because of the dissolution of that 
 union with God, and the want of that holiness, in which 
 true life consists; hence it is plain that a sinner has no 
 more power to convert himself, than a dead man has to 
 raise himself to life. It is true there is a great difference 
 between the one and the other; in bodily death the 
 man is destitute of all power toact; in spiritual death he 
 is destitute only of power to do what is good: in the for- 
 mer the faculties are taken away, in the latter only the 
 rectitude of them; in the one a man is not bound to 
 quicken himself, in the other he is so bound ; neverthe- 
 less the resemblance consists in this, that, as a dead 
 man is deprived of the life of nature, and consequently 
 of all motion and feeling, so the sinner is destitute of the 
 
200 OF MAN’S FREE WILL 
 
 life of grace, and consequently has lost all spiritual mo-- 
 tion and feeling. 
 
 The truth is further established by joining together all 
 the expressions already brought forward, and others of 
 the same import, which will give the force of a demon- 
 stration. The scripture, then, calls the sinner a slave, 
 but a slave who cannot escape by flight, because he is a 
 captive, a captive who cannot pay the price of his ran- 
 som, because he is a debtor, a debtor, who has not be- 
 come so by misfortune, but from guilt, for he is a crimi- 
 nal, but not only a criminal, who may be in good health 
 and at ease, but also a sick or diseased person, not, how- 
 ever, such a sick man as can call in the aid of a physi- 
 cian, but one who is sunk into a deep sleep, yet not so 
 that he can presently awake, for he is also dead ; and 
 not like a dead man who can do no harm, but one who 
 is an enemy and a rebel against God. We may, finally, 
 adduce all those expressions which the scripture makes 
 use of to describe the work of conversion, calling it a 
 creation, a resurrection, a regeneration, the producing 
 of a new heart; all which most clearly imply the entire 
 inability of the sinner to contribute any thing at all to 
 this new creation, or resurrection of himself. 
 
 But this impotence of the sinner does not excuse him 
 in sinning, since it is not involuntary and merely physi- 
 cal, arising from a defect of natural power, but volunta- 
 ry and moral, arising from a depraved nature. To say 
 that man can do nothing but what is evil, is the same as 
 saying, that man is so delighted with sin, that he is un- 
 willing to cease from it. Besides, this impotence is in- 
 creased in man by the frequent commission of sin, 
 against the dictates of his own conscience; hence he 
 gets so accustomed to sin, that habit becomes a second 
 nature; and this seems to be the true reason why sin is 
 called the old man. God therefore justly punishes those 
 whose impotence is such as this. He, indeed, who pun- 
 ishes another, for not doing what he could not in any 
 way do, though he wished it, punishes unjustly. But 
 God punishes men, because they have not done those 
 things which they ought to have done, but which they 
 were wholly unwilling to do, and because they have 
 done a great many things which they might have easily 
 avoided. 
 
 From what has been said it appears, that all the works 
 which we perform without the grace of God, are sins; 
 and therefore that those works of the heathens, which 
 
IN THE STATE OF SIN. 201 
 
 are called virtues, were splendid sins. For to make a 
 work good three things are required. 1. It must pro- 
 ceed from a heart purified through faith; now who will 
 assert that those who worshipped false gods, and knew 
 not the will of the true God, acted from a heart thus pu- 
 rified? 2. It must be done according to God’s law, not 
 only as to the outward act, but also as to the inward 
 and spiritual compliance of the heart; but this was 
 wanting in the heathens. 3. It must be directed to the 
 glory of God; but here also they failed, because they 
 * glorified not God, neither were they thankful ;” they 
 served their own ambitious ends, as it is said of them— 
 
 Vicit amor patrie, laudumque immensa cupido. 
 Moved by their country's love, and thirst for praise. 
 
 But if there was any thing good in them,—and some did 
 regard justice and goodness more than others—if Aris- 
 tides was renowned for justice, Scipio for chastity, So- 
 crates for wisdom, &c., this must be attributed to the 
 divine influence of the Holy Spirit, who restrained the 
 passions of some of them, and prevented them from 
 breaking out, while others were permitted to indulge 
 their passions, and to rush headlong into every vice. 
 Herice Plato and Cicero once confessed that no one ever 
 became a great man without a divine inspiration. Thus 
 far concerning sin, and man's condition in respect to it. 
 
CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY. 
 
 BOOK THE FIFTH. 
 
 OF THE DECREE OF GOD CONCERNING MAN’S SALVATION. 
 
 CHAPTER I. 
 OF ELECTION. 
 
 We have treated of man’s fall, and have seen what this 
 sin deserved, namely, eternal death. But we are not to 
 conclude from this, that all mankind, being corrupted by 
 sin, will perish everlastingly ; for it was not the will of 
 the Almighty Ruler of the world to devote all whom hé 
 created after his own image to eternal destruction. On 
 the contrary, as he had foreseen their fall from all eter- 
 nity, so he purposed before the foundation of the world 
 to save some of them, and to leave others in their fallen 
 condition. "This truth is evident from innumerable pas- 
 sages of scripture, which teach us that salvation was 
 from eternity designed for some, and not designed for 
 others. Nor should it seem strange to any one that 
 God has made a decree concerning the salvation of men, 
 since, as we have already proved, no event takes place 
 in time which was not decreed from eternity, and nothing 
 happens in the world without the knowledge and the 
 will of God. 
 
 But in order that we may rightly understand this de- 
 cree, four things are to be observed :—l. That all man- 
 kind, all the posterity of Adam, are the objects of this 
 divine decree. For God hath from everlasting deter- 
 mined ^x himself what he wills to be done in reference 
 
 02 
 
OF ELECTION. 203 
 
 ‘to the salvation or condemnation of individuals. 2. 
 That this decree of saving some, and passing by others, 
 had a reference to mankind, as already created, and not 
 merely as capable of being created. For a non-entity 
 cannot be the subject of salvation, or perdition; and, 
 also, if this were the case, God would have decreed the 
 salvation and perdition of many persons, who never 
 have been, nor will be created; but it would not become 
 an all-wise Being to make useless decrees. 3. That God 
 in his decree considered men not only as created, but 
 also as fallen; for man created, and not yet fallen, can- 
 not be an object worthy of hatred, but must necessarily 
 be the object of divine love. Neither can God purpose 
 to save any one who is not supposed to be in a lost state; 
 for salvation implies previous liability to perdition. 4. 
 'That the scripture uses various terms to express this 
 decree concerning human salvation, and particularly 
 these four,—l. Foreknowledge, Rom. viii. 29; xi. 2; 1 
 Peter i. 2; in this last passage, however, some think that 
 the apostle by foreknowledge means the love of God, 
 which is the source and foundation of election. 2. Pre- 
 destination, Eph. i.5. Although this word in its great- 
 est latitude signifies the operations of divine Providence 
 in all things, as Acts iv. 18; 1 Cor. i. 7. 3. Purpose, 
 Eph.i. 11. 4. Zlection, Eph. i.4. Between these terms 
 some difference may be remarked. The sacred writers 
 may use the word purpose to denote the certainty of 
 the event ; the words foreknowledge and election to dis- 
 tinguish the persons who are objects of the decree; and 
 the word predestination, to signify the appointment of 
 the various means by which the decree is executed. 
 Election is the term we shall make use of in the follow- 
 ing pages. 
 
 Now, with the Synod of Dort, we define election to 
 be “the eternal and unchangeable decree of God, where- 
 by, out of the whole race of mankind fallen from primi- 
 tive innocence into sin and perdition by their own fault, 
 he has, according to the free purpose of his will, and of 
 his mere grace, destined to salvation a certain definite 
 number of individuals, who were neither better nor wor- 
 thier than the rest, but lay in the same state of sin and 
 misery.” Butto examine intothis more particularly, we 
 observe, first, that this election is an eternal decree; so 
 that it must be distinguished from another kind of elec- 
 tion which takes place in time, and which is nothing 
 more than either a calling to some civil or sacred office; 
 
204 OF ELECTION. 
 
 as Judas was said to be chosen “to the apostleship,” 
 (John vi. 70,) or the admission of any people into cove- 
 nant with God, as the Israelites were said to be chosen 
 by God; or that separation from this world which is 
 made in certain persons, to whom God gives grace, and 
 whom he brings to glory. Now that the decree of elec- 
 tion is eternal, is unquestionably taught by Paul, when 
 he says, that God “ hath chosen us before the foundation 
 of the world ;” for by no other expression does the scrip- 
 ture usually designate eternity. Again, this election has 
 for its object a certain definite number of individuals, 
 for no one will imagine that all are elected. Indeed, the 
 very term election shows that all are not chosen; and 
 the scripture confirms the same truth, when it declares 
 that “the names of some are written in heaven, and in 
 the book of life,” (Luke x. 20; Phil. iv. 3,) and that the 
 names of others are not written in the book of life of 
 the “Lamb slain from the foundation of the world.” 
 (Rev. xiii. 8; xvii. 8.) Further, let it be observed that 
 God has decreed to save some men lying in the same 
 abyss of misery as the rest, of his mere grace and favour, 
 lest any one should imagine, that God hath chosen those 
 only who he foresaw would be better and more de- 
 serving than others, and would believe, and perform 
 good works. Now that neither faith nor good works 
 foreseen are the cause of election, is proved—1. Because 
 faith and obedience are the effects of election, there- 
 fore they cannot be the cause; and that they are the 
 effects is evident from Rom. viii. 29, * whom he did pre- 
 destinate, them he also called ;" now men are called to 
 faith; also from Eph. i. 4, * be hath chosen us that we 
 should be holy," not. therefore, because we were holy; 
 also from Acts xiii. 48, “as many as were ordained to 
 eternal life, believed ;" therefore they were not ordained 
 because it was foreseen that they would believe. For 
 nowhere in scripture does the word reraypevor, ordained, 
 signify disposed, fit, or qualified, as some would trans- 
 late it. To these may be added the passage in 2 Tim. i. 
 9, where the apostle says that *God hath called us, not 
 according to our works, but according to his own pur- 
 pose and grace.” Now if we are not called, according 
 to our own works, but according to the purpose of God, 
 much less were we elected according to our own works. 
 Again, if election were according to faith and works 
 foreseen, there would be no difficulty in answering the 
 auestion, why God chooses one, and not another? It 
 
OF ELECTION. 205 
 
 would be, because God foresaw that the former would 
 believe, and that the latter would remain in unbelief: 
 yet we no where read of this in Paul, nor in the other 
 Sacred writers; on the contrary, it is expressly declared, 
 that *it is not of him that willeth, nor of him that run- 
 neth, but of God that sheweth mercy." (Rom. ix. 16.) 
 Now should these words be understood of calling, as 
 some explain them, the argument will still hold good 
 from calling to election. This point will appear by con- 
 sidering, that election depends on the mere “ good plea- 
 sure" of God's will; for no other cause of it is mentioned 
 by Paulin Eph. i. 5,9, and in other passages; and when our 
 Saviour gives thanks to his Father for having “hid” his 
 secrets *from the wise and prudent, and revealed them 
 unto babes," (Matt. xi. 25,) (which revelation is the exe- 
 cution of the decree of election,) he assigns no other 
 cause for this than the good pleasure of God. 
 
 And let it be observed, that God in election is to be re- 
 garded in two characters, as a merciful Father who 
 pities the miserable; and as an independent Lord, who 
 has mercy on whom he will, “doing what he will with 
 his own.” If then it be asked, why God has elected 
 some men? the reply is, it is the effect of the divine 
 mercy towards the human race, whereby God would 
 not have all to perish, though all had deserved to perish. 
 But if it be further asked, why Peter was chosen rather 
 than Judas? the reply is, that such was the pleasure of 
 God ; as if any one should ask why of the same lump of 
 clay one vessel is made to honour, and another to dis- 
 honour: no cause for this is found in the lump of clay, 
 but the whole cause is found in the will of the artificer. 
 We have therefore cause to admire the great mercy ot 
 God towards men, in having been pleased to spare some 
 although all were alienated from him, and children of 
 wrath; and although he could have overwhelmed all 
 with his most righteous anger, and left them in the pit 
 of eternal destruction ; and at the same time we have 
 cause to adore with awe the supreme dominion of God 
 over his creatures. 
 
 Once more we observe, that election includes two 
 things, appointment to salvation, and appointment of 
 the means of salvation. Now these means are the in- 
 carnation, death, satisfaction, &c. of Jesus Christ, who is 
 therefore the first means of fulfilling the decree of elec- 
 tion, as he is the meritorious cause of salvation; and 
 also the blessings which he E purchased as the gift of 
 
206 OF THE IMMUTABILITY 
 
 the Spirit, effectual calling, justification, sanctification, &c. 
 without which no salvation can be obtained. Hence we 
 infer that, although election is not suspended upon our 
 faith and works, yet salvation is decreed to no one but 
 upon condition of faith and repentance; for he who has 
 chosen us to salvation, hath also decreed that we shall 
 not obtain this salvation without first believing, and 
 obeying his commandments; and therefore every one 
 whom God has elected will assuredly believe before he 
 obtain the salvation to which he is appointed. 
 
 CHAPTER II. 
 OF THE IMMUTABILITY AND CERTAINTY OF ELECTION. 
 
 Exection is certain and unchangeable, as may be proved 
 by the three following arguments: first, from the con- 
 nection that subsists between election and glory ; for as 
 many as are chosen will be crowned with glory here- 
 after. Now this connection is established in that golden 
 chain, which the apostle makes in Rom. viii. 29, 30, 
 * whom he did foreknow, he also did predestinate to be 
 conformed to the image of his Son; moreover, whom he 
 did predestinate, them he also called; and whom he 
 called, them he also justified; and whom he justified, 
 them he also glorified.” Now if election were not sure 
 and certain, it might be possible that God would not 
 bless with eternal happiness those whom he had fore- 
 known. The second argument arises from this, that 
 election is of the same character as the other decrees of 
 God, which are unchangeable. ‘My counsel shall stand, 
 and I will doall my pleasure." (Isaiah xlvi. 10.) * God is 
 not a man, that he should lie, neither the son of man, 
 that he should repent.” (Numb. xxiii. 19.) “ With him 
 is no variableness, neither shadow of turning." (James i. 
 17.) And God is said, being * willing to shew the im- 
 mutability of his counsel, to have confirmed it by an 
 oath." (Heb. vi. 17.) And if *the gifts and calling of 
 God are without repentance,” (Rom. xi. 29, why not 
 also his election? If God changed his decrees, this 
 
AND CERTAINTY OF ELECTION 207 
 
 change would take place either because he could not 
 foresee what would happen, through ignorance ;—or be- 
 cause he could not accomplish his purpose, through im- 
 potence ;—or because he would not do so, through in- 
 constancy or fickleness. None of these things can be 
 affirmed of a Being all-wise and powerful, supremely 
 good and faithful. Yo change and alter does not become 
 even a good man, much less a God, said Maximus 
 Tyrius. And the divine Being may justly say of him- 
 self, what Jupiter says, according to Homer— 
 
 ——o8 yàp inv zaMváypsrov, àv) ’azarndov, 
 Oud *arédeirnrov Srt Kev xcjaNi Karaveicw. 
 
 The nod that ratifies my will divine, 
 The faithful, sure, irrevocable sign. 
 
 The third argument is derived from this, that the 
 names of the elect are said to be “ written in heaven,” 
 and “in the book of life.” Now by this writing or en- 
 rolment, the scripture usually signifies the certain and 
 infallible performance of the divine decrees. Hence 
 Christ exhorts his disciples to rejoice that their “names 
 are written in heaven;” now it would not be so great a 
 matter of joy, if that writing could easily be blotted out ; 
 though we may here observe, that in one sense a man’s 
 name can be blotted out of the book oflife which wasnever 
 written therein, since it is thereby shewn that it was not 
 written which was believed to have been written there. 
 “His part shall be taken away out of the book of life, 
 and out of the holy city,” not the part which he had, or 
 would have had, but which he was thought to have. 
 Hence some remark, that there are two kinds of this 
 writing, one merely human, made by men, who reckon 
 many hypocrites as true members of the church; the 
 other divine, which has been made by an eternal and 
 unchangeable decree of God; the former, as written by 
 men, is often—the latter, as written by God, is never— 
 destroyed. Here also we may add the remarks of the 
 Jews, according to R. Kimchi, that those are said to be 
 blotted out, who are not written.* And here we may 
 
 * A remark which is strongly confirmed by Psalm Ixix. 8. “let them 
 he blotted out of the book of the living, and not be written with the 
 righteous." The latter clause in this verse may be considered as ex- 
 
 anatory of the former. 
 
208 oF THE IMMUTABILITY AND CERTAINTY OF ELECTION. 
 
 take opportunity to observe, that the scripture mentions 
 several divine books, such as the book of Providence, 
 alluded to in Psalm cxxxix. 16, “in thy book all my 
 members (or, all these things) were written :” the books of 
 judgment, in which are written the deeds of every man ; 
 and the book of life. (Rev. xx. 12.) This last book is of 
 three kinds—1. The book of natural life, of which Moses 
 speaks, (Exod. xxxii. 32,) when he begs of God to blot 
 him out of his book, that is, that he might die an un- 
 timely death. 2. The book of that life, which consists in 
 communion with the people of God, of which Ezekiel 
 speaks, (xiii. 9,) “they shall not be in the assembly of 
 my people, neither shall they be written in the writing 
 of the house of Israel.” 3. The book of eternal life, 
 alluded to in Luke x. 20; Phil. iv. 3; Rev. xiii. 8; xx. 
 12. Moreover, God is said to have books, by a meta- 
 phor or figure derived either from military affairs, in 
 which the commander writes in a book the names of the 
 soldiers enlisted; or from an album or note-book, in 
 which we set down the names of our friends; or from 
 the civil custom of enrolling the names of citizens. But 
 to return from this digression. 
 
 To the three arguments already brought forward in 
 favour of the certainty of election, may be added the 
 well known passage in 2 Tim. ii. 19, ** The foundation of 
 God standeth sure, having this seal, the Lord knoweth 
 them that are his.” By this foundation almost all divines 
 understand the election of God, on which rests the whole 
 ofour salvation. But although we may admit that elec- 
 tion can be rightly called the foundation of the church, 
 and of all believers, who are set forth as a house, yet we 
 think that the word foundation here does not mean elec- 
 tion ; but the true believer, as opposed to those temporary 
 professors, whom Paul in the preceding verse describes 
 as having * erred concerning the truth.” Now the true 
 believer is called a foundation in allusion to Prov. x. 25, 
 where it is said, “the righteous is an everlasting founda- 
 tion," that is, because he stands firmly built on a rock ; 
 he is not shaken, he does not waver; he is not moved 
 away by any assaults of Satan, or the world; he lasts 
 aslong as the world, and is in some sense the founda- 
 tion of the world. Hence the Jews said that the world 
 stood by reason of the righteous. And Chrysostom in- 
 terprets the meaning of the word to be stable, or souls 
 who stand fixed and immovable. Yet although we do 
 not understand election to be meant by this term, we 
 
OF THE ASSURANCE OF ELECTION. 209 
 
 think that this passage contains a solid argument for the 
 immutability of election; for the believer is called a foun- 
 dation, because he is elected, and because his election is 
 sure and immovable. This foundation is said £o have 
 a seal, alluding to the custom of the ancients, who in- 
 scribed certain sentences upon foundation-stones, by 
 way of good omen; or else to the custom of men who 
 seal those writings which they wish to be valid and bind- 
 ing. Now this seal contains a double security as it were 
 for the full confirmation of faith, one on the part of God, 
 the other on the part of man; for if the believer could 
 fall away, this would take place, either because God for- 
 sook him, or because he himself became ungodly; but 
 neither of these events could happen, according to Paul ; 
 not the first, for *the Lord," he says, * knoweth them 
 that are his," i. e. he loves and defends them, having 
 foreknown them from eternity; nor the second, for the 
 same Lord provides or takes care that “every one that 
 nameth the name of Christ, "d. e. belongs to his people, 
 shall, *depart from iniquity." We might also give an- 
 other exposition of this passage, taking ‘the term founda- 
 tion for the covencnt of God; for the Hebrew word sig- 
 nifying foundation, is sometimes taken for a covenant or 
 agreement. But we have said enough on the subject. 
 We believe, then, that it is impossible for an elect person 
 to perish: not that he could not perish, if left to himself; 
 but because the arm of the Almighty always upholds 
 him. He does indeed permit his people to fall into griev- 
 ous sins, by which they deserve to be entirely forsaken 
 by him; yet he suffers them not to die in those sins, 
 but recovers them in a wonderful manner. 
 
 CHAPTER III. 
 OF THE ASSURANCE OF ELECTION. 
 
 Nor only is the election of believers certain and un- 
 changeable, but they can also certainly know that they 
 are elected; not by ascending into heaven to read the 
 book of life, but by descending ns it were, into their own 
 
210 OF THE ASSURANCE OF ELECTION. 
 
 hearts, examining the book of conscience, and discover: 
 ing in themselves the fruits of election. For if believers 
 can know that they have faith, they can be sure of their 
 election, because faith is the effect of election; now they 
 can know that they possess faith, as is proved by that 
 passage of Paul, in which he enjoins believers to “ ex- 
 amine themselves, whether they be in the faith,” (2 Cor. 
 xiii. 5,) for to no purpose would the apostle enjoin this, 
 if it were impossible to ascertain it. Again, the faithful 
 can know certainly whether they are the children of 
 God, for “the Spirit itself beareth witness with our spi- 
 rits, that we are the children of God,” (Rom. viii. 16.) 
 Now all the children of God are elected; and therefore 
 if the faithful can believe the testimony of the Spirit, they 
 must believe that they are the children of God; and if 
 so, they can believe, or be sure, that they are elected of 
 God. We are also said to be “sealed by the Holy Spi- 
 rit unto the day of redemption,” (Eph. iv. 30,) which 
 could not take place without our being sensible of it; 
 hence John says, “hereby know we that we dwell in 
 him, and he in us, because he hath given us of his Spi- 
 rit.” (1 John iv. 13.) How, then, is it possible, that we 
 should know ourselves to possess the Spirit, and yet be 
 ignorant of our election, since the Holy Spirit is given 
 only to the elect? Finally, the examples of the saints 
 establish this truth, who, being sure of their election and 
 salvation, boldly and confidently professed that no cre- 
 ated thing, not even death itself, could separate them 
 from the love of God. See Rom. viii. 38, 39. 
 
 But various observations are necessary to be made 
 on this subject, in the way of caution and explanation. 
 First, the believer is not always certain of his election, 
 nor equally so at all times, for this assurance is often 
 weakened by afflictions and violent temptations; hence 
 the complaints of the godly, as if God had altogether for- 
 saken them, and * the right hand of the Most High” had 
 been changed. Secondly, there are many in the church 
 that without warrant, boast of this assurance, and abuse 
 the profession of it greatly ; hence we often find it better 
 to hear the Jamentations of a mourning believer, than 
 the exultations of one who rejoices, not through faith, 
 but, self-opinion; and it often happens that those who 
 groan, and with the publican, dare not lift up their eyes 
 to heaven, yet possess the very thing which they fear 
 they have not; while others, by the just judgment of 
 God, perceive themselves deprived of what they vainly 
 
OF THE ASSURANCE OF ELECTION. 211 
 
 and presumptuously imagined they possessed. Thirdly, 
 there is no true believer that is not at some time or other 
 certain of his election and salvation, for although the ex- 
 perience of present and the hope of future grace, may 
 for a while be laid asleep in the children of God, yet out 
 of this dark condition the believing soul comes forth, 
 when God restores to it the joy of his salvation; there- 
 fore, if sometimes the soul groans, struggles, doubts, and 
 fears, yet afterwards it sings, trusts, rejoices, and tri- 
 umphs, as over a conquered enemy; as is seen in the 
 cases of David, Asaph, Paul, and others. At any rate 
 we believe that there are very few real believers who 
 die in a state of doubt as to their salvation. Fourthly, 
 this assurance cannot come into genuine operation, 
 without following after holiness; for a man who should 
 persist in sin, and yet persuade himself that he is elected 
 to eternal life, and therefore will be certainly saved, 
 would indeed bolster himself up with a false and deceit- 
 ful hope; on the contrary, such a man, indulging his 
 carnal lusts, and rushing headlong into sin, ought to be 
 persuaded that he is in a state of condemnation, and 
 that eternal destruction hangs over him, except he im- 
 mediately repent and amend his ways. Fifthly, be it 
 observed, that this assurance is by no means incompat- 
 ible with that “fear and trembling,” with which we are 
 enjoined to “ work out our salvation," (Phil. ii. 12.) For 
 this fear is not servile, partaking of mistrust, and des- 
 pair, but a filial fear, partaking of humility, reverence, 
 and godly solicitude. There are two diseases of the 
 mind, which usually corrupt faith, carnal security and 
 pride of heart; for both these evils, the remedy is fear; 
 the remedy for pride is a humble and reverential fear; 
 the remedy for security is an anxious and solicitous fear, 
 engaging us in the use of means. From the former the 
 believer learns to think meanly of himself, and highly of 
 God; from the latter he learns that he must not be inac- 
 tive in the way of salvation. Lastly, this doctrine of 
 the assurance of election must be cautiously and pru- 
 dently set forth, for the comfort of afflicted consciences, 
 not for the encouragement of the ungodly; nor should 
 it ever be enforced, without at the same time enjoining 
 the pursuit of repentance and sanctification. Should 
 any one ask how he may arrive at this assurance, let 
 him take this answer—God hath given him two books, 
 by which he may attain this knowledge—the book of 
 scripture and the book of conscience. In the former are 
 
212 OF REPROBATION. 
 
 laid down the marks and signs of election in the latter 
 he can read and discover, whether he have these mar 
 and signs in himself. Now these are true faith; hatre 
 of sin; sincere pursuit after holiness; unfeigned love to 
 God; even in the midst of afflictions, love to our neigh- 
 bours, even our enemies ;—a heart despising the marke 
 and breathing after heaven. 
 
 CHAPTER IY. 
 
 OF REPROBATION.* 
 
 We have said that some are elected and destined to salya- 
 tion ; God therefore does not have mercy upon all. Now 
 those on whom he does not have mercy, are said to be 
 reprobated, or rejected. That some men are thus re- 
 probated, the scripture teaches ; for Paul speaks of * the 
 vessels of wrath fitted to destruction," (Rom. ix. 22, 
 
 and Jude, verse 4, speaks of “ungodly men, before o 
 
 old ordained to this condemnation." Inreprobation, God 
 must be regarded in two characters, as a Sovereign 
 
 * Parts of this chapter have been omitted, as being too artificial in 
 statement to be scriptural. The reader will bear in mind that the di- 
 vines of that school to which our author belonged, and of which he may 
 be regarded as the last, or as one of the last, always considered election 
 as including reprobation, properly so called; and therefore, in their 
 systems or common places of divinity, they never omitted to treat upon 
 this awful subject. Most of the modern divines and writers, if not all, 
 who maintain the Calxinistic system, as it is called, reject the term re- 
 probation, and do not admit the existence of any positive decree on the 
 
 art of God, concerning the condemnation of men. Indeed the first 
 English reformers though they undoubtedly maintained the es- 
 sentials of the Genevese theology, appear to have had very sober, mod- 
 erate, and judicious views on this peculiar and mysterious doctrine: 
 we might rather say, they did not presume to form any definite opin- 
 ions upon it at all, as being far beyond the comprehension and the 
 province of finite creatures. Therefore, in the seventeenth article of 
 the Creed which they have given to their descendants and followers, 
 while they broadly and scripturally maintain the doctrine of election, 
 they are wisely and modestly silent on reprobation, at the same time 
 plainly and profitably teaching us the great abuse, which curious (spec- 
 ulating) and carnal persons, may make of an abstract and unscriptural 
 view of the entire doctrine of predestination. 
 
 " 
 "T———— ——UEY T8 —— 
 
 — > haus 
 
 a. ee ee ee ee ee 
 
OF REPROBATION. 213 
 
 Lord, who doeth what he will with his own, and who 
 may be compared toa potter making out of the same 
 lump one vessel to honour and another to dishonour ; 
 and alsoas a Sovereign Judge, who has power to in- 
 flict the punishment that is due. Where, for instance, 
 he passes by Judas and chooses James, he acts as Su- 
 preme Lord; but when he condemns Judas to eternal 
 misery, who fell into every sin, and is passed by in his 
 corruption, he acts as Supreme Judge. Sin, therefore, 
 is the cause, on account of which God hath passed by 
 some men; for had there been no sin, no man would 
 have been forsaken ; yet if it be asked, why one man is 
 passed by, and not the other, it cannot then be said that 
 sin is the cause of this difference, since both are equally 
 sinners, and therefore equally deserving of rejection, 
 but it must be referred to the sovereign pleasure of God. 
 But if it be inquired, why God condemns Anthony, who 
 is guilty of the greatest sins, and is impenitent, the rea- 
 son is obvious, viz., his very great sins, which God, as a 
 just Judge, punishes, and must necessarily punish. We 
 must not, therefore, judge of reprobation, as of election ; 
 election presupposes nothing in man but misery, and is 
 an act of mercy ; reprobation is an act of justice, which 
 necessarily presupposes sin. 
 Men have no cause to complain of God, much less 
 blasphemously to accuse him of injustice and cruelty: 
 'they cannot complain of his not having mercy upon all, 
 and of his leaving some in their corruption, while he 
 pities others, and brings them out of the abyss of sin. 
 For he is an independent Being, who owes nothing to 
 his creatures, much less to his sinful creatures. No 
 one, therefore, has any just reason to cavil and murmur. 
 “Who art thou, O man, that repliest against God?” 
 (Rom. ix. 20. Very just therefore are the observations 
 of Prosper on this subject: When any are lost, we do not 
 hesitate to say that they perish by their own deserts, al- 
 though God could have mercifully saved them, had it 
 pleased him; and when amy are saved, we dare not af- 
 Jjirm that they deserved to be saved, since God could have 
 justly condemned them, had it pleased him. But why he 
 oes not save all, or why he saves some rather than 
 others, it is not necessary to inquire ; since, leaving out 
 the reasons of that difference, it is enough to know, that 
 neither mercy supersedes justice, nor justice mercy, hefore 
 
214 OF THE ELECTION AND 
 
 that Being, by whom no one is condemned except through 
 justice, no one is saved except through mercy.* 
 
 CHAPTER V. 
 
 OF THE ELECTION AND REPROBATION OF ANGELS. 
 
 Tue election of angels is not expressly taught in serip- 
 ture, unless we consider that a reference to it is made in 
 1 Tim. v. 21, where some angels are called * elect," not 
 so much on account of their excellent nature, as because 
 they are chosen by God from among the rest. But the 
 reprobation of evil angels is gathered from those pas- 
 sages, in which we read that * everlasting fire is prepar- 
 ed for them," as in Matt. xxv. 41. Nor can we doubt 
 that by the just judgment of God they are reprobated 
 from eternity, since, as a punishment for their sin, God 
 has decreed their perdition in hell; for reprobation is 
 
 * A single observation may be added: The fact, that some of the 
 human race are saved and some not saved, will be disputed by no one. 
 That the difference does not arise from any innate virtue, or goodness, 
 or willingness to accept the grace offered, is equally clear ; since eve 
 child of Adam, in his prend dece, is alike an enemy to God, and wi 
 ever continue so, till God himself puts “a new spirit within him." And 
 that this new spirit is not bestowed on the ground of any foreseen faith 
 or holiness, is apparent from the fact, that many of the vilest of the 
 human race have received this gift, while many virtuous, and moral, 
 and excellent, comparatively speaking, have been passed by. Nowa 
 glimpse, perhaps, of the ground of this exercise of Sovereignty in man’s 
 salvation, may be obtained from the reflection, That if, after the just 
 denunciation of death to the sinner, the whole sinful race had after- 
 wards been pardoned and restored to life, the divine Justice and Truth 
 would have seemed to suffer eclipse: while, had the whole race been 
 left in a state of death, that glorious display of divine Merey which has 
 been given in the gospel would have been wanting. The race, there- 
 fore, as a whole, is made to exhibit a display of the attributes of Justice 
 and Truth ; and at the same time, by means of the wondrous redemp- 
 tion wrought out by Christ Jesus, the attributes of Grace and Mercy 
 are resplendently brought into exercise. And thus the Divine Glory, 
 the great end of all things, is set forth and made to shine out, before 
 all created intelligences, in a manner and degree which infinite Wis- 
 dom alone could have brought to pass. 
 
REPROBATION OF ANGELS. 215 
 
 nothing else than the free, righteous, and eternal de- 
 cree of God to leave a fallen creature in its fall, to reject 
 it for ever, and to punish it according to its deserts. 
 Upon this subject it is far better to be silent, than to 
 speak much, lest we be in danger of “intruding into 
 those things which we have not seen.” A few observa- 
 tions however may not be unnecessary. 
 
 And, first, we observe, that God did not consider the 
 angels In the same state as he considered fallen men; 
 but the elect angels were regarded as standing, the re- 
 probate as fallen. Again, there are two acts in the 
 election of good angels, namely, the decree confirming 
 them in holiness, and the destination of them to eternal 
 life and happiness. With regard to the first, the good 
 angels, before they were confirmed, stood by that strength 
 which they had all received at their first creation; but 
 after the fall of the evil angels, they were, as a reward 
 for their fidelity. so confirmed and established, that they 
 were delivered from all liability to fall away. I amaware 
 that some divines do not admit the propriety of saying 
 that the good angels were confirmed by God, because 
 the scripture is silent about it; they maintain that they 
 were confirmed by the example of others, which greatly 
 influenced them, and also by their own experience, 
 since a succession of good actions adds very greatly to 
 the confirmation of the doer; but I cannot accede to 
 this opinion ; for if the angels had not been confirmed by 
 God himself, they would still be in a natural, and conse- 
 quently in a changeable, condition; since whatever is 
 natural, is changeable. Now it cannot be a correct sen- 
 timent, that angels are changeable. We said also that 
 these angels were predestinated to life and happiness; 
 for there is no reason why we should not view the pre- 
 destination of angels in the same light as that of men, 
 although it is rash to speak positively on such a subject. 
 
 But these angels, it must be observed, cannot be said 
 to have been elected or confirmed by Christ the Mediator, 
 because where there is no sin, there is no room for me- 
 diation. Every mediator presupposes parties at vari- 
 ance, but there was no variance between God and 
 angels. Christ is never called the mediator of angels, 
 but only of men, although he can be properly called the 
 head of angels, who are subject to the Mediator, as their 
 Lord and King. It is true “all things" are said to be 
 “reconciled to God by Christ, peace having been made 
 by his blood,” (Col. i. 20,) but only all things which need- 
 
216 THE ELECTION AND REPROBATION OF ANGELS. 
 
 ed reconciliation, and which were separated from God 
 by sin; which cannot be said of angels. Even if this 
 passage should be understood of angels, as well as of 
 others, the apostle will only mean that Christ, having 
 made peace, reconciled angels with men, just the same 
 as, when a rebellion is quelled, the good citizens and the 
 rebels are reconciled, and live quietly together under the 
 same sovereign. 
 
 As to the reprobation of the evil angels, that also com- 
 prises two acts. The first, by which God decreed to 
 leave them in their fall and so to abandon them, that 
 they should be excluded not only from all hope of pardon 
 and salvation, but also from all participation of grace of 
 any kind. And here observe, that God has dealt more 
 severely with angels than with men; for some of the 
 latter he has been pleased to raise from their fall, but he 
 has not thought fit to spare any of the former: ask not 
 the reason; it is secret, but not unjust. Observe also, 
 that God hath dealt more severely with the evil angels 
 than with reprobate men, who, though excluded from 
 salvation, are not deprived of all temporal favours from 
 God. The second act is that, whereby God hath decreed 
 to punish them with everlasting destruction in hell. 
 They began to be punished immediately after their sin, 
 being cast down from heaven, which perhaps the heathen 
 slightly knew, since they represented Ate, the goddess 
 of calamity or evil, seized by the hair, and hurled down 
 by Jupiter from heaven to earth, and forbidden to re- 
 enter the skies. Another degree of their punishment 
 was at the time of Christ's coming, for then Christ “ de- 
 stroyed him that had the power of death, that is the 
 devil,” (Heb. ii. 14,) “ the prince of this world was then 
 judged.” (John xvi 11.) A third degree was by the 
 preaching of the apostles, ** I beheld,” says Christ, * Satan 
 as lightning fall from heaven.” (Luke x. 18.) The last 
 degree of their punishment will be, when they shall be 
 cast into the lake that burneth with fire and brimstone. 
 (Rev. xx, 10, 14.) 
 
OF THE RIGHT USE OF THE ABOVE DOCTRINES. 217 
 
 CHAPTER VI. 
 - OF THE RIGHT USE OF THE ABOVE DOCTRINES 
 
 Havine explained the doctrines of election and reproba- 
 tion, we may make a few remarks on the proper use of 
 these doctrines. There are two classes of men who 
 abuse these doctrines; there are those who draw from 
 
 _thence an occasion of despair, while they say, “If lam 
 not elected, whatever I do, it will matter nothing; 
 eternal destruction awaits me.” There are others, who 
 think that they have from these doctrines the free 
 liberty to sin, saying, “that whatever life they lead, good 
 or bad, their condition cannot be made worse, if they 
 are destined to salvation.” Hence it is that the doctrine 
 is traduced on two grounds, as though it diverted men 
 from the pursuit of holiness, and also thrust them into 
 the depths of despair. 
 
 Now against the first class of these persons we ob- 
 serve, that without any foundation they take from this 
 doctrine occasion to despair; we should not despair of 
 the salvation of any one, whom the forbearance of God 
 suffers to live, and least of all of one’s self, as Augustine 
 observes. For although no one can be sure of his elec- 
 tion, till he be conscious of faith and sanctification, yet 
 there are many things which teach man not to despair 
 of his election, since God daily calls him in the Gospel, 
 and knocks at the door of his heart by his Spirit; which 
 things, although not sufficient to prove his election, yet 
 are sufficient to prove to any man, that he has no ground 
 for regarding himself, or his neighbour, as reprobate, 
 which no one can be accounted till the day of his death. 
 Again, it is very groundless for a man to say, “If I am 
 reprobated, I shall perish, though I believe, and apply 
 myself to holiness ;" for there is no such a decree as one 
 which condemns men notwithstanding their faith and 
 holy living; on the contrary, it is the proclamation 
 of the gospel, that “whosoever believeth, shall have 
 eternal life." Further, so far is the doctrine of predesti- 
 nation from driving men to despair, that on the contrary 
 it is full of sweetness and comfort, in the temptations 
 which arise from the corruptions of seducers, the scan- 
 
 19 
 
~ 
 218 oF THE RIGHT USE OF THE ABOVE DOCTRINES. 
 
 dals of apostates, and the rage of persecutors, or from 
 . the infirmities of the flesh and sin, and also in afflictions 
 arising either from the oppression of the enemies of the 
 church, or from the privation and want of the necessa- 
 ries of life. 
 
 Against the other class of persons, who abuse this 
 doctrine to licentiousness and sloth, and say, that, “if 
 they are elected, they shall be saved, do whatever they 
 please,” we observe in the first place, that this idea of 
 giving loose to sinful lusts on account of predestination, 
 can only come from a profane and wicked person; an 
 elect child of God can never prevail upon himself wilfully 
 to sin against God, from the persuasion of his being be- 
 loved by God ; or choose, because he is predestinated to 
 a heavenly, therefore to live an earthly and carnal life. 
 Again, it is false that an elect person will be saved what- 
 ever he may do. For the same God who has destined 
 him to salvation, hath destined him also to the means 
 which lead to salvation. Paul was a vessel of mercy, 
 separated from eternity, and therefore was destined to 
 certain salvation; yet if any one should say, that Paul 
 would have been equally saved, whether he had been 
 converted to Christ, or whether he had persisted to the 
 last in his blasphemy and in his persecution of the 
 church, he would say what was positively false. There- 
 fore, although it is true that every elect person will be 
 saved, yet it is false that he will be saved in the ways of 
 sin. For it is as necessary that an elect person should 
 be saved in the prescribed way, as it is that he should 
 be saved at all; it is therefore absurd to say, that an 
 elect person will be saved, although he should be unholy, 
 because he is not only elected to salvation, but also to 
 holiness. Once more, a man will not be saved merely 
 because he was elected, but because he has believed in 
 Christ, and has endeavoured, as well as his infirmiiy 
 would admit, to frame his life in a holy manner, and to 
 fulfil the conditions of the new covenant. So far, then, 
 is the doctrine of predestination from encouraging men 
 to sin, that it furnishes a variety of cogent motives to the 
 practice of holiness. It kindles in us love towards 
 God, it urges us to purity, it makes us humble, pro- 
 duces firm trust' in God, and also watchfulness and 
 diligence in duty, as might be proved at large, did our 
 limits permit, 
 
CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY. 
 
 BOOK THE SIXTH.. 
 
 REDEMPTION BY CHRIST THE MEDIATOR. 
 
 CHAPTER I 
 
 OF THE NECESSITY OF SATISFACTION FOR SIN. 
 
 Is the preceding book we have seen how God took pity 
 on the human race, having appointed some men to sal- 
 vation, and passed by others; and at the same time we 
 remarked that God hath decreed also the means of sal- 
 vation. Now the first of these means was the sending 
 of Christ, to assume the human nature, to become the 
 Mediator between God and man, and to make satisfac- 
 tion to God for sin; we have therefore now to consider 
 in what way God executed this decree of saving men. 
 Now in order to see how necessary it was, that Christ 
 should come into the world to procure for us that salva- 
 tion which had been destined by the Father, three points 
 must be established—1l. That a satisfaction to divine 
 justice was necessary to human salvation. 2. That it 
 was not, however, necessary that the offenders them- 
 selves should make this satisfaction. 3. That it was ne- 
 cessary that this should be done by some divine person. 
 
 But first, we must speak a little of the term satisfac- 
 tion. It was in frequent use among the Latins. When 
 they wished to express how one man complied with the 
 wishes of another, they said that the former satisfied the 
 other. He is also said to satisfy, who either by word or 
 deed expressed his sorrow for having — he 
 
 9 
 
220 OF THE NECESSITY OF 
 
 and deprecated his displeasure. Again, when a man 
 paid a debt he owed, or when he paid a debt which 
 another owed, or gave an equivalent, he was also said to 
 satisfy. Among the Fathers every act ofa penitent sinner 
 went by the name of satisfaction ; and by this term they 
 especially distinguished those publie testimonies of re- 
 pentance, which, for the edification of the faithful, and 
 as a reparation for the scandal given, were accustomed 
 to be exhibited by those who had fallen into any notori- 
 ous sin. In our present subject we shall take the word 
 satisfaction to mean the payment of that which divine 
 justice required from sinners for their transgressions. 
 The Latin word corresponds with the Hebrew words 
 355, and the Greek words )vrpov, dvrüVorgov, droXórpocte, 
 iAacuos, &c. 
 
 These things being premised, we come to the first 
 question; and here there is no need of many arguments 
 to prove the necessity of satisfaction ; one single argu- 
 ment would be enough, drawn from the death of Christ. 
 For if it were in no way necessary to satisfy divine jus- 
 tice for sins, and if God could have saved man without 
 satisfaction, we cannot conceive how the Father should 
 be pleased to give up his beloved and innocent Son to a 
 most painful and ignominious death; no reason can be 
 given for so extraordinary a proceeding, but the satis- 
 faction that was necessary to be made to divine justice. 
 If God could have blotted out all our sins bya single act 
 of his will, why did he without any necessity send down 
 his beloved Son from heaven, clothe him with the form 
 of a servant, and subject him to dreadful sufferings. 
 Could the supreme wisdom and goodness of God have 
 permitted this without necessity? Besides this argu- 
 ment, there is another derived from the avenging justice 
 of God; since if this is essential to the very nature of 
 God, as we proved on a former occasion, it follows that 
 that justice must have been satisfied, to give room for 
 mercy :—for the fixed and unchangeable determination 
 of God to punish sin, must necessarily exact punishment 
 from sinners, unless some one else should make satisfac- 
 tion for the guilty. 
 
 The sanction of the divine law also renders satisfac- 
 tion necessary. For since God has threatened the sin- 
 ner with punishment, and sirce he is true and cannot 
 lie, the threatening of God must necessarily be fulfilled, 
 unless another make satisfaction to the law. Nor can 
 we believe that God could dispense with his right; for 
 
SATISFACTION FOR SIN. 221 
 
 God in this instance is not to be regarded as a creditor, 
 who can at his pleasure forgive the debt, or simply as 
 the offended party—say some lord or master, who can 
 do what he will with his own, but he must be regarded 
 as the Ruler and Judge of the universe, who cannot let 
 sin go unpunished, without denying himself, and tarn- 
 ishing the purity of his own laws. It is true, sins are 
 compared to debts, because, as a debt gives the creditor 
 a right to proceed against the debtor, so sin gives God a 
 right to proceed against us. But it does not follow from 
 this, that it would have been as easy for God to forgive 
 sins without satisfaction, as it is for a creditor to remit a 
 debt; for while no injury is done to the law by a credi- 
 tor's remitting a debt, there is great injury done to the 
 divine law, if sin be not punished. And if from sins 
 being called debts we could infer that satisfaction is un- 
 necessary, it might on the same grounds be contended, 
 that God could discharge men from obedience, because 
 obedience is called a debt we owe to him; and also that 
 God could pardon sin without any regard to faith and 
 repentance; but these positions no person of judgment 
 ever ventured to maintain. Nor is God in this matter 
 to be compared to earthly princes, who, to the great 
 praise of their clemency, often pardon, not only their 
 own, but also the injuries committed against the state. 
 Indeed they are often compelled to be thus merciful, lest 
 they should be reckoned cruel, and their cruelty should 
 bring them more fear than real power; and also lest 
 their subjects should rebel against them. Besides, they 
 often take upon themselves to do what is contrary to the 
 law, as though they could dispense with the laws at 
 their pleasure; they may indeed pardon those offences 
 which can be pardoned without any injury to the public 
 aoe and without infringing on the authority of the 
 aw; but all other offences they are bound fo punish, 
 since they * bear the sword to execute wrath upon him 
 that doeth evil," Rom. xiii. 4. 
 
 It was necessary, therefore, that divine justice should 
 be satisfied for sins. 'The second question is, whether it 
 was necessary that sinners themselves should make this 
 satisfaction! It is replied, that all sinners deserve pun- 
 ishment, and that the punishment of their sins is per- 
 fectly agreeable to the nature and fitness of things ;— 
 that divine justice could demand that sinners themselves 
 should suffer the punishment due, nor could they have 
 complained, had it been SEN of them ;—that justice, 
 
 1 * 
 
222 OF THE NECESSITY JF 
 
 however, could dispense with this, and allow of a sub- 
 stitute in the place of the guilty. That all this may be 
 placed in its true light, be it observed, that there is a dis- 
 tinction between not punishing sin, and not punishing 
 the sinner ; it is contrary to the divine justice and holi- 
 ness, not to punish sin, but it is not contrary to these, 
 to spare the sinner. A just and holy God must hate sin, 
 and must punish it; it is therefore inconsistent with jus- 
 tice and holiness to allow it to go unpunished; but these 
 perfections are.not injured, if, when sin is punished, the 
 sinner is pardoned, because it is by the punishment of 
 sin that the justice of God is satisfied. 
 
 Now this method of punishing sin and pardoning the 
 sinner is very agreeable to the wisdom of God, for thus 
 room is given for mercy, and yet justice is satisfied; for, 
 if all sinners were to have satisfied divine justice, they 
 would have been subjected to eternal death, and thus no 
 room have been afforded for the display of mercy; 
 whereas by allowing a surety to put himself in the place 
 of sinners, there is room both for justice and for mercy ; 
 the former punishes sin, and admits a satisfaction for the 
 sinner ; the latter remits the obligation to the sinner on 
 account of the satisfaction offered to justice by the sure- 
 ty; in this way satisfaction and remission are not at all 
 opposed to each other; for the former is made by the 
 surety, the latter is given to the sinner. 
 
 It was not then necessary that sinners themselves 
 should make satisfaction: but should it seem contrary 
 to justice that the innocent should be punished for the 
 guilty, we reply, that neither in the word of God, nor in 
 the usages of mankind, is it unprecedented that one man 
 should bear the punishment of another man's offence; 
 and this substitution was plainly set forth in the whole 
 Levitical economy, in which, in the place of the offender, 
 a victim was commonly substituted, to suffer the penalty 
 of death due to him. Hence the practice of the offender 
 laying his hands upon the victim, and especially that ob- 
 served on the day of atonement, when the high priest, 
 laying both his hands on the head of the goat, “ confess- 
 ed over him all the iniquities of the children of Israel," 
 which that goat was said to bear. (Lev. xvi. 91, 22.) 
 Nor is this method repugnant to the principles of justice, 
 if the following conditions be all present, viz. that sin be 
 punished, and that the punishment be proportioned to 
 the sin—that he who suffers the punishment, as a surety, 
 do so freely, of his own accord, without any compulsion 
 
SATISFACTION FOR SIN. 223 
 
 —that he be the author and disposer of his own life, who 
 can do with it as he pleases, without injury to any one 
 —that he be able to offer a sufficient ransom for those 
 whose surety he is, otherwise the substitution would be 
 useless—that he do not utterly perish in his sufferings, 
 but come out of them by his own power, so that no in- 
 jury be done to the world in depriving it of a holy and 
 excellent person—that he be able to amend and restore 
 the guilty person, that there may not be afforded a lib- 
 erty to sin, and thus the state be deprived of its good 
 citizens, while the bad are preserved—that the supreme 
 judge consent to this arrangement—and that the inno- 
 cent surety be of the same nature as the guilty person, 
 so that sin may be punished in the same nature which 
 sinned. 
 
 All these conditions then being present, no injury is 
 done to justice, and all these conditions were found in 
 Christ, and therefore he was able to become the surety 
 of the human race. For, as we shall more clearly see 
 hereafter, sin was punished in him, and that with an in- 
 finite punishment—he was the disposer of his own life, 
 (John x. 18.) he voluntarily and freely offered himself, 
 (Psalm xl. 8; Heb. x. 9.)—he was able to pay a sufficient 
 ransom, and he paid it—he was able to raise himself 
 from death, and he did so—he had power to convert the 
 sinners for whom he died, and he has done so—the su- 
 preme judge of all was well pleased—the surety was 
 most intimately connected with us by the ties of nature, 
 having taken upon him our flesh, and by the ties of law 
 and justice, having been given to us by the Father as 
 our surety, and we having been given to him, and also 
 by that mystical and spiritual tie, which unites us with 
 him in one body, of which he is the head, and we the 
 members. And truly this doctrine sheds light upon the 
 divine perfections. It displays God’s holiness in admit- 
 ting no sinner into communion with himself without sat- 
 isfaction for sin; his justice, in exacting the penalty of 
 sin with inexorable rigour; his wisdom, in so providing 
 for man’s salvation, as to detract nothing from his own 
 glory, and so displaying his mercy, as to derogate no- 
 thing from his justice. It displays also the infinite love 
 of God, who, to save us, spared not his only begotten 
 Son, delivering up to death that Son for slaves, the just 
 for the unjust, the innocent for the guilty; as also the 
 infinite love of Christ, who condescended for our sakes 
 to humble himself in the lowest form of a servant; to be 
 
224 SATISFACTION FOR SIN. 
 
 crucified that he might redeem us; to become sin, that 
 he might acquit us from sin; and to endure death, that 
 he might give us life and immortality. This doctrine 
 also promotes godliness, increases the hatred of sin, in- 
 spires us with fear, and love towards God. 
 
 We proceed to examine the third question proposed, 
 viz. whether it was necessary that the surety for sinners 
 should be a divine person? This appears evident from 
 a single argument; sin deserves infinite punishment, 
 seeing it hath offended infinite majesty; if, then, there 
 was required perfect satisfaction, infinite satisfaction 
 was necessary: but he cannot make this, who is not 
 himself infinite; and therefore since no one, either of 
 angels, or of men, is infinite, but God only, no one but 
 God could have made a sufficient satisfaction for our 
 redemption. It was therefore required that a divine per- 
 son should offer himself in the place of sinners: but since 
 all the persons of the Godhead were equally offended, 
 how can it be conceived that one of them should make 
 satisfaction to himself, which appears absurd? We ob- 
 serve, therefore, that this appears absurd, when the ques- 
 tion is about private satisfaction for a private injury, but 
 not so, when the question concerns publie satisfaction ; 
 as ifany one should become liable to a fine, the magistrate 
 himself could pay the fine for him to satisfy thelaw. The 
 story of Zaleucus the lawgiver is well known, who volun- 
 tarily suffered one half of the punishment incurred by 
 his own son, and thus, as Valerius neatly expresses it, 
 by a wonderful admixture of equity, divided himself be- 
 tween the merciful father and the just lawgiver. The 
 mediation also of Menenius Agrippa between the Roman 
 senate and people is well known. Moreover the judge 
 himself can become guilty of violating the law, and can 
 condemn himself, and thus, as a criminal, he could make 
 satisfaction to himself as a judge. Therefore, in this 
 point of view, there is no obstacle to any one’s making 
 satisfaction to himself. It is not, then, strange to say that 
 a divine person could offer satisfaction to himself, and to 
 the divine majesty; because in this matter God is not to 
 be regarded as a private, but as a public person, as the 
 Lord, and Judge, and Ruler of the universe, who is con- 
 Ek to preserve inviolate the sanctity of his own 
 aws. 
 
 We must also remark that to be an offended party, 
 and to be a mediator, are not incompatible with each 
 other, except where the offended person requires the 
 
OF THE LAW. 225 
 
 total destruction of the offending; but where the offend- 
 ed party only demands that the injury done be repaired, 
 then the offended party can become a mediator, and by 
 repairing the wrong done, procure pardon for the offend- 
 ing. Now this was the thing required by God, that the 
 injury done to the divine majesty should be repaired. It 
 was therefore possible for one of the divine Persons, 
 though offended, to mediate between an offended Deity, 
 and offending creatures. Should the question be asked, 
 whether it was necessary that the second Person of the 
 Godhead, should make satisfaction, we reply, that we are 
 entirely ignorant whether any other of the persons could 
 have done it, or not: but we fully know that it was very 
 suitable for the Son to be sent by the Father, and for the 
 Spirit to apply the redemption purchased by the Son. 
 
 CHAPTER II. 
 OF THE LAW. 
 
 Tuoveu satisfaction for sin was necessary, yet it was not 
 necessary that it should be made, and that God should 
 send his Son for this purpose, immediately after the fall; 
 on the contrary God was pleased in his wisdom to delay 
 the incarnation of his Son for several ages, in order that 
 men might be prepared for his coming by a long series 
 of prophets; and that, being convinced of the greatness 
 of their sin, the impotency of their nature, and the in- 
 sufficiency of all human means, they might acknow- 
 ledge the necessity of the remedy, and call out, as it 
 were, for the physician. But although the Mediator did 
 not appear immediately after the fall, yet was he pro- 
 mised soon after the first transgression; and was more 
 clearly promised, as the time of his appearance drew 
 near. It was foretold that the Mediator should be a 
 man, the seed of the woman—that he should descend 
 from Abraham—that he should spring from the seed of 
 Jacob, even from Judah—that he should be of the family 
 of David—that he should be born of a virgin, and that 
 
226 OF THE LAW. . 
 
 too at Bethlehem—that he should suffer and die—to- 
 gether with the particular time of his coming; (Gen. iii. 
 15; xxii. 18; xxix. 10; Isaiah xi. 1; Jer. xxiii. 5; Isaiah 
 vii. 14; Micah v. 2; Isaiah liii.; Daniel ix. 23—26,) not 
 to mention other plain and well known prophecies con- 
 cerning Christ's miracles, his death on the cross, the 
 vinegar and the gall which were offered him on the 
 cross, the thirty pieces of silver for which he was sold, or 
 the division of his garments, and his resurrection from 
 the dead. 
 
 Now before God sent his Son, he was pleased to give 
 his law to mankind. It is true, that from the time when 
 he created man, he had engraven the natural law upon 
 his heart. To which law Cicero alluded, when he de- 
 scribed itas not written, but born within us, not learned,nor 
 heard, nor read, but received and drawn from nature; 
 and the emperor Marcus Antoninus called it the divinity 
 which resides within the breast. Now this law of nature 
 God was pleased to promulgate again, partly, that it might 
 receive a stronger sanction, and that the ideas of good 
 that remained might not be lost through the vanity and 
 wickedness of mankind; partly, that man’s duty might 
 be more clearly revealed to him; partly, to correct those 
 notions which sin had corrupted ; and partly, to revive 
 those which had been obliterated. 
 
 God himself was pleased to promulgate this law, and 
 that this was done by no other than the second Person 
 of the Trinity, Stephen seems to intimate, when he de- 
 clares that Moses received the “lively oracles” from 
 the * Angel" i. e. the angel of the covenant. (Acts vii. 
 38.) For it was the same angel who, he said, appeared 
 to Moses in the bush, (verse 35,) and who declared him- 
 self to be the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. Angels 
 were the attendants on this occasion, (Acts vii, 53; Gal. 
 iii. 19,) hosts of whom surrounded the great Leader and 
 Captain, when he manifested his presence by fire, smoke, 
 thunder, lightning and tempest. So God ordered it, to 
 increase the dignity, and testify the sanctity of this law, 
 and to teach mankind, that it was “the ministration of 
 death.” The place was Mount Sinai, or Horeb, in 
 Arabia. The time was the fiftieth day from the depar- 
 ture out of Egypt, and the celebration of the passover, 
 and Moses was the person who gave to the Israelites the 
 tables of the covenant he had received from God by the 
 ministration of angels, and discharged the office of me- 
 diator for them when terrified by the voice of God. 
 
OF THE LAW. 227 
 
 “The law was given by Moses." (John i. 17.) The 
 celebrated Huetius observes, that the Brahmins pre- 
 serve a tradition of the book of their law having been 
 delivered by God from a cloud upon a mountain, and of 
 God having given another law in the first age of the 
 world. The same writer also remarks that the Brah- 
 mins have their decalogue, very like that of Moses, and 
 very accurate interpretations of it, among which they 
 assert that there is a prophecy of a future period, in 
 which one law shall be established through the whole 
 world. 
 
 The law was not only declared by word of mouth, 
 but also written. God was pleased to write it, that it might 
 not be forgotten. Most divines observe that it was 
 written by God, in order to show the superiority of the 
 divine law to other laws, and to intimate that it is the 
 work of God, not of man, to write the law upon our 
 minds. "They observe, also, that it was engraven, to de- 
 note its perpetual obligation on mankind, and that, too, 
 upon stone, to shew us that the foundations of the law 
 should always remain unshaken, and also that the heart 
 of man is by nature “a heart of stone ;" finally, that it 
 was written on both sides, to shew that nothing was to 
 be taken from it, and nothing added to it. Now there 
 were three kinds of laws given through Moses — the 
 moral law, which lays down man’s duty towards God 
 and his neighbour—the ceremonial, which lays down the 
 rites or ceremonies of the religion observed under the 
 Old Testament—the judicial, which established the civil 
 government of the Jewish people. The moral law had 
 respect to the Israelites as men; the ceremonial respected 
 them, as under the Old Testament, waiting for the pro- 
 mised Messiah; the judicial, as a peculiar people. 
 
 There is a very great difference between these three 
 laws. 'The moral law is founded, at least in a very great 
 measure, on the natural right of God; by which we 
 mean that which rests upon the most pure and holy 
 nature of God himself; for instance, this precept, which 
 is the sum of the law,— T'hou shalt love the Lord thy 
 God, is founded on the very nature of God; otherwise 
 God could command himself, who is the supreme good, 
 to be hated. Whereas other laws are founded on the 
 positive right of God, by which we mean that which de- 
 pends on the mere will and pleasure of God. "This law 
 is known from nature; hence the Gentiles themselves 
 were not ignorant of it, although it was far more clearly 
 
228 OF THE LAW. 
 
 known when divinely revealed. The ceremonial law 
 does not come under the natural understanding of man, 
 and as to the judicial law, although in its general pre- 
 cepts it is founded on natural reason, yet with regard to 
 its particular conclusions it depends entirely on the will 
 of God. The moral law is immutable and eternal, al- 
 though all its precepts are not of the same kind. For 
 some are founded on the very nature and holiness of 
 God, the contrary to which he could not therefore enjoin 
 without denying himself. Thus God could not com- 
 mand us to have any other God than himself, to worship 
 idols,—to profane his name, to lie, &c. Others are 
 founded on the very nature of things, yet according to 
 the constitution or order established by God, which he 
 has power to change in certain cases, but which man 
 has no power to change; thus the slaying of aman, and 
 the taking of that which is another's, might become law- 
 ful by the authority of a divine injunction. The case is 
 the same with the obedience due to parents: for God 
 commands, that, if parents require any thing contrary to 
 his law, obedience shall not be paid to them. As to the 
 particular appointment of the Sabbath, contained in the 
 fourth commandment, it\will be acknowledged to be of 
 
 ositive right or institution. The ceremonial and judicial 
 aws are of a changeable and temporal nature. The 
 moral law is called the decalogue, because it is comprised 
 in ten commandments. The ceremonial law is called by 
 the apostle, “the law of commandments contained in 
 ordinances.” (Eph. ii. 15; Col. ii. 14.) The judicial law 
 is simply expressed by the word judgments. 
 
 Concerning the moral law we shall speak when we 
 treat of sanctification and good works, here only observ- 
 ing that we may define it to be a rule of conduct, sanc- 
 tioned by reward or punishment. But that we may say 
 something of the ceremonial and judicial laws, we re- 
 mark that the former was given, both to distinguish the 
 Israelites from other nations, whence it is called “the 
 middle wall of partition," (Eph. ii. 14,) and to shadow 
 out things to come, especially Christ, as also to restrain 
 the posterity of the Israelites, and prevent them from 
 falling away to the superstitions of the heathen. We 
 remark also, that it generally related to sacred things 
 and persons. Now sacred things are those which are 
 exempted from common, and destined to sacred, uses, _ 
 and they were either gifts or sacrifices. Gifts were ob- 
 lations of things, inanimate productions of the earth, 
 
OF THE LAW. 299 
 
 ministering to the nourishment, luxury, or health of 
 man, such as bread, wine, oil, salt, frankincense, and also 
 money, which was paid by male persons above twenty 
 years of age for their redemption; which was not how- 
 ever a perpetual payment, but only temporary, for the 
 erection of the tabernacle. The sacrifices were obla- 
 tions of living creatures, and were of two kinds, propi- 
 tiatory or sin-offerings, by which offences, whether com- 
 mitted ignorantly or wilfully, were expiated; and thank 
 or peace-offerings, presented for blessings received or 
 expected, and divided into gratulatory, votive, and 
 voluntary. 
 
 Some persons make eight kinds of these sacrifices, 
 Burnt-offerings, which were entirely consumed by fire. 
 (Lev. i. 10; vi.9; xii. 6, 8.) Meat-offerings, consisting 
 of fine flour, on which oi] was poured, and frankincense 
 put. (Lev. ii. 1—3.) It was unlawful to mix honey or 
 leaven with these, but they were to be salted. Peace- 
 offerings, (Lev. iii. 1; vii. 11,) divided into three parts, 
 of which the first belonged to God, the second to the 
 priests, the third to the offerers, who were to eat it in 
 the court of the temple. Sin-offerings, (Lev. iv. 3,) most 
 of which were offered for ceremonial uncleanness, or 
 some lighter offences, or even for greater, provided they 
 were not committed in pride and malice.  7'respass- 
 offerings, (Lev. v. 1,) for certain offences; those who 
 offered these, laid their hands on the victim, and con- 
 fessed their sin before the Lord at the door of the tem- 
 ple; and if they had injured their neighbour, they were 
 to make satisfaction: the poorer sort offering two turtle 
 doves, or two young pigeons. (Lev. v.7.) The very 
 poor offered a tenth of fine flour without oil and frank- 
 incense. The sacrifice offered at the consecration of a 
 priest on the day of his appointment. (Lev. vi. 7, 10.) 
 The sacrifice of cleansing, for those who were to be 
 purged from various kinds of uncleanness. The incense 
 burning on the golden altar. (Exod. xxx. 7.) 
 
 We must consider, also, the place and time of these 
 sacred things. The place, by God’s appointment, was, 
 first, the tabernacle, in which God commanded himself 
 to be worshipped, and manifested his presence by visi- 
 ble signs, and in which were the ark of the covenant, 
 the altar of burnt-offering and incense, the table with the 
 shew-bread, and other instruments of ceremonial wor- 
 ship; and after the tabernacle, the temple of Solomon. 
 The sacred times were MM nd by the morning and 
 
 2 
 
230 OF THE LAW. 
 
 evening sacrifice, regularly offered every day; by the 
 Sabbath, a festival of the seventh-day ; the new moons, 
 which were celebrated at the commencement of each 
 month ; the yearly feasts, such as the feast of the Pass- 
 over, in memory of the deliverance from Egyptian bond- 
 age; the feast of Pentecost, in remembrance of the giving 
 of the law, which was also called the feast of weeks, 
 (Exod. xxxiv. 22,) because seven weeks were to be 
 reckoned from the passover ; and also the feast of har- 
 vest, because about that time the harvest commenced in 
 the land of Canaan. (Exod. xxiii 16.) To these must 
 be added the feast of tabernacles, in remembrance of the 
 Israelites dwelling in tents in the wilderness; the feast 
 of trwmpets, which did not differ from the new moons, 
 except in its greater solemnity, on account of the begin- 
 ning of the new year, which was celebrated on the first 
 day of the seventh month, when the political year of the 
 Jews commences ; the feast of atonement, on the tenth 
 day of the seventh month, on which the High-priest en- 
 tered into the Holy of Holies; and lastly, the feast of 
 collection. Of the three last-mentioned feasts, the first 
 commemorated the beginning of the civil year; the 
 second, the pardon of the sin of idolatry in respect to the 
 golden calf; and the third was intended for the payment 
 of the various tributes for the maintenance of divine ser- 
 vice. "There were other festivals, which occurred after 
 a certain period of years, such as the Sabbatical year, 
 which came round every seventh year, in which there 
 was a release from the labour of tillage; and the Jubilee, 
 every fiftieth year, in which slaves were set at liberty, 
 debts were forgiven, and things that*were sold returned 
 into the hands of their former owners. Besides these 
 festivals of divine appointment, others were afterwards 
 added, as certain days of fasting in remembrance of the 
 Babylonish captivity, (Zech. vii. 3, 5; viii. 19;) the feast 
 of Purim, or of lots, (Esther ix.;) and the feast of the 
 dedication, in remembrance of the purifying of the tem- 
 ple under Judas Maccabeus. (1 Mace. iv. 59; John x. 
 22.) . 
 Sacred. persons were those who were called and con- 
 
 secrated in a particular form to any sacred office; these 
 were extraordinary, as the prophets, divinely raised up 
 either to establish, or to restore the church, and to fore- 
 tel future events; and stirred up to prophecy by visions, 
 dreams, or the internal influence of the Holy Spirit; and 
 ordinary, as the priests, one of whom was the high- 
 
OF THE LAW. 231 
 
 i whose consecration, dress, and office was more 
 remarkable than those of the rest, and who once only 
 every year entered into the sanctuary, to expiate the 
 sins of himself, his family, and the whole people. The 
 other priests were of inferior rank, who offered the sac- 
 rifices, trimmed and lighted the lamps, cleaned the altar, 
 swept the ashes, kept away the profane and unclean 
 from the threshold of the temple, changed the sacred 
 bread every Sabbath, burned the incense, and pro- 
 nounced the blessing on the people. These, together 
 with the high-priest, descended in unbroken succession 
 from the family of Aaron, through his sons Eleazar and 
 lthamar; they were divided into twenty-four classes, 
 each of which officiated by turns for a week. Next came 
 the Levites, who were of the same tribe, and * taken in- 
 stead of the first-born;" these attended on the priests, 
 and assisted them in the cleaning of the sacred vessels, 
 the slaying of victims, and the placing of the shew-bread. 
 There were three families of them; the Kohathites, who 
 had the eharge of the ark and all the sacred vessels; the 
 Gershonites, who had the charge of the curtains and 
 hangings of the tabernacle; tbe Merarites, who had the 
 charge of the pillars and boards, and sockets, and all 
 other instruments of it. (Numb. iv. 15, 24, 25, 31, 32.) 
 The Levites were consecrated to God from the first 
 month after their birth. (Numb. iii. 15, 40.) When they 
 had reached their twenty-fifth year, they were initiated 
 into their office by the imposition of hands; and when 
 they were fifty years old, they were discharged, namely, 
 they were exempted from the more burdensome part of 
 the tabernacle service. Among the sacred persons we 
 may also reckon the Nazarites, some of whom became 
 so by vow, others were born so, or divinely appointed. 
 These abstained from all strong drink, wore their hair 
 unshorn, and observed a peculiar sanctity of behaviour. 
 (Numb. vi. 5.) í 
 
 With regard to the political or judicial law of the 
 Jews, it was instituted for the purpose of governing 
 God's people; distinguishing them from all others ; de- 
 livering the moral and ceremonial law from being de- 
 spised; and shadowing forth the spiritual kingdom of 
 Christ. "This law also had reference to persons and 
 things. There were two sorts of persons, governors and 
 the governed. Of the governors some were temporary, 
 others perpetual; of the former, were the Judges, who 
 ended in Samuel; and the Kings of David's line, who 
 
232 OF THE PREPARATORY 
 
 ended in Zedekiah ; of the latter, who continued as long 
 as the Jewish polity continued, some were superior, as 
 the elders or members of the Sanhedrim ; others inferior, 
 as the heads of tribes, families, states, of which last there 
 were several subdivisions. The authority exercised 
 was of two kinds, supreme and subordinate. The for- 
 mer belonged to the Sanhedrim, who held their sittings 
 in the capital of the kingdom. This assembly was con- 
 vened, either by the king, or by the leader of the people, 
 or by the high-priest, and it sat in judgment upon the 
 crime of false prophecy, and of treason; upon the of- 
 fence of a whole tribe, or of the high-priest. The latter 
 kind of authority was exercised by the Triwmviri, who 
 took cognizance of money causes, and private injuries, 
 and by the twenty-three, who sat in judgment upon capi- 
 tal causes. 
 
 The sentences passed were capital, as stoning, burn- 
 ing, strangling, beheading. In this way were punished 
 incestuous persons, sodomites, the daughter of a priest 
 when guilty of fornication, blasphemers, idolaters, adul- 
 terers, and murderers. The punishments which were 
 not capital, were the cutting off a limb, a fourfold resti- 
 tution, slavery, and banishment. The witnesses were 
 accustomed to lay the first hand upon the condemned ; 
 and in scourging, the number of stripes was not allowed 
 to exceed forty. 
 
 The things about which the judicial law was con- 
 cerned, were either ecclesiastical, such as related to reli- 
 gion itself, or to ecclesiastical property ; domestic, such 
 as belonged to marriages, inheritances, usuries; or poli- 
 tical, which concerned either peace or war. As to the 
 oral law of the Jews, it isa mere fiction, which even 
 some of them ridicule, and therefore we need not say 
 any thing concerning it in these pages. 
 
 CHAPTER III. 
 OF THE PREPARATORY NATURE OF THE LAW. 
 
 n 
 Ir it be inquired, why God was pleased to give his law 
 to mankind before the incarnation of Christ, we reply, it 
 
NATURE OF THE LAW. 233 
 
 was for the purpose of preparing them for the coming of 
 his Son, and of showing them the necessity of his coming. 
 That it was not given to deliver men from the guilt and 
 bondage of sin, will appear by considering that rites 
 and ceremonies could have no power to expiate sin; 
 being merely external and carnal, and bearing no pro- 
 portion to the sins committed, nor to an offended God, 
 or offending man; so that, as Paul observes, “it was not 
 possible that the blood of bulls and of goats should take 
 away sin," (Heb. x. 4.) The moral law also contained 
 no promise of remission of sins; on the contrary, it de- 
 nounced a curse on its transgressors, nor did it furnish 
 any power to counteract the dominion of sin, but rather 
 irritated than restrained the lusts of man. The law, 
 therefore, was given to prepare men for Christ's coming. 
 Now in order that mankind might be thus prepared, and 
 might eagerly look forward to this great event, it was 
 necessary for them to be acquainted with the following 
 things—the supreme majesty and holiness of God—the 
 duties which they owed towards such a Being—the 
 severe punisbment threatened against the transgressors 
 of his laws—the greatness of those sins they had com- 
 mitted, and which exposed them to eternal punishment 
 —and their own utter inability to perform their duty, 
 and to appease divine wrath for their sins. Now all 
 these things the law taught them; it was a glass in 
 which man beheld the holiness and justice of his Maker 
 and Judge, his own sinfulness and helplessness, with the 
 curse thence following. The thunder, the lightning, the 
 fire, the sound of the trumpet, the whole of the awful 
 circumstances which attended the promulgation of the 
 law, proclaimed the majesty of the lawgiver. The pre- 
 cepts contained in the law showed man his duty—Do 
 this and live; and he could easily judge what he had to 
 expect from God by the curse appended to them— 
 “Cursed is every one that continueth not in all things,” 
 &c. All this was calculated to humble the price of man, 
 to make him despair of saving himself, and to compel 
 him to look out for a remedy of his evil condition. Now 
 this remedy is Christ; and thus, by the appointment of 
 God, the “law was man’s schoolmaster to bring him to 
 Christ.” 
 
 The legal ceremonies also prepared men for Christ, 
 inasmuch as they were types and shadows of Christ, his 
 offices, and benefits. The high priest, al! the other 
 priests, the Nazarites, the — the ark, the taber- 
 
 * 
 
234 oF THE PREPARATORY NATURE OF THE LAW. 
 
 nacle, were all types of Christ our Saviour. Our narrow 
 limits will not allow us to prove this at large; buta 
 simple examination of these ceremonies will show us, 
 that they were designed by God, not to tie down the 
 worshippers to earthly and carnal observances, but to 
 raise their minds to heavenly and spiritual things. For 
 what, says Calvin, in itself can be more frivolous and 
 useless than for men to offer unto God the disagreeable 
 savour arising from the fat of slain beasts, in order to 
 reconcile themselves to him; or, in order to wash away 
 the filth of sin, to have recourse to the sprinkling of water 
 or blood? It was therefore the design of God, in insti- 
 tuting these rites, to raise the minds of the Israelites to 
 higher objects; for we cannot suppose that the spiritual 
 nature of Jehovah was delighted with these earthly 
 things: he testifies the contrary by the mouth of the 
 prophets, who so often reprove the Jews for imagining 
 that any sacrifices could be of use or benefit to God, 
 (Psalm xl. 7. 1. 8.) But God was pleased to wrap up his 
 own mysteries in these shadows, because such a system 
 was very well suited to the infancy of the church; which, 
 being not yet capable of greater light, derived instruc- 
 tion from these shadows, having but a small measure of 
 the Holy Spirit; nor did it less suit the nature of the 
 Israelites, who, being a stiffnecked people, and very 
 prone to fall into the idolatrous practices of the heathen, 
 needed such restraints as these to preserve them. The 
 legal ceremonies also prepared men for Christ, inasmuch 
 as they were so many confessions of human sin and 
 misery, and of guilt contracted by sin, (Col. ii. 14. Heb. 
 x. 1—3.) For what else did they by these sacrifices, but 
 to confess themselves guilty and deserving of death, and 
 therefore to substitute victims in their own place? The 
 knife of the sacrificing priest among the Egyptians had 
 engraven upon it the figure of a man lying upon an 
 altar, denoting that beasts were put in the place of man, 
 who was the real offender. What else also did they 
 testify by their various washings, but their own unclean- 
 ness? Thus they continually renewed “the hand writ- 
 ing" of their guilt and impurity, and therefore were led 
 ardently to desire some one who might “blot out that 
 handwriting:” this was Christ, who alone “blotted it 
 out, and nailed it to his cross." Once more, these cere- 
 monies prepared for Christ, inasmuch as they formed an 
 “intolerable yoke” under which the Jews groaned, and 
 from which they desired deliverance. 
 
THE CHURCH BEFORE CHRIST's COMING. 235 
 
 CHAPTER IV. 
 
 E 
 
 OF THE DIFFERENT STATES OF THE CHURCH BEFORE CHRIST’S 
 COMING. 
 
 TuereE were various conditions of the Church of God be- 
 fore the coming of Christ. The first state was that un- 
 der the early patriarchs, who may be reckoned ten in 
 number, among whom we must particularly distinguish 
 Adam, Seth, Enoch, to whose times is usually referred 
 the origin of public worship, (Gen. iv. 26,) and Noah. 
 Enoch, distinguished for the sanctity of his life and for 
 the spirit of prophecy, was miraculously translated to 
 heaven, and Noah was celebrated both for his preaching 
 repentance, and for his building the ark, as also for his 
 wonderful preservation in the deluge, his restoration of 
 divine worship, and foundation of the new world. This 
 may be regarded as the infancy of the church, and at 
 this period men began to be corrupted with idolatrous 
 practices, as Josephus and many other learned men 
 maintain. Secondly, it was preserved in the family of 
 Shem, the son of Noah, and other patriarchs, down to 
 Abraham, as we may suppose, in the family of Heber, 
 from whom very probably was derived the name of the 
 nation and its language, and also of Serug, the seventh 
 from Shem, to whose times some refer the worship of 
 images and idols among the Babylonians. 
 
 Thirdly, it was preserved and increased in the families 
 of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, the three distinguished 
 patriarchs: and yet we need not believe that the house 
 of Abraham was the only one in which the Church ex- 
 isted, for without it there were men remarkable for piety 
 towards the true God, which circumstance was a prelude 
 to the calling of the Gentiles. Among these pious char- 
 acters was Melchizedek, concerning whom various ques- 
 tions are raised, as, whether he was a creature, or the 
 very Son of God himself; whether he was the same as 
 Shem, or Peleg, or some other prince; whether the 
 Salem of which he was king, was Jerusalem, or some 
 other Salem; how he was the priest of the most high 
 
236 DIFFERENT STATES OF THE CHURCH 
 
 God among the wicked Canaanites; and in what re- 
 spects he was a type of Christ. Another of these holy 
 men was Job,an illustrious example of piety, faith, pa- 
 tience, constancy, and fervent prayer; concerning whose 
 person, age, family, country, rank, &c. that great writer 
 Spanheim may be consulted. Then there was the 
 Church in the bondage of Egypt, among the posterity of 
 Jacob, whose sufferings, as well as the plagues inflicted 
 on their oppressors, are familiar to all. 
 
 Fourthly, the Church existed under Moses in the wild- 
 erness, and also under Joshua, who introduced it into 
 the promised land of Canaan. Fifthly, it was under the 
 Judges, who are reckoned thirteen in number to the time 
 of Eli, and whose office resembled in some measure that 
 of the Roman dictators. Under these the times were 
 very corrupt, and both the ecclesiastical and civil state 
 of the Church was very low, as is evident from the fall- 
 ing away of the Israelites, soon after the death of Joshua, 
 to idolatrous worship, their intermarriages and leagues 
 with the Canaanites, the punishments sent upon them 
 from above, their frequent bondage, horrible crimes, and 
 civil wars. Stxthly, the church was under Eli the high 
 priest and judge, and under Samuel. The corruption 
 of these times also was very great, through the impiety, 
 sacrilege, and licentiousness of Eli’s sons, and the idola- 
 try of the people; whence arose a most afflicted condi- 
 tion to the Church, the Philistines making a great slaugh- 
 ter, and taking the ark, the palladium of the Jewish na- 
 tion, (1 Sam. iv. 10,11.) Seventhly, it was under Saul, 
 David, and Solomon, which last built that celebrated 
 temple which must be reckoned among the wonders of 
 the world, but under whose reign, towards the latter end 
 of it, religion began to be corrupted, and idolatry intro- 
 duced, by means of Egyptian, Sidonian, Tyrian, Am- 
 monitish, and other women, (1 Kings xi.) 
 
 Eighthly, it was under the kings of Israel and Judah 
 until the Babylonish captivity, from the time when the 
 ten tribes in the reign of Rehoboam, Solomon’s son, 
 revolted unto Jeroboam, who had been one of his slaves, 
 During this period also the state of the church was very 
 corrupt, particularly in the kingdom of Israel, after Jero- 
 boam set up a new worship, and changed the ceremo- 
 nies of religion, to prevent the tribes from going up to 
 Jerusalem. During this period of the church the temple 
 was plundered, the ark removed, the sacrifices polluted, 
 the idols of the heathen worshipped. human blood shed 
 
BEFORE CHRIST’S COMING. 237. 
 
 in sacrifice, in short true religion lay prostrate; and yet 
 there was a reformation several times effected, both by 
 the influence of the prophets, and by the authority of 
 some excellent princes, particularly Jehoshaphat, Heze- 
 kiah, and Josiah, after whose death there was no further 
 reformation. Add to this, that the land of Israel having 
 been colonized by strangers from Syria, Assyria, Baby- 
 lonia, and Persia, in the room of the captive Jews, there 
 sprung up a new religion from the mixture of profane 
 and sacred rites, under the name of Samaritanism, as 
 well as the new name of the Samaritans, (2 Kings xvii. 
 
 The Ninth period was that of the Babylonish captivity, 
 in which some of the Jews fell away to superstition, as 
 appears from Ezekiel, but others preserved their faith ; 
 several prophets were preserved among the people, such 
 as Daniel, Jeremiah, Ezekiel, besides those holy men, 
 Ezra and Nehemiah; and many miracles were perform- 
 ed by God for the preservation and comfort ofthe church, 
 under Nebuchadnezzar, Belshazzar, and Darius the 
 Mede. 
 
 The Tenth period of the church was under the gov- 
 ernment of Zerubbabel and the high priesthood of 
 Joshua. Among the priests also of those times must be 
 reckoned Ezra, the scribe, to whom some ascribe the in- 
 stitution of the great synagogue, in which were the pro- 
 phets Haggai, Zechariah, Malachi, Daniel, Nehemiah, 
 Simeon the just, called also Jaddah, who went to meet 
 Alexander the Great, to avert his displeasure. Under 
 these persons the church was reformed, the temple and 
 altar and service restored, the unclean Samaritans re- 
 jected, and many other good things performed. 
 
 The Eleventh period of the church was that under the 
 Asmoneans, or Maccabees. The former name is derived 
 from Asmoneus, an ancestor of Mattathias, and denotes 
 chief men, or venerable priests; the latter from Judas 
 Maccabeus, the third son of Mattathias, who was chosen 
 general in the place of his father, and who at length 
 obtained the high priesthood along with the supreme 
 power. The learned differ as to whether the word Mac- 
 cabeus was the surname of Judas, or whether it was de- 
 rived from the four initial letters on the standard of Ju- 
 dah *3»» (maccabai) Exod. xv. 11. Under these Macca- 
 bees there was a cruel persecution raised by Antiochus 
 Epiphanes against the Jews, who spared neither age nor 
 sex, who burned the saexzed books, and overthrew all 
 
LJ 
 238 THE CHURCH BEFORE CHRIS'S COMING. 
 
 the institutions of the Jews. Numerous sects also arose 
 under this period—such as that of the Assideans (1 Macc. 
 ii, 42; vii 13.;) but whether this was the particular 
 name of a sect which added a voluntary obedience to 
 the law, over and above what it required, or whether it 
 was common to all the pious among the Jews, is a ques- 
 tion among the learned. Then there was the sect of the 
 Pharisees, the origin of which some derive from the 
 members of the great synagogue, of which Ezra was the 
 president; others from the times of Aristobulus, or Alex- 
 ander Jannzus, King of the Jews, others from the times 
 of Hillel and Schammai under Herod. These maintain- 
 ed the oral law or unwritten traditions; they asserted 
 the stoical doctrine of fate; they highly extolled the 
 power of man’s free will to do what is good; they be- 
 lieved in the transmigration of pious souls; they studi- 
 ously observed celibacy, weekly fastings, the giving of 
 tithes out of every thing, superstitious washings, prayers, 
 alms, &c. There was also the sect of the Sadducees, 
 derived from Zadoc, the disciple of Antigonus Sochzeus. 
 It arose from Zadoc's misapprehension of his master's 
 meaning ; and the members of it believed that there was 
 no providence of God over evil, probably, no providence 
 at all; that there were no future punishments or re- 
 wards; no immortality of the soul, no angels, nor resur- 
 rection of the dead. Whether they acknowledged only 
 the law, or the prophetical writings also, the learned do 
 not agree. There was also the sect of the Essenes, 
 which sprung up a little after the Pharisees; these did 
 not admit into their society any except grave and aged 
 men; they maintained the community of goods, and 
 celibacy ; they allowed of no attendants, or provision 
 for a journey ; they followed no trades, and superstiti- 
 ously observed the sabbath ; they aimed at piety, benefi- 
 cence, and hospitality; they gave a four years' proba- 
 tion to their disciples; they avoided all strife and dis- 
 putes, with many other things. To these sects may be 
 added those of the Hemerobaptists; who are said to 
 have denied the resurrection, and who believed that a 
 man could not live godly without daily baptism, whence 
 their name ;— Dositheans, from Dositheus, who is said 
 -to have set himself up as the Messiah, and to have cor- 
 rupted the Pentateuch—and the Herodians. who, accord- 
 ing to some, regarded Herod as the Messiah, applying to 
 him the prophecy in Gen. xlix. 40; just as Josephus ap- 
 plied that in Micah v. 2, to Vespasian. 
 
OF JESUS CHRIST, AS THE TRUE MESSIAH. 239 
 
 The last period was that under Herod the Great, in 
 whose reign Christ the Redeemer was born. The state 
 ‘of the church was very corrupt about the time of Christ's 
 coming, as is evident from this circumstance, that the 
 ects above described, and many others, filled all Judea; 
 and especially the sect of the Pharisees, who perverted 
 the law by their interpretations of it, and of the Saddu- 
 cees, whose impious tenets are so often impugned by the 
 Saviour. Almost all the Jews had false notions of the 
 Messiah that was to come, imagining that he would ap- 
 pear as a triumphant leader, to deliver them from the 
 yoke of oppression under which they groaned. Most 
 ‘melancholy, therefore, was the state of Judea at this 
 time; Pompey, about sixty years before Christ's birth, 
 had made the Jews tributary to the Romans; Gabinius, 
 the proconsul, had divided the great Sanhedrim into five 
 assemblies; Marcus Crassus had plundered the temple ; 
 Casar had made Antipater, an Idumean, the governor 
 of Judea; C. Crassus had drained the Jews by his ex- 
 actions, and even sold them by public auction; and An- 
 tony had increased their bondage, having beheaded their 
 king Antigonus, who was of the illustrious race of the 
 Asmoneans. Nor was their condition better under Au- 
 gustus, in whose reign was born the King of men and 
 angels. 
 
 CHAPTER VY. 
 
 OF JESUS CHRIST, AS THE TRUE MESSIAH. 
 
 We cannot doubt that Christ has really come, since all 
 those events actually took place, which had been pre- 
 dicted to take place at his coming. Jacob had foretold 
 that the advent of the Messiah should be connected with 
 the taking away of the sceptre from Judah, (Gen. xlix. 
 10,) for the Shiloh in that passage, the ancient Jews, 
 Paraphrasts, and Talmudists, understood to be the Mes- 
 siah. Now this sceptre has for a long time been taken 
 away, the temple destroyed, and the city ruined. Hence 
 the Jews consider themselves to be living in the days of 
 
240 OF JESUS CHRIST, 
 
 their banishment, under the power of the Gentiles, with- 
 out a king or prince. It is absurd to interpret, as some 
 of the Rabbins do, the sceptre in Jacob’s prophecy to be 
 the rod of chastisement; because this prophecy contains 
 a blessing, not a threatening, and because the word law- 
 giver which follows, proves, that sceptre is the proper 
 meaning; besides it is not true that the rod of chastise- 
 ment has never departed from Judah, or that oppression 
 has never ceased, since the nation flourished for many 
 years, from David to Zedekiah. Some, however, think 
 that the word rendered sceptre may be rendered tribe, 
 as though Jacob predicted that the tribe of Judah should 
 remain distinct until the Messiah's coming, while the 
 other tribes should be dispersed. 
 
 Daniel predicted that * from the going forth of the 
 commandment to restore and to build Jerusalem," (whe- 
 ther this be reckoned from the death of Darius Nothus, 
 or from thelast edict in the twentieth year of Artaxerxes, 
 or whether from the message of the angel, or from the 
 edict of Cyrus, is a question) unto Messiah the Prince 
 there should be seven weeks (i. e. forty-nine years) and 
 threescore and two weeks, (i. e. 434 years) and after 
 threescore and two weeks should Messiah be cut off, &c. 
 (Daniel ix. 25. Now it is certain that these weeks have 
 long since passed away, from whatever period we reckon 
 their beginning, and they passed away before the temple 
 was destroyed, however the Jew may cavil in the way 
 of opposition. The prophet Haggai also declares, that 
 the Lord should * come" unto his *temple," which pre- 
 diction the Jews understand of the Messiah: * Yet a 
 little while and I will shake all nations, and the Desire of 
 all nations shall come, and I will fill this house with 
 glory. The glory of this latter house shall be greater 
 than that of the former," (Haggai ii. 7, 9,) and Malachi 
 declares, chap. iii. 1, that * the Lord should suddenly 
 come to his temple.” Now that temple has been long 
 since destroved ; therefore the Messiah has come. 
 
 This is also confirmed by the overthrow of the Jewish 
 common wealth; by the dispersion of the tribes; by the 
 vain attempts of the Jews to restore their temple and 
 their state in the reigns of Nero, Trajan, Adrian, Con- 
 stantine, Julian, and other princes; and also by the ap- 
 pearance of various false prophets, such as Theudas, 
 Menahemus, Eleazar, &c. and even in modern times, as 
 Sabatheus Zevi of Smyrna, and R. Mordecai, a German. 
 The same fact is also confirmed by the calling of the 
 
AS THE TRUE MESSIAH. 241 
 
 Gentiles, which the prophets foretold should take place 
 at the Messiah's coming; to which may be added the 
 confessions of the Jews, and among other things a tradi- 
 tion of the house of Elias, which divides the duration of 
 the world into three periods—the first 2000 years, no 
 dispensation; the second 2000, the dispensation of the 
 law; the third 2000, the dispensation of the Messiah.* 
 Nor must we omit to remark, that at the time in which 
 Christ came, the Jews were generally expecting the 
 Messiah, as appears from those things which are read 
 concerning Simeon, Anna, and the Samaritan woman. 
 
 Now that Jesus Christ was the very Messiah who 
 was to come, may be easily proved, by comparing to- 
 gether every thing which was foretold of him. He was 
 born of a woman, according to the first prophecy, (Gen. 
 iii. 15,) of the family of Abraham, (Gen. xxii. 18,) of the 
 tribe of Judah, (Gen. xlix. 10,) of the family of David, 
 (Isaiah xi. 1; Jer. xxiii. 5). All this is plain from the 
 genealogies of Joseph and Mary, (Matt. i. Luke iii). He 
 was born of a virgin, according to Isaiah vii. 14. He 
 was born at the expiration of the weeks of years men- 
 tioned by Daniel, chap. ix. and when *the sceptre had 
 departed from Judah," having been just transferred to 
 Herod the Idumean, and afterwards to the Romans. He 
 was born at Bethlehem, according to Mic. v. 2; Matt. ii. 
 3—6. He entered into “the second temple" according 
 to Haggai ii. 7. He had a forerunner to prepare his 
 way, Isaiah xl. 2; Mal. iii. 1. He performed innume- 
 rable miracles, as the prophets also foretold. He was 
 humbled and exalted, according to the predictions con- 
 tained in Psalm xxii. cx.; Isaiahlii. The Gentiles also 
 were called, which calling was to be effected by the Mes- 
 siah according to the prophetical declarations in Gen. 
 xlix. 10. Psalm ii. 8; xxii. 30; Ixviii. 32, 33. Isaiah ii. 2, 
 3; xi. 10; xlix. 6, &c. 
 
 Christ came in * the fulness of time," according to the 
 predictions of the prophets, when there was very great 
 idolatry among the Gentiles, and corruption among the 
 Jews, and very great darkness throughout the whole 
 world, which was dispersed by the rising of the Sun of 
 Righteousness, and the Day-spring from on bigh. He 
 came while the fourth monarchy prevailed, in the reign 
 of Augustus Cesar, and at the time when by his com- 
 
 * So I presume the following singular sentence is to be translated, 
 Bis mille inanitas, bis mille lex, M dt Messias. 
 
242 OF CHRIST’S ASSUMPTION 
 
 mand the whole Roman world was taxed, i. e. when a 
 census was made. And this took place when Cyrenius 
 or Quirinius was governor of Judza and Syria, not in- 
 deed an ordinary governor, as Saturninus was, but the 
 procurator or lieutenant extraordinary of Cesar. And 
 this census is said to have been “first made,” (Luke ii. 
 2,) both in regard to Quirinius who first made it, and to 
 Judaa, in which the census had not been before taken 
 by the Romans, and also because it was of an cecume- 
 nical nature. 
 
 Our Saviour was born under Herod the Great, and 
 had for his forerunner John the Baptist, the son of Za- 
 charias and Elizabeth, of whom the scripture relates 
 many things. John was conceived about six months 
 before the annunciation of the angel to Mary, concerning 
 Christ's birth, when Zacharias and Elizabeth were ad- 
 vanced in years, and while the former was executing his 
 priestly office, in the order of his course. He dwelt for 
 Some time in the mountainous places of Judza, not in 
 caves and desert places, as some have thought, and his 
 food and dress were extraordinary. He preached re- 
 pentance as the true preparation for the Messiah’s king- 
 dom, and baptized according to the custom of the Jews, 
 who baptized their proselytes. He bore an illustrious 
 testimony to Christ, and was the greatest of all the pro- 
 phets. He was thrown into prison by Herod Antipas, 
 for exclaiming against that prince’s Incestuous marriage 
 with his brother Philips wife; and at length was be- 
 headed by his command at the request of his daughter, 
 whom the wicked Herodias had instructed for that pur- 
 pose, lest Herod, influenced by his reverence for this 
 holy man, should annul the unlawful marriage. 
 
 CHAPTER VI. 
 
 OF CHRIST’S ASSUMPTION OF HUMAN NATURE. 
 
 Tuat Christ, who was God with the Father, “ blessed for 
 evermore,” assumed human nature, or took upon him 
 
OF HUMAN NATURE. 243 
 
 our flesh, is expressly declared in the scripture. ‘The 
 Word was made flesh," (John i. 14.) *Forasmuch as 
 the children are partakers of flesh and blood, he also 
 himself took part of the same,” (Heb. ii. 14.) The scrip- 
 ture represents him as having a body, *A body hast 
 thou prepared me,” (Heb. x. 5,) a body like our own, 
 material, tangible, requiring food, drink, and sleep, sub- 
 ject to weariness, and pain, to heat and cold. It also 
 represents him as having a soul, endued with under- 
 standing and will, and every natural and sinless affec- 
 tion, such as joy, sorrow, anger, love, zeal, and fear. He 
 was therefore a real man, and not the mere image of a 
 man, as was the vain opinion of the Marcionites, Mani- 
 cheans, and others of the Docete, or imaginary Chris- 
 tians, as Tertullian somewhere calls them. 
 
 It was necessary that Christ should assume our nature, 
 because the justice of God required that sin should be 
 punished in the same nature in which it had been com- 
 mitted. Even the Druids, according to Cesar, main- 
 tained that the life of man was to be redeemed with the 
 life of man. Had there been no sin, there would have 
 been no need for a divine person to become incarnate ; 
 but sin being introduced, it was necessary that the Me- 
 diator of men should take their nature upon himself. It 
 was necessary also, because justice demanded the death, 
 either of sinners or of their surety, and it was only hu- 
 man nature that was capable of suffering death. Be- 
 sides, the divine nature dwells in light unapproachable 
 by mortals; it was therefore necessary that the Mediator 
 should become man, that we might obtain easier aecess 
 to the divine nature. It was also required that our Me- 
 diator should be both God and man: God, that he might 
 have free access to the Father; man, that we might have 
 aceess to him: God, in order to know all the secret 
 things of the Father that were to be revealed; man, that 
 he might declare them to us: God, that he might sanc- 
 tify us by his Spirit; man, that he might show us the 
 way to heaven by his example: God, that he might 
 satisfy divine justice, and overcome sin, death, and the 
 devil; man, that he might offer himself as a sacrifice: 
 God, that he might stamp the highest value on his suffer- 
 ings; man, that he might be capable of suffering. 
 
 It should not appear strange to the heathens, that God 
 assumed human nature, since they very often speak of 
 their deities as holding intercourse and walking with 
 men. According to the learned Huetius, it is the opin- 
 
244 OF CHRIST’S ASSUMPTION 
 
 jon of the Brahmins, that God often conceals himself 
 under the form of great men, and that Vishna, the second 
 person in their triune deity, has assumed a body nine 
 times, and sometimes a human body, and that he is to do 
 this once more: and Confucius, the great founder of the 
 Chinese religion, has left it on record, that the Word will 
 at some time or other become flesh. 
 
 As to the manner in which Christ assumed our nature, 
 we say that he assumed it in the unity of his person, 
 1. e. the divine nature was so united with the human, 
 that from this union there were not two persons, but 
 only one. The scripture every where speaks of Christ 
 as of one person; the same person who is said to be 
 ** made of the seed of David according to the flesh,” is 
 called *the Son of God, according to the spirit of holi- 
 ness ;" (Rom. i. 4,) he who descended from the * Father,” 
 is also “God, blessed for evermore;" (Rom. ix. 5,) the 
 very same who was *in the form of God," is said to 
 have *taken upon him the form of a servant;" (Phil. ii. 
 5,7.) “The Lord of glory" was “crucified,” (1 Cor. ii. 
 8,) and it was * God" who “purchased the church with 
 his own blood," (Acts xx. 28.) 
 
 No one, indeed, can explain the exact mode by which 
 these two natures are united; we may, however, ob- 
 serve, that we are not to conceive that this union of 
 natures takes place in the same manner as the union of 
 body and soul, from which some third thing arises, 
 namely, man; although the former resembles the latter 
 in many things, and particularly in this, that whatever 
 things properly belong to both natures, the divine and 
 the human, are there spoken of one Christ, and are 
 attributed to him; just the same as all those things which 
 are peculiar to the body and to the soul, are affirmed of 
 one and the same individual. Neither must we con- 
 ceive of this union, as we do of the union of friends, 
 which consists in the agreement of their minds and 
 wills; for if it only consisted in this, the expressions of 
 scripture would be false, in which it is declared that 
 * God redeemed the church by his own blood," and that 
 ‘the word was made flesh," for nothing at all resem- 
 bling this is ever said of friends, whatever agreement 
 there may be between them. Add to which, simple con- 
 sent would not have been sufficient to give an infinite 
 value to the death of Christ, for although a king might 
 consent to those things which were done by his subject 
 and servant, yet he would not communicate to the act 
 
' OF HUMAN NATURE. 245 
 
 of his servant the same dignity which the act of the 
 king himself would have. Neither must we conceive of 
 this union under the notion of what the schoolmen call 
 assistance, i. e. as if the Word were united to the flesh 
 of Christ, in the same way as a mariner is in the vessel 
 which he moves and guides, or as the Holy Spirit was 
 in the prophets, whom he inspired; for in this way there 
 would be very little difference between the prophets and 
 Christ ; and besides, if the case were so, Christ would 
 never have said, * Before Abraham was, I am,” for none 
 of the prophets would ever have said such things of him- 
 self, nor has any man ever used such expressions as are 
 used concerning Christ in the sacred writings. Further, 
 this union is not like the union of the persons in the 
 Trinity, whose essence is one, whereas in this union 
 there is one person and two natures; it is also very dif- 
 ferent from the mystical union of believers with Christ. 
 But this union, whatever may be the mode of it, is very 
 intimate: it has never been nor ever will be dissolved. 
 What the Word has once assumed, it never lays aside, 
 so that we must not confound it with the union of an- 
 gels to the bodies they assumed. By this union also the 
 two natures were in no way confused, but each retained 
 its own peculiarities, for there is no proportion between 
 them; man is finite, mortal, changeable; God is infinite, 
 immortal, unchangeable. This opinion is proved by the 
 frequent opposition in the scriptures between the two 
 natures in Christ, as the two wills which appear to be 
 attributed to him. By this union, neither of the two 
 natures is changed into the other, or done away by the 
 other; for were this the case, either Christ would have 
 ceased to be God, which it is impious to assert, seeing 
 that the divine nature cannot be changed; or he would 
 have ceased to be man, which is contrary to the scrip- 
 ture. We therefore entirely agree with the decision of 
 the council of Chalcedon, held A. D. 451, by which it 
 was maintained that this sacred and mysterious union 
 was indivisible and inseparable, against Nestorius, and 
 without change and confusion, against Eutyches. 
 
 The effects of this union are various; some of them 
 concern the human nature of Christ, others his person 
 as subsisting in both natures. The first effect of the 
 union, as it regards Christ's human nature, is that su- 
 preme dignity of this nature above other creatures, since 
 by this union it is placed the nearest below the divine 
 nature. The second effect consists in those excellent 
 
 art 
 
246 OF CHRIST’S ASSUMPTION 
 
 qualities which were conferred upon the human nature 
 of Christ, as much as any created being could contain; 
 now although they were of the highest kind, and there- 
 fore greater than in any angels or saints, since the 
 Father * gave not the Spirit by measure unto him,” yet 
 they were not infinite, but according to the capacity of 
 the receiver. Hence, if the man Christ possessed know- 
 ledge, it was capable of increase, as Luke clearly 
 . shows, saying that * Jesus increased in wisdom and sta- 
 ture, and in favour with God and man, (Luke ii. 52,) and 
 as is plain from Mark xiii. 32, where Christ declares of 
 himself that he “knows not the day” of judgment. It 
 was not necessary that the humanity of Christ, from the 
 very first moment of its existence, should be endued 
 with those gifts of which it was capable, nor did his 
 office require this, since he was not called upon to exe- 
 cute immediately all the parts of it. Nor can the con- 
 trary be inferred from John iii. 34, where God is said to 
 have “not given him the Spirit by measure;” for this 
 only means that the Spirit was given to Christ, not spar- 
 ingly, but in a plenteous manner. 
 
 We do not therefore imagine that any properties of 
 the divine nature were communicated to Christ’s human 
 nature; because we must judge of the properties of the 
 divine nature, as of the divine essence, since the former 
 are identified with the latter: now the divine essence 
 cannot be in any way communicated to the creature, 
 because a finite cannot become an infinite being, other- 
 wise it would be God. Besides, this would imply that 
 the properties of one subject may be common toa differ- 
 ent subject, which cannot be; for what is the peculiar 
 property of one cannot be communicated to another, 
 unless it should cease to be a peculiar property. But if 
 no property of the divine was communicated to the 
 human nature of Christ, the latter was certainly endued 
 with every possible quality. Here the question is asked 
 by some, whether the man Christ possessed faith or hope. 
 To this question, which is unprofitable enough, we sim- 
 ply reply, that Christ possessed not that faith, which 
 must bein all that are to be saved, but that which is 
 nothing else than the yielding of assent to the divine 
 word on account of its infallible authority. He also had 
 hope, seeing that he expected the glory promised to him 
 after his labours. 
 
 The first effect of this union, as it relates to Christ’s 
 person subsisting in both natures, is that communication 
 
OF HUMAN NATURE. 247 
 
 or interchange, by which the properties of either nature 
 are attributed to the person, and this is done in various 
 ways. First, sometimes that which is the property of 
 the divine nature is attributed to Christ’s person, as de- 
 nominated from the divine nature, as when the Word is 
 said to have been * in the beginning with God,” and also 
 to have been “God.” So again, that which is the pro- 
 perty of the human nature is attributed to his person, as 
 denominated from the Auman nature, as when the Son 
 of man is said to have wept, to have eaten, to have 
 drunk. Secondly, sometimes the property or the work 
 of the Auman nature is ascribed to Christ, considered as 
 a divine subject, or denominated from the divine nature, 
 as when the * Son of God” is said to have been ** made 
 of a woman,” “the Lord of glory” to have been * cruci- 
 fied,” and “ God” to have “purchased the church with 
 his own blood ;” for in these passages there is attributed 
 to the divine Son of God what properly belongs to man. 
 On the other hand, the property or work of the divine 
 nature is attributed to Christ, considered as a human 
 subject, or denominated from the human nature, as 
 when ** the Son of man” is said * to be in heaven,” at the 
 same time that he was on earth, for this is only strictly 
 applicable to Christ's divine nature. Now this commu- 
 nication or interchange is called by the schoolmen, the 
 communication of properties. 
 
 The second effect of this union, as it regards the per- 
 son of Christ, is the communion or interchange of office, 
 by which the mediatorial works relating to our salva- 
 tion are attributed to the person acting according to 
 both natures; as when Christ is called the Mediator of 
 the New Covenant; our advocate; the propitiation for 
 our sins; our peace; wisdom; righteousness ; sanctifi- 
 cation ; and redemption; for these works are applicable 
 to Christ as considered in reference to both his natures ; 
 as also when it is said that we are sanctified by the ob- 
 lation of Christ once offered, and that the blood of Christ 
 cleanseth us from all sin. 
 
248 OF THE TWO 
 
 * 
 
 CHAPTER VII. 
 OF THE TWO STATES OF CHRIST. 
 
 Tue scripture sets forth two states or conditions of 
 Christ, one of humiliation, the other of exaltation. The 
 former the scripture teaches, when it declares that 
 Christ * made himself of no reputation, and took upon 
 him the form of a servant,” that he * was manifest in the 
 flesh,” that he “ was made lower than the angels,” that 
 he assumed * the likeness of sinful flesh.” (Phil. ii. 7; 1 
 Tim. iii. 16; Heb. ii. 7; Rom. viii. 3.) His state of ex- 
 altation it describes, when it says that “ God highly ex- 
 alted him,” that he “was crowned with glory and 
 honour,” that he “entered into his glory,” and “sat at 
 the right hand of God." (Phil. ii. 9; Heb. ii. 7, 9; Luke 
 xxiv. 20.) Both these states had been foretold by the 
 sacred oracles. In Psalm cx. 7, it is said, * He shall 
 drink of the brook in the way ; therefore shall he lift up 
 the head." “The stone which the builders refused is 
 become the head-stone of the corner," (Psalm exviii. 22 ;) 
 and nothing can be clearer concerning both states than 
 what we read in Isaiahliii Hence the Jews, not con- 
 ceiving how such oppositethings could happen tothe same 
 Messiah, have supposed that there were to be two Mes- 
 siahs, the one poor or mean, the other triumphant ; the 
 one the son of Joseph, or Ephraim, named Nehemiah, 
 who will bring a few out of captivity, and will be slain 
 in the battle against Gog and Magog, though afterwards 
 he will be raised from the dead by his successor, and 
 will enjoy a vicarious dignity; the other the son of 
 David, exalted in royal majesty, to whom will be sub- 
 jected the twelve tribes, and all the kings of the earth. 
 It was necessary that Christ should be in both these 
 states, because two things were required to our salva- 
 tion,*that the divine justice should be satisfied, and sal- 
 vation purchased for us, and that the Holy Ghost should 
 be poured out, and salvation applied to us. To accom- 
 plish the first of these, it was necessary that Christ 
 should suffer, and therefore that he should be humbled , 
 to accomplish the second, it was necessary for him to be 
 
 " 
 
9 STATES OF CHRIST. 249 
 
 exalted. By the first the guilt, by the second the defile- 
 ment, of our sins was taken away. Christ, as a priest, 
 must first have shed his blood, and then have entered 
 into the holiest; as a prophet, he was to discharge the 
 office of * minister to the circumcision” among his breth- 
 ren, before he ascended into heaven to become the 
 teacher of the world; and as a king, he was to prepare 
 the way to his throne by sufferings, and by contests. 
 
 The humiliation of Christ was in no way unworthy 
 of a divine person; for his sufferings were not involun- 
 tary, but voluntary; not the effects either of his own 
 sin, or of his low condition, but of an all-wise providence, 
 and of infinite love: he endured these sufferings, that he 
 might be the Redeemer of men, that he might satisfy di- 
 vine justice, open the fountain of mercy, and become to 
 mankind the author of eternal salvation; by them he 
 opened the gates of Paradise, purchased eternal life, ex- 
 alted the glory of the divine majesty and justice, restored 
 to holiness and truth their former beauty, and diffused 
 light, joy, and hope, over the whole world. By this hu- 
 miliation of Christ, his divine nature was not in any de- 
 gree lessened, or changed, (for divinity is incapable of 
 any change,) nor did he lose any of his natural and 
 eternal glory, for he ceased not to be what he was; this 
 only followed, that Christ, as God, concealed the glories 
 of his divinity under a veil of flesh, and that, too, a veil 
 of flesh which was weak, miserable, subject to sorrows 
 and disgrace, even to death itself Yet he did not so 
 conceal himself, but that at times he gave out various 
 appearances of his divine glory, either in the miracles 
 which he performed, or in the wonderful things that 
 happened to him, not only at his nativity, and during his 
 life, but also in thelast scenes of that life, and on the 
 borders of death. And as by the humiliation of Christ 
 there was no diminution made of his divine nature, so 
 there was no addition made to it in his exaltation ; but, 
 as he was humbled, when he veiled his dignity under 
 the form of a servant, so he was exalted when this veil 
 was withdrawn, and his glory, which he had from ever- 
 lasting, and which lay hid for a time, shone forth with 
 splendour. To his humiliation belong his nativity, life, 
 and death; under his exaltation are comprehended his 
 resurrection, ascension, and sitting at the right-hand of 
 God. Of these we shall treat separately. 
 
250 OF THE CONCEPTION , 
 
 CHAPTER VIII. 
 OF THE CONCEPTION AND BIRTH OF CHRIST. 
 
 Tue humiliation of Christ commences with his nativity, 
 in which several questions are to be examined, namely, 
 when Christ was born—who was his mother—how he 
 was conceived—and what happened at his birth? With 
 respect to the first question, it is more curious than use- 
 ful. It is, however, certain that Christ was born under 
 Herod the Great, but it is uncertain in what year of his 
 reign; it is equally certain that he was born under Au- 
 gustus Cesar, but in what year is unknown; it is not 
 even known from what time the Augustan era is to be 
 dated; whether from the death of Julius Cesar, or from 
 his first consulship, or from the triumvirate, or from the 
 victory at Actium, or from the giving of the title of Au- 
 gustus. As to the month and day of the nativity, it is 
 rash to determine, whether on the 6th day of January, 
 as the eastern churches of Jerusalem, Egypt, and Asia 
 maintained; or on the 25th of December, which is the 
 common opinion, and is of considerable antiquity, and 
 very particularly maintained in the Western and Latin 
 church, and afterwards generally received by the Greeks, 
 the Syrians, and the Egyptians. It is best to restrain 
 any further inquiry; only let us add, that the 25th day 
 of December began to be a festival among the Christians 
 in the time of Chrysostom; but not throughout all the 
 east before the time of the emperor Justin, in the sixth 
 century. 
 
 With regard to the second question,—who was Christ's 
 mother? We reply with the scripture, That it was the 
 Virgin Mary, espoused to Joseph, of the tribe of Judah, 
 of the seed of David, being the daughter of Heli. This 
 the evangelists Matthew and Luke declare; and Isaiah 
 had predicted that he should be “ born of a virgin.” (Isaiah 
 vii. 14.) We will not here relate the stories concerning 
 this blessed virgin, which some have not been ashamed to 
 maintain, respecting her wonderful birth, and education in 
 the temple, or even in the holy of holies, and her vow of 
 perpetual virginity, together with the examination of 
 her chastity by means of a certain priest. To relate 
 
L4 
 
 AND BIRTH OF CHRIST. 9251 
 
 these and similar stories is to refute them. From the 
 substance of this blessed virgin was formed the body of 
 our Saviour; so that we must not dream with the Va- 
 lentinians, that his body was sent down from heaven, 
 and that the body of the Virgin was like a channel 
 through which it passed; or with other heretics, that any 
 portion of the Word was changed into flesh, and that his 
 divinity, like a soul, formed his flesh. These notions 
 every one will pronounce absurd, who only considers, 
 that Christ is expressly called, *the seed of the woman, 
 the seed of Abraham, the son of David, the fruit of his 
 loins, the fruit of Mary's womb ;" and that he is said to 
 be * made of a woman, a partaker of flesh and blood, in 
 all things like unto us, sin only excepted." (Gen. iii. 15; 
 xxii 18; Matt.i 1; Lukei. 31,42; Gal iv.4; Heb. ii. 
 14, 17. 
 
 If it E asked, why Christ was pleased to be born of a 
 virgin, no one can give a satisfactory answer; it may be 
 sufficient to observe, that Christ would not be produced 
 by immediate creation, like Adam, in order that he might 
 be our brother, formed out of the same lump, and that 
 he might have the most intimate union with us. He 
 would not also be begotten in the same way as other 
 men, both to avoid the necessity of another miracle, the 
 sanctifying the seed of the woman and the man, and also 
 because an extraordinary person required an extraordi- 
 nary birth, and to teach men by this circumstance, that 
 he was not a mere man. At the same time, he was 
 pleased to be born of a woman, like other men, to show 
 that he was really man, though not of the seed of a man, 
 and also that he was something else besides man. How 
 an infant could be born of a virgin, no one will wonder, 
 who considers the reply of the angel to such a question, 
 * With God nothing shall be impossible," (Luke i. 37.) 
 Whether Mary remained a virgin always, the scripture 
 does not inform us, though it may be piously believed, 
 and indeed it seems probable, that that womb in which 
 our Saviour received the beginning of life, was rendered 
 So sacred by such an inmate, that his mother ever after- 
 ward continued a pure virgin; which was the opinion 
 of the fathers in opposition to Helvidius and others. 
 
 As to the third question—how Christ was conceived— 
 the scripture declares, “that which is conceived in her, is 
 of the Holy Ghost," (Matt. i. 20.) “The Holy Ghost 
 shall come upon thee, and the power of the Highest shall 
 overshadow thee," (Luke i. 35.) In which words there 
 
252 OF THE CONCEPTION AND BIRTH OF CHRIST. © 
 
 is perhaps an allusion to the cloud descending upon the 
 tabernacle, and overspreading it, so as not only to cover 
 the door, but also to fill the tabernacle itself with the 
 glory of the Lord. The moment the cloud overspread 
 the tabernacle, the glory of the Lord entered it, and fill- 
 ed it within and without. Now the body of Mary re- 
 sembled the tabernacle; into it the divinity of the Word 
 entered, the moment that the Holy Ghost overspread as 
 it were this body; so that the work of the incarnation, 
 hitherto unknown to men, and incomprehensible even to 
 the angels, was effected by divine power. 
 
 The interposition of the Holy Ghost was necessary, 
 both to exert a generative power in the womb of the 
 virgin; to form out of it the body of Christ; to preserve 
 both the body and soul of Christ from all stain of sin, and 
 to prepare it for the hypostatical union, i. e. of both na- 
 tures. But whether by the Holy Ghost we are to under- 
 stand the third Person of the Godhead, or the divinity of 
 Christ, has been disputed. Some of the fathers thought 
 the latter; most divines maintain the former, and for 
 this reason, that Luke, both in his first chapter, where 
 the name of the Holy Ghost occurs six times, and also 
 in the following chapters, in which he is frequently men- 
 tioned, always means the third Person of the Trinity, 
 and therefore it is not probable that in the single passage 
 alluded to a different meaning should be given to the 
 same term. But if the third Person of the godhead is 
 meant, as is the common opinion, we must not imagine 
 that the Holy Ghost is the father of Christ, merely be- 
 cause Christ is said to have been conceived by him; for 
 the human nature of Christ was not produced from the 
 substance of the Holy Ghost. It is one thing to form 
 something by one’s own power from matter taken from 
 some other quarter, and another thing to produce it from 
 one’s own substance. Now the Holy Ghost did the 
 former, not the latter. 
 
 As to the fourth question—what took place at the birth 
 of Christ? we may remark the place of his nativity, 
 Bethlehem, according to the prophecy, in Micah v. 2. 
 We may mention also his humble cradle, namely a 
 manger, although some choose to understand by this 
 term, something else than the common meaning; and 
 the angelic messenger who annouced the tidings to 
 the shepherds. Many other stories which are related, 
 about the cave at Bethlehem, the silver manger, &c. are 
 altogether fabulous. 
 
OF THE LIFE OF CHRIST. 253 
 
 CHAPTER IX. 
 
 OF THE LIFE OF CHRIST. 
 
 Tue first thing to be observed in the life of Christ is his 
 circumcision, which was the shedding of his first blood, 
 and was a part of his humiliation, since he was pleased 
 to become subject to the law, and to “ fulfil all righteous- 
 ness.” Now by his circumcision he showed that he had 
 really taken our flesh, he proved that he belonged to the 
 seed of Abraham, he confirmed, as it were, in his own 
 body the circumcision of the fathers, and ratified the 
 promises made to them, and he became a suitable “ min- 
 ister of the circumcision,” (Rom. xv. 8.) He also thereby 
 showed that he meant “to fulfil all righteousness,” i. e. 
 the obedience due to God’s commandments; that he 
 acknowledged the people of Israel for the true people of 
 God ; that he was not opposed to Moses; and that hav- 
 ing thereby undertaken to fulfil the law, he would deliver 
 us from its curse. (Gal. iv. 5.) And the name Jesus, 
 given to him according to custom at his circumcision, 
 reminds us of the salvation obtained for us by him; in 
 which he had two remarkable types, of the same name,— 
 Joshua, who led the Israelites into the promised land,— 
 and Joshua, the high priest. Among the Greeks and 
 Romans some great men were called Saviours, as Her- 
 cules, Quintus Flaminius, and others; as appears from 
 ancient coins. What a certain Rabbi among the Jews 
 is reported to have said, is worthy of remark. Because 
 the Messiah will save men, he shall be called Josnva ; but 
 the nations of another kind (the Gentiles) who shall em- 
 brace the faith of the Messiah, will call him Jesus; and 
 therefore you will find this name Jesus alluded to in Gen. 
 xlix. 10, for the first letters of the word in that verse will 
 form the name Jesus. 
 
 We say nothing of the presentation of Christ in the 
 temple; of Simeon's embracing him in his arms; of the 
 coming of the wise men, their worshipping him and 
 offering him gifts; of the flight into Egypt, and other 
 circumstances; but we may remark his living with his 
 parents in reverence oe 2 eun to them, which was 
 
954 d OF THE LIFE OF CHRIST. 
 
 no small part of his humiliation. We may question 
 whether he laboured at any trade, or at the trade of his 
 father, as was the opinion of Justin, Basil, Chrysostom, 
 and others; but there can be no doubt that this period 
 of his life was spent in saered meditation, and in prepa- 
 ration for the duties of his great office. We must re- 
 mark also the baptism of the Saviour, by which he com- 
 menced his ministry, when he was about thirty years 
 old, which was the period at which the priestly office 
 commenced under the law, (Numb. iv. 47,) and the age 
 at which Joseph was elevated to tbe government of 
 Egypt, (Gen. xli. 46,) and David to the kingdom, (2 Sam. 
 v. 4) He was baptized by John the Baptist, the son of 
 Zacharias and Elizabeth, who had been spoken of under 
 the name of Elias. Now he chose to be baptized by 
 John, that he might fulfil all righteousness, and submit 
 to every ordinance, that he might confirm and seal John's 
 ministry by his own authority, that he might show that 
 the power and efficacy both of the old and new sacra- 
 ments depended upon himself alone; and that the sacra- 
 ment of baptism might be received by Christians with 
 the greatest reverence, after the example of their Sa- 
 viour. In that baptism he was solemnly consecrated to 
 the mediatorial office, by the voice of the Father from 
 the opened heavens, and by the descent of the Holy 
 Ghost upon him in the shape of a dove. 
 
 Next we may observe his fasting forty days and forty 
 nights in the wilderness, by which he showed himself 
 not inferior to Moses and Elias. This was followed by 
 the temptation of the devil in the same wilderness, who 
 three times assaulted the Saviour, but was three times 
 vanquished; and thus he who had triumphed over the 
 first, was subdued by the second Adam. "These tempta- 
 tions show us what an enemy we have to fight with, 
 after we have devoted ourselves to Christ; with what 
 weapons Satan attacks us, and with what arms he must 
 be overcome ; and that no one should promise himself 
 exemption from that warfare from which the Son of 
 God was not exempt. We may remark, also, the preach- 
 ing of Christ, by which he vindicated the law from the 
 false glosses of the Pharisees, attacked the traditions of 
 the Scribes, reproved their hypocrisy and pride, and 
 unfolded the mysteries of the gospel. 
 
 But we must particularly notice the miracles of Christ, 
 concerning which it may be observed—l. That they 
 were innumerable, John xxi. 25. 2. That they were 
 
OF THE LIFE OF CHRIST. 255 
 
 done in the presence of many witnesses, so that Christ 
 cannot be said to have courted secrecy ; and thereby he 
 distinguished himself from impostors. 3. That they were 
 universal, having for their subjects all creatures; devils, 
 the sea, the winds, &c.; all kinds of diseases, and even 
 death itself. 4. That they exceeded the powers of na- 
 ture, and of the devil; for the devil cannot raise the 
 dead, or feed several thousand men with a few loaves. 
 5. That they were of a beneficial character; being deli- 
 verances from evil, excepting only two, viz. the sending 
 ofthe devils into the swine, and the cursing of the fig- 
 tree; to which may be added the casting out of the buy- 
 ers and sellers from the temple; thus the miracles of 
 Christ were distinguished from those of Moses and the 
 prophets, which were chiefly of a terrific character. 6. 
 That the effects of them were permanent, not momen- 
 tary and transient. 7. That they were often performed 
 by a single word, such as * J vill, be thou clean," (Matt. 
 viii. 3.) 8. That Christ gave to others the power of 
 working miracles in his name, (Matt. x. 8; Luke x. 9.) 
 One thing more may be added, viz. that Christ never 
 wrought miracles for his own advantage; and although 
 hungry and thirsty, and holding all creatures in subjec- 
 tion to himself, he chose to support nature in no other 
 than the ordinary manner; for as he came only for the 
 good of others, so he devoted himself wholly to their 
 advantage. 
 
 We must consider also, the wonderful obedience which 
 Christ paid to the law, not only in circumcision, but also 
 in every thing else prescribed by the law. He was 
 bound to this obedience, not only as man, and as the 
 ereature of God,—not only as a son of Abraham, but 
 also as our surety; for two things were required of us, 
 viz. to fulfil the commandments of the law, and to suffer 
 the punishment due to our sins. Neither of these we 
 were able to do, but Christ performed both for us. As 
 man, he was not obliged to observe the divine law in 
 the same way as men who live upon earth, but only as 
 the saints who are in heaven. "Therefore it was a part 
 of Christ's humiliation, that, having to live upon earth 
 for a time, he chose to keep those laws to which man- 
 kind were bound as sinners against God. 
 
 Finally, we may notice the duration of Christ’s minis- 
 try, which, according to some, was four years, but 
 according to others, and with greater probability, three 
 years and some months; thus he is thought to have kept 
 
256 OF THE SUFFERINGS AND 
 
 four passovers—the first, in which he purged the temple, 
 (John ii. 13;) the second, in which he healed the sick 
 man on the Sabbath, at the pool of Bethesda, (John v. 1, 
 2;) the third, mentioned in John vi., which at that time 
 was nigh; the fourth, a little before his death. 
 
 CHAPTER X. 
 
 OF THE SUFFERINGS AND DEATH OF CHRIST. 
 
 Unper the humiliation of Christ are especially compre- 
 hended his sufferings, i. e. all those things which Christ 
 endured for our sins, beyond the natural inclination of 
 his will, although he voluntarily endured them; but es- 
 pecially those which he suffered at the end of his life, of 
 which we must now speak. And in order that we may 
 do it with precision, we observe that he not only suffer- 
 ed in body, but also in soul, as is evident, not only from 
 the testimony of scripture, (Matt. xxvi. 38; John xii. 27,) 
 but also because our salvation required that the surety 
 of those sinners who had sinned in soul and body, and 
 to whom the law threatened not only bodily, but also 
 spiritual and internal sufferings, should also suffer both 
 in soul and body. We observe, also, that these suffer- 
 ings were very great and grievous, though not eternal; 
 the sinner deserved eternal suffering, but the infinite 
 dignity of Christ's person was an equivalent to infinity 
 of duration. These sufferings were free from every spot 
 ofsin. Some of them preceded, others accompanied the 
 death of Christ. Of the former kind were those which 
 he endured in the garden of Gethsemane; for he was 
 then “in an agony,” and the anguish of his soul was so 
 great, as to wring a bloody sweat from his body. Now 
 this was occasioned either by his intense sorrow com- 
 pressing the greater vessels of the heart, and also the 
 lesser vessels of the veins, and by this compression 
 wringing blood from them; or by the contrary motions 
 produced by sorrow on the one hand, so compressing, 
 and by love and the desire of delivering mankind on the 
 
DEATH OF CHRIST. 257 
 
 other hand, dilating, the vessels and veins, so that blood 
 issued out ofthem. It was this deep sorrow which also 
 extorted from him that petition, “Oh! my Father, if it 
 be possible, let this cup pass from me; nevertheless, not 
 as I will, but as thou wilt,” (Matt. xxvi. 39.) Now the 
 cause of this anguish was not merely a natural fear of 
 death, for in this case he would have shewn greater 
 weakness than many martyrs, but chiefly the sense of 
 divine justice, which penetrated his soul in a manner to 
 us inexplicable. There were other sufferings which im- 
 mediately preceded his death; as when his sacred name 
 Was covered with reproaches, his head lacerated with 
 thorns, and smitten with a reed, his face disfigured with 
 spitting, and bruised with blows, his tongue parched 
 with thirst, and steeped in vinegar and gall, his hands 
 and feet pierced with nails, and his body extended on 
 the cross between two malefactors. In all these suffer- 
 ings Christ displayed a supreme love towards God,a 
 deep submission to his will, an ardent desire to fulfil his 
 commission, the greatest confidence in his Father, the 
 greatest hatred of sin, and the greatest patience and love 
 towards mankind. His sufferings, also, were all in the 
 way of satisfaction, not only those which he sustained 
 during the three hours of the solar eclipse, while hang- 
 ing on the cross, and before he breathed out his soul, 
 but those also which he suffered from the beginning of 
 his life to his crucifixion. For he could not thus have 
 suffered, except as a surety; for if we do not admit the 
 idea of suretyship, Christ cannot be regarded in any 
 other light, than as an innocent person who ought not 
 to have suffered. 
 
 Christ not only suffered, but also died ; otherwise he 
 could not have satisfied God's justice; for justice de- 
 manded the death of the sinner, and God had denounced 
 this upon Adam; our surety, therefore, was obliged to 
 suffer it in our stead, nor could sin have been more ef- 
 fectually atoned for, than by the deepest humiliation of 
 the creature, such as death is; and by death Christ “ de- 
 stroyed him that had the power of death," (Heb. ii. 14.) 
 Nor should it seem strange that he died the death of the 
 cross, for we deserved a death on which rested the curse 
 of God; now that of the cross was an accursed death; 
 at least he who was crucified was pronounced accursed, . 
 and crucifixion was the sign of a curse resting upon him 
 who suffered, as it is written, * Cursed is every one that 
 hangeth on a tree,” (Deut. E 23.) It was necessary, 
 
 * 
 
258 OF THE SUFFERINGS AND DEATH OF CHRIST. 
 
 therefore, that our surety should suffer such a death, to 
 deliver us from the curse. This the apostle teaches us, 
 saying * Christ hath redeemed us from the curse of the 
 law, being made a curse for us, for it is written, Cursed 
 is, &c." (Gal. iii. 13.) And so it bad been predicted, 
 
 * The assembly of the wicked inclosed me: they pierced _ 
 my hands and my feet :” (Psalm xxii 17.) forit isalmost ^ 
 universally agreed that the word pierced is the true 
 reading of this passage. There are various questions 
 raised about the form, the parts, and the size of the 
 cross; there is also a tradition that this cross was found 
 by the empress Helena, as it is recorded by Ambrose, 
 Paulus Ruffinus, Nicephorus, and others; but Eusebius 
 mentions nothing about it in his history, in his life of 
 Constantine, or in his Chronicle. 
 
 Christ was led away to the cross from the sentence of — . 
 the judge, after he had been arraigned at his bar,in or- . 
 der that by his condemnation to death, his satisfaction — 
 for our sins might be more evident, as it would not have 
 been if he had died a natural death. Nor will it be amiss 
 to observe, that Christ was judged by a Gentile author- 
 ity, in order that it might appear that “the sceptre had 
 departed from Judah." "The Gemara* of Babylon re- 
 cords a tradition that Christ was crucified on the even- 
 ing of the passover, and that a herald for forty days pre- 
 vious had proclaimed He who has deceived, imposed upon, — 
 and seduced Israel, is coming forth to suffer ; whoever 
 can make any defence for him, let him come forth and 
 
 roduce it; but they found no defence for him; there- 
 ae they hanged him on the cross on the evening of the 
 passover. : ; 
 
 We need not enlarge upon all those events which 
 either preceded or attended the death of Jesus, such as 
 the treachery of Judas, the backsliding of Peter, the ter- 
 giversation and sentence of Pilate, the seven last words 
 of Christ, the supernatural eclipse of the sun, the shak- 
 ing of the earth, the rending of the rocks and of the veil 
 of the temple, the opening of the graves; these events 
 are well known, and are copiously treated of by all com- 
 mentators. We will only remark, in reference to those 
 words of the Saviour, * My God, my God, why hast thou 
 forsaken me," that we must not imagine that he was 
 
 wl wu ww 
 
 * The Gemara contains the Jewish comments or explanations of 
 the Mishna, or collection of the Jewish traditions, which were drawn 
 up by one of the Rabbins about the middle of the second century. 
 
OF CHRIST'S BURIAL AND DESCENT INTO HELL. 259 
 
 entirely deserted by the Father, but only that the latter 
 withheld the sense of his favour, and the communica- 
 tions of comfort, until the Son had endured all the 
 punishment due tous. Therefore Christ, when he made 
 the complaint, yet still addresses God as his God. The 
 Saviour of the world, therefore, was not so forsaken, as 
 if the Deity entirely left the humanity it had assumed; 
 nor as if God suspended the communications of divine 
 
 -  holiness, with which the soul of Christ was always en- 
 
 dued ; nor as if God withdrew his protection, for he was 
 always at his Son's right hand, nor was the latter ever 
 left alone; but he is said to have been deserted, because 
 he was, for a short space of time, deprived of the sense 
 - divine love, and felt the wrath of God hanging over 
 im. 
 
 The fruits and effects of Christ's death are, satisfac- 
 
 ^ tion to God's justice, remission of sins, reconciliation 
 with God, complete redemption, entire victory over Sa- 
 tan, the world, and sin, together with the obtaining of 
 the heavenly inheritance. The death of Christ also 
 shows to us the deep misery of mankind, the punishment 
 due to our sins, the unspeakable love of Christ, and the 
 severity of divine justice. It is also a rich source of con- 
 solation, and a most powerful motive to Christian virtues, 
 
 CHAPTER XI. 
 
 OF CHRIST'S BURIAL AND DESCENT INTO HELL. 
 
 Tue death of Christ was followed by his burial, (Matt. 
 xxvii. 59, 60. Mark xv.43. Luke xxiii. 50.) This had 
 been predicted by Isaiah liii. 9, * He made his grave with 
 the wicked, and with the rich in his death," also in Psalm 
 xvi 10. Now Christ was buried, in order that we might 
 have no doubt whatever concerning his death; there- 
 fore Mark, not without reason, records that Pilate did 
 not give up the body for interment before he had fully 
 ascertained the fact of Christ's death. We may regard 
 it, indeed, as wisely ordained by providence that he 
 should be buried, not by enemies, who would not have 
 
260 OF CHRIST'S BURIAL 
 
 scrupled to bear him to the tomb halfalive, but by 
 friends, who would never have buried him while he was 
 yet breathing. He was also buried, in order that he 
 might gain a more glorious triumph, by delivering his 
 body from corruption, in the very grave which is the 
 habitation of death; and also that he might sanctify our 
 graves, so that we might no longer feel terror from 
 death, or from the grave, perfumed with the odour of 
 his life-giving death. " 
 
 We have a remarkable type of Christ's burial in 
 Jonah, mentioned by Christ himself, (Matt. xii. 40,) who 
 was in the whale's belly three days and three nights ; 
 which story was borrowed by the heathens, who pre- 
 tended that Hercules, having been swallowed up by the 
 dog Carcharias, sent by Neptune, remained in his sto- 
 mach three days, whence he was called rpéezepos, (1. €. he 
 of the three nights) and afterwards came out with the 
 loss of his hair. The time of Christ's continuance in the 
 grave was not three whole days; he expired on Friday, 
 about 3 o'clock in the afternoon, there being three hours 
 before the setting of the sun, which three hours are 
 reckoned as the first day; then followed the whole 
 sabbath from evening to evening, which was the second 
 day; night followed, at the morning dawn of which 
 Christ rose again. 
 
 He was laid in the grave of another; so great was his 
 poverty, that while alive he had not where to lay his 
 head, and when dead he needed the kindness of another 
 to supply him with a grave. Here we may take notice 
 that Christ was buried by Joseph of Arimathea, who had 
 been his secret disciple; one Joseph, the husband of 
 Mary, had taken charge of Christ at his birth; the other 
 Joseph took charge of him at his burial. With Joseph 
 was joined Nicodemus, who *brought a mixture of 
 myrrh and aloes, about a hundred pound weight," (John 
 xix. 39.) For it was the custom of the Jews to embalm 
 their bodies, which custom they derived from the Egyp- 
 tians, with this difference, that the latter having taken 
 out the bowels, anointed the inside, the former only the 
 outside, of the body. The form of the Jewish sepulchre 
 was very different from ours. The more wealthy persons 
 were accustomed to hew out a cave in a rock, which 
 had first an open space before the entrance, and then on 
 both sides the hollow part or cave, four cubits lower 
 than the open space, which hollow part again had its 
 cavities or niches, some eight, some thirteen, in which 
 
AND DESCENT INTO HELL. 261 
 
 the bodies were deposited. Christ’s was a new sepul- 
 chre, in order that no one might have it to say, that some 
 one else was buried in his stead, or that he was raised 
 up by the power of some other who had been buried 
 there before him. 
 
 As to the descent of Christ into hell, mentioned in the 
 Apostles’ Creed, it must be remarked first, that this ar- 
 ticle is omitted in almost all the ancient Creeds. Hence 
 Ruffinus, in the beginning of the eighth century, testifies 
 that this article is not read in any creed of the Eastern 
 churches, or in that of the Roman church, but only in 
 the creed of the Aquileian church. It is found, indeed, 
 in what is commonly called the Creed of Athanasius, 
 but it is very doubtful whether Athanasius was the 
 author of it, and whether this Creed was known to the 
 church before the sixth century. Some creeds, which 
 entertained this article of Christ’s descent into hell, al- 
 together left out that of his burial. It is not, however, 
 to be denied that the creed of Aquileia contained both 
 articles, and that the Arians, as Socrates relates, com- 
 posed a creed at Constantinople, in which they profess 
 their belief in Christ as dead and buried, and also as 
 having penetrated the places under the earth, an object 
 of terror to the infernal regions. It was believed by 
 many of the fathers that Christ really descended into 
 hell, as Justin Martyr, Clemens Alexandrinus, Irenzus, 
 Origen, Eusebius; and perhaps their- opinion was the 
 cause of this article being inserted in the Creed, 
 
 It is, however, not true that Christ descended into the 
 place of the damned, whatever those fathers believed; 
 for the soul of Christ, immediately upon its separation 
 from the body, went into paradise, according to his pro- 
 mise to the penitent thief, * To-day shalt thou be with 
 me in paradise,’ (Luke xxiii. 43.) For what reason 
 should he have gone down into hell? Was it that he 
 might there suffer any thing? But he finished every 
 thing on the cross. Was it to deliver the ancient 
 fathers? They had been already received into para- 
 dise. Was it to preach to departed spirits? Preaching 
 belongs only to the state of this life, not to the state of 
 the next. Was it to bring the condemned out of hell? 
 But, according to the scripture, their torment will have 
 noend. Was it to display his victory in the sight of 
 devils? In this case his descent into hell would rather 
 be a part of his exaltation, than of his humiliation; and, 
 besides, there was no need to descend thither to make 
 
262 OF THE RESURRECTION 
 
 his victory known to devils, for they could not be igno- 
 rant of it. But there is no occasion to contend much 
 about the meaning of this article; every one can inter- 
 pret it as he pleases, either of the spiritual torments of 
 Christ, with Calvin, Beza, and others, or of his lowest 
 condition under the dominion of death in the grave, and 
 in this sense there will be a striking antithesis between 
 his death and his resurrection to life, between the grave 
 and his ascension to heaven. Lastly, we must here 
 greatly adore the love of Christ, who was pleased to 
 continue for a time in the deepest humiliation, that he 
 might exalt us to the highest glory. 
 
 CHAPTER XII. 
 OF THE RESURRECTION AND ASCENSION OF CHRIST. 
 
 Havine treated of Christ’s humiliation, we must pass on 
 to his exaltation, of which there are three degrees, viz., 
 His resurrection from the dead, his ascension into hea- 
 ven, and his sitting at the right hand of God. To begin 
 with his resurrection. Christ would not have the apos- 
 tles doubt concerning it; for he not only announced it 
 by angels to the women, but confirmed it himself by his 
 frequent appearances, of which the scripture mentions 
 eleven, viz., to Mary Magdalene alone, to the women on 
 their return from the sepulchre, to the two disciples on 
 their way to Emmaus, to Simon Peter alone, to the dis- 
 ciples assembled in Jerusalem, Thomas being absent, to 
 all the disciples, eight days after, Thomas being with 
 them, to seven disciples at the sea of Tiberias, whi'e 
 fishing, to the eleven disciples on a certain mountain of 
 Galilee, to more than 500 brethren, to James by himself, 
 and lastly to all the apostles on the day of his ascension 
 on Mount Olivet. Besides these appearances, the mira- 
 culous outpouring of the Holy Spirit confirmed the truth 
 of Christ's resurrection; for this was a very striking 
 proofof his being alive. He also appeared after his as- 
 cension to Stephen, to Paul, and frequently to John, as 
 recorded in his Revelation. 
 
AND ASCENSION OF CHRIST. 263 
 
 Nor have we any reason to doubt the testimony of the 
 apostles; no one will believe that they were deceived, 
 since they testify of that which they had seen, and which 
 they had handled, as it were, not once, but frequently ; 
 still less will it be believed that they intended to deceive, 
 since by their testimony they brought upon themselves 
 so many evils—hatred, imprisonment, stripes, and death 
 itself, when at the same time it especially concerned them 
 to testify the very contrary, if Christ had not really risen, 
 because in this case they had been miserably deceived 
 by him. This resurrection had been foretold in many 
 places of the Old "Testament, (Psalm xvi. 10 ; Isaiah liii. 
 10, &c.) Hence Christ maintained his own resurrection 
 from the scripture, (Luke xxiv. 45, 46.) And Paul de- 
 clares that he “rose again according to the scriptures,” 
 (1 Cor. xv. 4.) It was also represented by various types, 
 as those of Noah, Isaac, Joseph, Moses, Jonah. He rose 
 again the third day after his burial, on the first day of 
 the week, very early in the morning ; and his resurrec- 
 tion was attended with an earthquake, and with the glo- 
 rious presence of angels. 
 
 Various reasons present themselves, on which the re- 
 surrection of Christ was founded. It concerned the 
 Father's honour, that the Son, having made full satisfac- 
 tion for sin, should not remain, as if guilty, under the 
 dominion of death. The Prince of life could not continue 
 any longer under the bonds of death, nor could the 
 divine nature permit his body, the temple of deity, to re- 
 main under the power of death. It was also rendered 
 necessary by all the offices which Christ had to perform. 
 As it had been necessary for him to die, in order to pur- 
 chase, it was also necessary for him to rise again, in 
 order to apply, the blessings of salvation. The resur- 
 rection was also necessary, as the foundation of the 
 faith and hope of the church ; for **if Christ be not raised, 
 our faith is vain, we are yet in our sins," (1 Cor. xv. 17.) 
 And so again, *If thou shalt confess with thy mouth the 
 Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God 
 hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved,” 
 (Rom. x. 9.) And Christ is said to have been “ declared 
 the Son of God with power, by the resurrection from the 
 dead," (Rom. i. 4.) Our faith, therefore, in the divinity 
 of Christ is confirmed by his resurrection. Moreover, he 
 rose again by his own power, as he expressly declared, 
 “Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it 
 up," (John ii. 19); and also that he “had power to lay 
 
264 OF THE RESURRECTION AND 
 
 down his life, and power to take it again,” (John x. 18.) 
 Yet this resurrection is oftener ascribed to the Father, 
 because, in the work of redemption, the Father stands 
 in the relation of a Judge, who, as he had “ delivered 
 Christ for our offences,” was bound to “raise him again 
 for our justification.” No rational person will ever be- 
 lieve that the disciples of Christ stole away his body 
 from the sepulchre, as the Jews pretend. The words of 
 the Christian poet Sedulius on this subjeet are worth 
 transcribing,— 
 
 Fare, improbe custos, - 
 Responde, scelerata cohors ; si Christus, ut audes 
 Dicere, concluso furtim productus ab antro 
 Sopitus jacuit, cujus jacet intus amictus? 
 Cujus ad exuvias sedet angelus? anne beati 
 Corporis ablator velocius esse putavit 
 Solvere contextum, quam devectare ligatum ? 
 Quum mora sit furtis contraria, cautius ergo 
 Cum Domino potuere magis sua lintea tolli. 
 
 Say, impious band of hireling keepers, say, 
 
 Jf, as ye dare assert, his followers stole 
 
 Christ's sacred body from the guarded tomb, 
 
 Whose funeral garb is this which lies within? 
 
 Could venturous thieves have thought it best to waste 
 The time in slow unloosing of the bands, 
 
 Nor bear away the corpse in grave-clothes wrapped ? 
 A long delay like this ill favours theft— 
 
 Tf theft were here, far likelier had it been 
 
 Lo take away the corpse and clothes and all. 
 
 His body was raised from the dead a glorious and 
 heavenly body, free from all imperfections, both those 
 which are merely animal, and those which sin has 
 brought into the world. If he ate and drank after his 
 resurrection, this did not arise from human want, but 
 entirely from his divine condescension, and also to de- 
 monstrate the reality of his resurrection. Yet it was 
 the same body in substance ; visible, and limited within 
 Space, as before, but different in its qualities. It is also 
 probable that his body had not that glory on earth which 
 it now has in heaven; and inthis manner he was pleased 
 to consult the weakness of his disciples, who would have 
 been much less able to bear the splendour of Christ's 
 glorified body, than the Israelites the shining face of 
 Moses, (2 Cor. iii. 7). We may add that Christ was 
 pleased to sojourn on earth forty days after his resurrec- 
 tion—not a shorter space of time, in order that there 
 
ASCENSION OF CHRIST. 265 
 
 might be full proof of his resurrection—not a longer, lest 
 he should countenance the error of his disciples, who im- 
 agined that they were again to enjoy the personal 
 presence of their Lord. 
 
 The benefits which flow to us from the resurrection 
 of Christ are, first, our Justification, (Rom. iv. 25.) For 
 God by releasing his Son from the prison of death, into 
 which he had been cast for our sins, declared thereby 
 that satisfaction had been made to his justice, even to 
 the uttermost farthing. Secondly, our Sanctification ; 
 whence we are said to be “ risen with him through faith 
 of the operation of God, who raised him from the dead,” 
 (Col. ii. 12). He received life, not only for himself, but 
 also for his people; and he who purchased the gift of the 
 Spirit by dying, conferred that gift by rising again. 
 Thirdly, the proof and pledge of our own resurrection. 
 Christ is “the first fruits; afterwards they that are 
 Christ's at his coming," (1 Cor. xv. 23.) “If the Spirit 
 of him that raised up Jesus from the dead dwell in you, 
 he that raised up Christ from the dead shall also quicken 
 your mortal bodies by his Spirit that dwelleth in you,” 
 (Rom. viii. 11). 
 
 The other step of Christ's exaltation is his ascension 
 into heaven, by which, on the fortieth day after his resur- 
 rection, in the presence of his disciples, he went up with 
 his glorified body from the earth, and from mount 
 Olivet, through the air and the visible heavens, into the 
 third or highest heavens. The scripture clearly records 
 this event, when it declares that he was received, carried, 
 or taken up into heaven, (Mark xvi. 19, Luke xxiv. 51; 
 Actsi. 9.) The prophecies concerning it are very plain. 
 Thus, Psalm Ixviii. 18, * Thou hast ascended on high,” 
 &c. A most illustrious type of Christ ascending to 
 heaven, was the High Priest, when entering once every 
 year into the Holy of Holies. Add to this the translation 
 of Enoch and Elijah to heaven; only these were carried 
 up by the power of another; Christ ascended by his 
 own power. The place from which he ascended was 
 Bethany, not that town situated beyond Mount Olivet, 
 fifteen furlongs from Jerusalem, (John xi. 18,) but a tract, 
 or part of mount Olivet. We reckon as fabulous what 
 is related by the ancients, namely, that in the place in 
 which Christ stood for the last time, it was not possible 
 to lay the pavement, when the empress, Helena, built a 
 church there; and that even the marks of his footsteps 
 were visible. Perhaps s dd arose from the words 
 
 o 
 
of Eusebius, who in his life of Constantine declares that — - 
 Helena paid a becoming reverence to the footsteps of the 
 Saviour ; this, which was said of Judea in general was 
 improperly applied to mount Olivet. Perhaps, also, the 
 error arose from mistaking the words of Zechariah, 
 
 * His feet shall stand in that day upon the mount of 
 Olives." 
 
 The cloud which received the Saviour, and carried 
 him up to heaven, was not intended as a vehicle, like 
 the chariot of Elijah, but was a visible symbol of the di- 
 vine Majesty. Every where, says Bede, the creature 
 does service to the Creator ; the stars point out his birth, 
 and veil him when suffering ; theclouds rcceive him ascend- 
 ing, and will accompany him when returning to judgment. 
 The heaven, to which he ascended, is not God himself, 
 nor heavenly glory and blessedness, but the third hea- 
 ven, the abode of the blessed, the sanctuary not made 
 with hands, into which our high priest was to enter, not 
 with the blood of others, but with his own. (Heb. ix. 24.) 
 *[ go," says Christ, “to prepare a place for you, that 
 where Iam ye may be also," (John xiv. 3.) * Seek those 
 things which are above, where Christ sitteth," &ec. (Col. 
 iii. 1.) Into this heaven Christ ascended, in the sight of 
 his apostles, and amidst the plaudits of angels, not by a 
 mere withdrawing of his visible presence, but by a real 
 and local translation of his human nature, as is clearly 
 laid down in the sacred scripture. Nor was the vast 
 distance of the heavens from the earth any obstacle to 
 his ascension; for although, according to the greatest 
 astronomers, the starry heaven is distant from us up- 
 wards of ninety millions of miles, and even although the 
 distance were greater, still we must allow it to be finite 
 or limited; and therefore it was possible for the distance 
 to be got over in a small space of time, since no motion 
 of any body can be imagined so swift, but that there 
 may be supposed a motion still swifter; and this we 
 shall easily conceive, when we consider the divine om- 
 nipotence, and the nature of a glorified body. 
 
 Now it concerned the glory of the Father, to raise his 
 only begotten Son, who had suffered so many things, to 
 that glory which he had merited. It was due to the Son 
 himself, to rejoice in the right which he had acquired, 
 and having gloriously vanquished his foes, to enter the 
 temple of glory in his triumphal chariot. There it was 
 necessary for him to appear, as a Priest, before the pre- 
 sence of God within the veil, after having offered his sac- 
 
 266 OF THE RESURRECTION AND 
 
ASCENSION OF CHRIST. 267 
 
 rifice on earth; so necessary indeed, that, as the apostle 
 argues, “ if he were on earth, he should not be a priest,” 
 (Heb. viii. 4.) There, too, it was necessary that he 
 should sit as a prophet, to teach the human race, and to 
 erect his throne as a king, that he might hold the reins 
 of government over the universe, and rule his church, 
 which was to be established in every part of it. The 
 salvation of the church also rendered his ascension ne- 
 cessary ; for it behoved Christ to ascend, that he might 
 open to us the kingdom of heaven, intercede on our be- 
 half, prepare a place for us, pour out his Holy Spirit, ele- 
 vate our minds to heavenly things, and assure us of our 
 own future ascension into heaven. And therefore by 
 this event faith and hope are strengthened, love is in- 
 creased, and numberless motives to holiness are furnish- 
 ed to us. 
 
 With regard to Christ’s sitting at the right hand of 
 God, which is so clearly mentioned in Scripture, (Psalm 
 cx. 1; Matt. xxii. 43, 44; Eph. i. 20; Rom. viii. 34,) this 
 is not to be understood literally, since God has neither a 
 right hand nor a left hand, but figuratively, to denote the 
 supreme dignity and dominion of Christ; the figure be- 
 ing borrowed from the custom of kings and great men, 
 who placed at their right hands those to whom they 
 wished to show distinguished honour. Thus Solomon's 
 mother sat at his right hand, (1 Kings ii. 19.) and the 
 mother of Zebedee’s children asked that her sons might 
 sit at the right and left hand of Christ in his kingdom. 
 Thus Suetonius relates that the emperor Nero placed 
 Tiridates, king of Armenia, beside him on his right 
 hand; and in the Sanhedrim, the father of the house of 
 
 judgment sat at the right hand of the chief of the assem- 
 ly, who communicated every thing to him. This session 
 therefore denotes the supreme majesty and glory of 
 Christ, who has been inaugurated as King and Head of 
 the church, and has received *a name above every 
 name," (Phil. ii. 9, 10; Eph. i. 20; Heb. i. 3;) and also 
 the supreme dominion which he exercises over all crea- 
 tures, as Paul explains it in 1 Cor. xv. 25, where the ex- 
 pression £o sit at the right hand, is explained by that of 
 réeigning—"* he must reign;” thus it denotes the regal 
 and judicial authority of the Saviour, as kings and 
 princes are accustomed to sit, when they exercise their 
 authority. It may also denote his rest after the termi- 
 nation of his laborious work—“ Sit thou at my right 
 hand, till I make thine enemies thy footstool," says the 
 
268 : OF THE MEDIATORIAL OFFICE 
 
 L3 LI 
 Father, thereby as it were taking upon himself the re- 
 mainder of the work, viz. thc subjugation of his enemies. 
 
 CHAPTER XIII. 
 OF THE MEDIATORIAL OFFICE OF CHRIST IN GENERAL. 
 
 Havina spoken of Christ's state, we must now speak of 
 his office; which is designated by various names, but 
 especially by the following: 1. By the name of Redeemer, 
 which particularly belongs to him, as having redeemed 
 us from the fourfold slavery of sin, the law, death, and 
 the devil; and that by paying a price, not in gold and 
 silver, but his own blood. 2. By the name of Saviour, 
 which is the same as Jesus, and which eminently applies 
 to Christ, who procured for us a deliverance, not tem- 
 poral, such as Moses and Joshua procured for Israel, but 
 a spiritual deliverance; and who has proclaimed it to us 
 in his gospel, and applies it to us by his Spirit, and who 
 will give us the full enjoyment of it at the last day. 3. 
 By the name of Christ, or Messiah, i. e. anointed, (Psalm 
 ii. 2; Dan. ix. 25.) because he was anointed, like the 
 kings, priests, and prophets of old, who were thus con- 
 secrated to their several offices. 4. By the names of 
 Immanuel, i. e. God with us, (Matt. i. 23.) the Servant of 
 the Lord, the Son of Man, the Angel of the Covenant, the 
 Captain of our Salvation, the Author and Finisher of 
 our faith, the Surety of the New Testament, and the Me- 
 diator, (Isaiah liii. 11; Dan. vii. 13; Mal. iii. 1; Heb. ii. 
 10; xii. 2; vii. 22; 1 Tim. ii. 5; Heb. viii. 16; ix. 15; 
 xii. 24.) 
 
 Now there are three characters in which a human me- 
 diator appears—that of a simple messenger or rather in- 
 terpreter for both parties, as Moses was, who stood be- 
 tween God and the Israelites, to deliver the word of the 
 former to the latter—that of an intercessor or advocate, 
 who undertakes to plead before one party in behalf of 
 the other—and that of a surety, who reconciles those 
 who are at variance, by making satisfaction to the of- 
 
OF CHRIST IN GENERAL. 269 
 
 - 
 
 fended, and engaging for the future obedience of the of- 
 fending party. Now in all these characters Christ is 
 our Mediator. For he was the messenger or interpreter 
 between God and us. He declared the will of God to 
 mankind, John i. 18, in which sense he is called the 
 “angel of the covenant,” (Mal. iii. 1.) and the “counsellor,” 
 (Isaiah ix. 6.) Again, he is our intercessor and advocate, 
 who pleads our cause before God, (1 John ii. 1.) Heis 
 also our Surety and Redeemer, who by his own blood 
 obtained for us peace with God, and performed all that 
 was necessary to be performed on the part of God, and 
 on the part of man. "That it may further appear in what 
 way Christ is our Mediator, we must examine what was 
 required in the person, and in the work of the Mediator. 
 With regard to the former, it behoved him to be man, to 
 be holy, and to be God. Man, because he was to die, 
 which could not be the case with God, or with an angel; 
 and also that we might have an easier access to him— 
 holy, because a sinner, being not acceptable to God as a 
 sinner, needs such a mediator, (Heb. vii. 26.) and God, 
 because a finite being cannot offer a price of infinite 
 value, nor endure the weight of God's displeasure. Now 
 Christ was all these—he was man, partaker of our flesh 
 and blood, and therefore capable of suffering—he was 
 holy, being entirely free from all sin—and he was “ God 
 over all, blessed for evermore,” the only Son of God, to 
 whom the Father can refuse nothing. As to his work, it 
 was required of our Mediator, to make satisfaction to 
 God, and to intercede for us; to subdue the heart of man, 
 and to destroy in us our hatred to God; to reconcile 
 man with the other creatures, and so to unite himself 
 with us, that we might be one body—all which Christ 
 fully performed, and still performs, by the merit of his 
 death, reconciling God to us, and procuring the pardon 
 of our sins, and continually interceding on our behalf; 
 and also by the power of his Spirit, uniting us to himself 
 dum faith, so that we on our parts are reconciled to 
 
 From what has been said we infer, that both the di- 
 vine and human nature of Christ are concerned in the 
 mediatorial work, all the parts of which required the 
 concurrence of both these natures, as we shall see pre- 
 sently. We infer also that Christ is our only mediator, 
 as the apostle expressly tells us, * There is one mediator 
 between God and men, the man Christ Jesus," (1 Tim. 
 ii. 5)) which is also evident pany what has been already 
 
270 OF THE MEDIATORIAL OFFICE OF CHRIST. 
 
 said concerning the necessary requirements in the me- 
 
 diator, viz., redemption and intercession, between which 
 the scripture makes no distinction; for no one can bea 
 
 mediator of intercession, who is not also of a ] 
 
 these are the two parts of mediation, which are insepar- 
 able, and which the apostle joins together, (1 John ii. 1, 
 2,) as under the law it belonged to the high priest alone 
 to enter into the sanctuary, and make intercession for 
 the people. 
 
 But this mediatorial office is divided into three parts, 
 viz. his prophetical, priestly, and kingly office. These 
 the scripture attributes to Christ, setting him forth some- 
 times as a prophet, (Deut. xviii. 15, 18; Isaiah Ixi. 1;) 
 sometimes as a priest, (Psalm cx. 4;) sometimes as a 
 king, (Psalm ii. 6.) The whole three offices are intro- 
 duced in Psalm cx., as also in Zech. vi. 12, 13, and in John 
 xiv. 6, where Christ calls himself * the way, the truth, and 
 the life;" and Paul declares that he *is made unto us 
 wisdom, and righteousness, and sanctification, and re-. 
 demption," (1 Cor.i.30.) There werethreethingsrequired 
 touching our salvation. This salvation was to be pro- 
 claimed, obtained, and applied ; Christ, therefore, was to 
 proclaim it as a prophet, to obtain it as a priest, to apply 
 itasa king. Again, by the fall these three effects were 
 produced: we were sunk in the deepest ignorance, we 
 incurred the hatred and curse of God, we became the 
 subjects of sin and death ; the first of these evils is rem- 
 edied by the prophetical office of Christ, the second by 
 his priesthood, the third by his kingly office. And with 
 this threefold office may correspond the three Christian 
 graces of faith, hope, and charity; faith embraces the 
 doctrine of the Prophet, hope relies upon the merit of 
 the Priest, and charity or love bows to the sceptre of the 
 King. There were three sorts of men who in this re- 
 spect were types of Christ, viz., prophets, kings, and 
 priests; but besides the infinite difference between the 
 types and the antitype, no single individual among the 
 former held these three offices at the same time. Mel- 
 chizedek indeed was both a king and a priest, and David 
 was a prophet and a king; and sometimes there were 
 found priests who were also prophets; and although 
 Moses was not only a prophet and leader of the people, 
 but also before Aaron's consecration, discharged the 
 office of the priesthood, (Exod. xxiv. 6—8,) this was an 
 extraordinary and particular case. To these three 
 offices Christ was consecrated by anointing ; hence he 
 
OF THE PROPHETICAL OFFICE OF CHRIST. 271 
 
 is called Messiah, and is said to have been anointed by 
 God with the “ oil of gladness,” (Psalm xlv. 7.) Now to 
 understand this, we must remember that the prophets, 
 and priests, and kings, of old were consecrated to their 
 respective offices by being anointed with oil; there is, 
 indeed, but one example of a prophet being anointed, 
 viz. that of Elisha, (I Kings xix. 16,) and even this an- 
 ointing might be understood figuratively of a simple ap- 
 pointment to the office; but the priests under the law, 
 the sons of Aaron, were anointed, as also the kings of 
 Judah. Now the oil with which Christ was anointed 
 was not the'typical oil, but the influence of the Spirit, 
 “the unction of the Holy one,” and his being anointed 
 with this implied both his appointment to this Mediato- 
 rial office, and the communication of the gifts necessary 
 for the discharge of this office. Christ was thus anointed 
 and consecrated, in his conception by the Holy Ghost ; 
 in his baptism, when the Holy Spirit visibly descended 
 "upon him, as he was about to enter on his public minis- 
 try; (Matt. iii. 17;) in his transfiguration, when the 
 Father commanded him to * be heard ;” (Matt. xvii. 5;) 
 and after his resurrection and ascension, when he was 
 “made both Lord and Christ," (Acts ii. 36,) and “a 
 name was given to him above every name,” (Phil. ii. 9.) 
 
 CHAPTER XIV. 
 OF THE PROPHETICAL OFFICE OF CHRIST. 
 
 To. begin with the first of these three offices, we ob- 
 serve, that it was most necessary; because there can be 
 no knowledge of God and divine things without revela- 
 tion; *thenatural man not receiving the things of God," 
 (1 Cor. ii. 14 ;) and because no condition is more wretch- 
 ed than that of man, sunk in ignorance of divine things ; 
 and no salvation can be expected in such a condition. 
 This being premised, in order to have a clear under- 
 standing of this office of Christ, we may consider what 
 
272 OF THE PROPHETICAL 
 
 are the duties of the prophetical office, and how Christ 
 performed these duties. 
 
 Now the duties of this office were to teach the way of 
 salvation, to foretel future events, and to confirm the 
 doctrine by miracles and by perfect holiness of life. Now 
 Christ did all these things ; for, first, he taught the way 
 of salvation, expounding the law, and preaching the gos- 
 pel. With respect to the law, he explained its true 
 meaning, he vindicated it from the false interpretations 
 of the Pharisees, and inculcated inward and spiritual 
 obedience, in opposition to the merely outward right- 
 eousness of those persons. With respect to the gospel, 
 he taught those saving mysteries, which were before 
 either unknown to men, or obscurely known, and which 
 had not been taught by the law or by nature. Again, 
 he foretold future events, such as the destruction of Je- 
 rusalem, and the end of the world, the calling of the 
 Gentiles, the abrogation of the ceremonial law, the per- 
 secutions of his followers, his own sufferings, crucifixion 
 and resurrection, the denial and the martyrdom of Peter, 
 the treachery of Judas, and the destinies of the church, 
 as revealed to John. Thirdly, he confirmed his doc- 
 trine by the most perfect holiness of life, by the most 
 stupendous miracles, and finally by his most precious 
 death. 
 
 Christ exercised this.office both immediately, i. e. in 
 his own person in the days of his flesh, and mediately, 
 by his ministers; and this too, both before his incarna- 
 tion, by the prophets, in whom, as Peter declares, * was 
 the Spirit of Christ," (1 Pet. i. 11,) and hence Christ is 
 said by the Spirit to have * preached to the spirits in pri- 
 .son" (i. e. the antediluvians who are now condemned in 
 hell; (1 Pet. iii. 19,) and also after his ascension, by his 
 apostles and other ministers. He also exercised this 
 office both externally, addressing the outward ears by 
 his word, and internally, by turning and moving the 
 heart by his Spirit. When he discharged his propheti- 
 cal office on earth, his hearers admired the authority, 
 wisdom, freedom, eloquence, and zeal of his instructions. 
 No one, indeed, can sufficiently admire the parables, the 
 exhortations and reproofs of Christ. There is nothing 
 which can be compared with the sayings of Christ, either 
 in the epistles of the apostles themselves, although there 
 is in them an extaordinary force and spirit, or in the 
 writings of the prophets, in which however we see a 
 certain sublimity, and a kind of modest vivacity. Who, 
 
OFFICE OF CHRIST. 273 
 
 indeed, is not astonished at the facility with which the 
 Saviour replied to the carefully prepared sophisms, the 
 difficult dilemmas, the puzzling questions, the entangling 
 subtleties, of the Pharisees and Sadducees; all of which 
 Christ disposed of in such a manner, that even his most 
 obstinate enemies were struck with amazement. 
 
 He far exceeded all other prophets, as the antitype 
 exceeds the type, and the body the shadow; they were 
 servants, Christ a Son, the Teacher of teachers ; they only 
 taught outwardly, he writes the law inwardly on the heart; 
 to them the Spirit was given only by measure, to him with- 
 out measure; the Spirit by which the prophets were in- 
 spired was not the spirit of the prophets, but the Spirit 
 with which Christ was filled was the Spirit of Christ; he 
 uttered his prophecies from no other influence than the 
 fulness of the Godhead dwelling in him; his sanctity 
 of life was unspotted, and his miracles were performed 
 by his own power. Ifthe prophets sometimes knew the 
 secrets of the heart by the revelation of God, even this 
 seldom occurred; whereas all things were “naked and 
 open” to Christ as God, and nothing was hid from his in- 
 finite knowledge. This prophetical office of Christ was 
 often foretold in the Old Testament, especially in that re- 
 markable passage,—“ A prophet shall the Lord your God 
 raise up unto you of your. brethren, like unto me,” 
 (Deut. xviii. 15,) which Peter applies to Christ, (Acts iii. 
 22.) And that God here speaks of the Messiah, is evi- 
 dent, not only because the words refer to one individual, 
 and not to more than one, but because God declares 
 that he shall be like unto Moses; and the Jews confess 
 that there has been yet no prophet like unto Moses. 
 Christ is said to be given **for a covenant of the people, 
 for a light of the Gentiles," (Isaiah xlii.6; xlix. 6.) He 
 is also introduced, saying, '* The Spirit of the Lord God 
 is upon me, because the Lord hath anointed me to 
 preach good tidings," &c, which words Christ declared to 
 be fulfilled in himself, (Luke iv. 21.) He is also called, 
 * the Angel of the Covenant, gusethe Counsellor,” « Eter- 
 nal wisdom," &c. 
 
E 
 
 274 OF THE PRIESTLY 
 
 CHAPTER XY. 
 
 . » 
 OF THE PRIESTLY OFFICE OF CHRIST. 
 
 Tue second part of Chris?s médiatorial office is his 
 Priesthood. The necessity of it is proved by the same 
 arguments which prove the necessity of satisfaction, 
 which therefore we need not repeat. Christ is set forth 
 under this character in scripture—* Thou art a priest 
 for ever, after the order of Melchizedek," (Psalm cx. 4.) 
 * And he shall be a priest upon his throne," (Zech. vi. 
 13.) And he is set forth under this character in the 
 whole of the Epistle to the Hebrews. His priesthood 
 was shadowed by various types, especially by the Levi- 
 tical priesthood, and that of Melchizedek. He was called 
 to the office by his Father; for * Christ glorified not him- 
 self to be made an high priest; but he that said unto him, 
 Thou art my Son, to-day have I begotten thee," (Heb. v. 
 5.) The office of a priest was to perform these three 
 things,— First, “to offer gifts and sacrifices for sins,” 
 (Heb. v. 1.) Secondly, to intercede for the people, (Joel 
 ti. 17,) which was the peculiar office ofthe high priest on 
 the day of atonement, when he entered into the holy of 
 holies with the censer of coals, and the blood of the goat, 
 ‘Lev. xvi 12, 15.) Thirdly, to bless the people, (Num. 
 vi. 23; Deut. xxi. 5.) 
 
 Now all these things Christ performed; for first, he 
 offered a sacrifice for sins—* through the eternal Spirit 
 he offered himself without spot to God," and *by one 
 offering hath perfected for ever them that are sanctified," 
 (Heb. ix. 14; x. 14.) By this oblation of himself Christ 
 hath truly satisfied for us, as is proved from those places 
 in which he is said to have redeemed us by the price of 
 his blood ; for where a price comes in, there is real satis- 
 faction, (Matt. xx. 28; 1 Cor. vi. 20; 1 Pet. i. 18) From 
 these and similar places it is clear that our redemption 
 was not effected merely by free manwmission, as in the 
 case of slaves, who are set at liberty by their masters; 
 although we are said to be saved by the grace of God ; 
 nor merely by an exertion of power, as when captives 
 
OFFICE OF CHRIST. 275 
 
 are rescued from the hand of the enemy; although we 
 have been delivered from Satan's tyranny by the mighty 
 hand of the victorious Redeemer; nor yet by a simple 
 exchange, such as usually takes place in war; although 
 indeed Christ was put into our place; but our redemp- 
 tion was effected by a just and proper satisfaction in 
 the payment ofa price. The same truth is evident from 
 those passages in which Christ is called an “offering” 
 for men, and a * propitiation," (Eph. v. 2; Heb. ix. 14, 
 28; Rom. iii. 25; 1 John ii. 1; iv. 10.) The latter ex- 
 pression alludes either to the expiatory sacrifices of the 
 Old Testament, or to the covering of the mercy-seat. 
 Also, from those passages in which he is said to have 
 * borne our sins," to have been “ wounded, afflicted, 
 dead." (Isaiah liii. 5—7 ; 1 Pet. ii. 24,) and especially in 
 which he is said to have been made * sin," and **a curse 
 for us,” (2 Cor. v. 21; Gal. iii. 13.) We may add those 
 passages, in which Christ is set forth to us as the true 
 priest, properly so called, superior to all the Levitical 
 priests, who by the offering of himself hath appeased the 
 wrath of God, and obtained eternal salvation, and in 
 which we are said to be “reconciled to God by his 
 blood," (Rom. v. 10; Col. i. 20.) Nor is it strange that 
 men are said to be reconciled to God, and not God to be 
 reconciled to them; for this is the common way of 
 speaking among all nations; when a prince is offended 
 with a subject, if the subject make satisfaction to the 
 prince, he is said to be reconciled to the prince, not the 
 prince to the subject (though the latter is also the case). 
 So our Lord exhorts a man who * remembers that his 
 brother hath aught against him," £o be reconciled to that 
 brother, because he has offended him; and thus the 
 heathen expressed themselves; for Tecmessa is intro- 
 duced saying that Ajax had come ds xaraMax0g Ocdts xoMe, 
 that he might be reconciled to the gods on account of 
 their anger. We may observe under this head that not 
 only has Christ made a real, but also a perfect satis- 
 faction; which cannot be doubted, when we consider 
 the dignity of his person, which gave an infinite value 
 to his sacrifice, and when we look at the plain testimony 
 of scripture, which says that * by one offering he hath 
 erie for ever them that are sanctified.” Heb. x. 
 Secondly, Christ intercedes for us, like the high priest, 
 who, after he had offered the victim on the altar, carried 
 its blood into the holy place, and there prayed for the 
 
276 OF THE PRIESTLY 
 
 people. The necessity of this intercession is sufficiently 
 shown, not only because it was not enough to have pur- 
 chased salvation, unless it were perpetually secured and 
 applied; but also because we are not such characters as 
 can draw near to God of ourselves, and therefore have 
 need of a most influential advocate to plead our cause 
 before God, against the continual accusation of the 
 devil. But when we say that Christ intercedes, we 
 must not imagine that he falls down at the feet of his 
 Father, or uses any prostration of his body, as a sup- 
 pliant ; for this idea is inconsistent with the glorified 
 state and kingly authority, which he possesses both in 
 heaven and in earth. It simply means, if I may so ex- 
 press it, Christ's continual appearance in heaven before 
 the Father; for the Father cannot look upon him with- 
 out being appeased ; and thus his appearance is equiva- 
 lent to intercession, and has the same effect, as if Christ 
 were to fall before his Father covered and stained with 
 his own blood, and display before him his wounds and 
 scars; thus the blood of Abel is said to have spoken or 
 cried out. It may denote, also, his unchangeable pur- 
 pose of saving his elect, and also his presentation of our 
 persons and prayers for acceptance before God ; thus he 
 is represented as the “ angel with the golden censer and 
 incense to be offered with the prayers of the saints,” 
 (Rev. viii. 3.) Now this intercession is opposed to the 
 twofold accusation, which the devil, *the accuser,” 
 brings against us, and which our own sins bring against 
 us, provoking the anger of God. 
 
 Thirdly, Christ blesses us, like the priests whose mode 
 of blessing is recorded in Num. vi. 23, but this blessing 
 of Christ does not consist in bare words, like the blessing 
 of man, but in the real communication of “ spiritual bless- 
 ings.” 
 
 The priesthood of Christ far excelled the Levitical 
 priesthood. The Levitical priests were mere men; 
 Christ was the true Son of God. They were sinners 
 who “needed to offer for themselves also ;” He was holy 
 and undefiled, who needed to offer for us only. They 
 were different from the victims which they offered; he 
 was the priest and the victim at the same time. They 
 were many in number; he was one, who needed no sub- 
 stitute or successor. Again, the Levitical priesthood was 
 instituted “without an oath;” the priesthood of Christ 
 * with an oath,” (Heb. vii. 20,21.) The former was “ac- 
 cording to the law of a carnal commandment ;” i. e. with 
 
OFFICE OF CHRIST. 971 
 
 various ceremonies of an external and transitory nature, 
 which were adapted to the mortal and perishing condition 
 of human nature (for God had declared that the priest- 
 hood of Aaron should not be perpetual, and therefore 
 provided successors continually); the latter was “after 
 the power of an endless life;" i.e. according to a law 
 adapted to the nature and condition of Christ, whose life 
 cannot be destroyed by any casualty, nor perish after 
 any series of ages. Moreover, the Levitical priesthood 
 was “weak and unprofitable,” only expiating sins typi- 
 cally ; but that of Christ really expiates all sin, and is ef- 
 fectual to our justification and sanctification; the former 
 was imperfect, and therefore repeated its sacrifices; but 
 the latter was perfect, and needed no repetition of its 
 sacrifice; and finally, the one only lasted a certain time, 
 the other is eternal. We may just add that Christ is 
 said to be *a priest after the order of Melchizedek," be- 
 cause, like Melchizedek, he had no successor, or prede- 
 cessor, and because he is the true * king of righteousness 
 and peace," * without father," in regard to his human 
 nature, * without mother," as it respects his divine na- 
 ture, uniting in himself the kingdom and priesthood, like 
 Melchizedek, who was both a king and priest, and who 
 is said to be * without father and mother," because the 
 names of his parents were not written in the genealogy ; 
 and who had * neither beginning of days, nor end of life," 
 because his birth and death are not recorded, thus repre- 
 senting the eternity of Christ, who is *from everlasting 
 to everlasting." 
 
 The fruits of Christ's priesthood are, full satisfaction to 
 God's justice—our reconciliation with God—remission of 
 our sins—the gift of the Spirit, of faith, hope. love, and 
 other graces—the opening of heaven—and the betrothing 
 of the church to himself. By the discharge of his priestly 
 office, the Saviour displayed the great love of God to- 
 wards mankind, his own matchless love towards them, 
 and the deep hatred of God against sin. We should 
 therefore learn hence to hate sin “ with a perfect hatred,” 
 but at the same time to repose the fullest trust and con- 
 fidence in Christ, and to love him with all the power of 
 our souls. 
 
^ 
 
 278 OF THE KINGLY 
 
 E 
 
 CHAPTER XVI. 
 OF THE KINGLY OFFICE OF CHRIST. 
 
 Curist’s mediatorial office, in the third place, is kingly. 
 His dominion is of two kinds, the one essential, which he 
 possesses with equal glory and majesty with the Father 
 and the Holy Ghost; the other mediatorial, which he 
 possesses as Mediator, and of which we are now to 
 speak. This regal dignity is predicted in many places 
 of the Old Testament, (Psalm ii. 6; Ixxii. Ixxxix. cx. 
 Isaiah ix. 5, 6; xi. Zech. vi. 13; ix. 9,) and was remark- 
 ably typified by the reigns of David and Solomon, the 
 former of whom represented Christ suffering and mili- 
 tant, the latter, Christ reigning and triumphant: hence 
 the angel in announcing his birth declared, that he should 
 * reign over the house of Jacob," (Luke i. 33.) 
 
 Now the office of a king is to enact laws,to govern the 
 people, and to defend them against their enemies, all 
 which things Christ performed. For he has given us his 
 laws; his law is the gospel, “the law of liberty, the law 
 of the spirit of life,” by which he hath * brought life and 
 immortality to light," and which is accompanied by the 
 influences of the Holy Spirit in his people. According 
 to these laws he governs his people, with righteousness, 
 wisdom, mercy, and holiness, and he will also judge the 
 world according to them. He protects and defends his 
 subjects, and renders them victorious over all their ene- 
 mies; in short, the administration of Christ's kingdom 
 may be rightly said to consist in the calling and gather- 
 ing in, in the preservation and government, in the pro- 
 tection and defence, and at length in the full and com- 
 plete glorification of his church. Such a king we needed, 
 —one who could apply and preserve the salvation he had 
 purchased, and under whose protection we might be se- 
 cure against all the powers of the world and of hell. 
 
 The subjects of this kingdom are all Christian believers. 
 The arms of the King are his word and his grace; the 
 enemies of his government are lies, errors, superstitions, 
 idolatry; in short, Satan, sin, death, and the world. It 
 is a spiritual, not an earthly kingdom; which latter as- 
 
OFFICE OF CHRIST. 279 
 
 a 
 
 saults, or is assaulted with carnal weapons and forces, 
 and which professes to dethrone kings. Its king is a 
 spiritual king, the Lord from heaven; its throne is the 
 heart of man, therefore it is called “ the kingdom of hea- 
 ven;” its sceptre is the word of the gospel; its subjects, 
 spiritual men, born not of flesh, but of God; its govern- 
 ment is not by might of arms, but by the Spirit ; its laws 
 are spiritual, its weapons spiritual, its blessings spiritual, 
 being the remission of sins, righteousness, the gift of the 
 Spirit, and eternal life. 
 
 The commencement of this regal dignity was discover- 
 able during the life of Christ. It was seen in his birth, 
 when the wise men worshipped him; in his life, as when 
 Nathanael called him “ the king of Israel,” and when he 
 made his triumphant entrance into Jerusalem; and in 
 the very moment of death, when even Pilate, though un- 
 intentionally, acknowledged him to bea king: but he 
 gave the clearest proofs of his royalty after his resurrec- 
 tion and ascension, when he sent down the Spirit from 
 heaven, gathered in his church through the apostles, 
 subjected to himself the kingdoms of the world, and be- 
 gan to overthrow antichrist. This mediatorial kingdom 
 may be regarded under three characters—as the king- 
 dom of power over all things, angels as well as men, but 
 with a particular reference to the church ;—as the king- 
 dom of grace, set up in the church militant ;—as the 
 kingdom of glory, which is established over the church 
 triumphant. 
 
 This kingdom will be everlasting; Christ will be 
 always acknowledged the king and head of the faithful, 
 though there will be a different mode of administration. 
 For after the last judgment, Christ will no longer govern 
 the church through ecclesiastical ministrations; he will, 
 as it were, give up to God the disposal of his office, and 
 will present the church before his Father’s presence, “a 
 glorious church ;” and then the eternal God will, without 
 the interposition of a mediator, communicate himself to 
 his saints; and thus “ God will be all in all.” (1 Cor. xv. 
 24, 28.) Then Christ also himself, as it regards his 
 human nature, will be subject to God, yet without any 
 diminution of the glory he enjoys. 
 
 But we must not omit here, that Christ admits us into 
 some sort of participation in his three offices, since he 
 gives us that “unction” or “anointing,” which makes 
 us kings, priests, and prophets. That the faithful are 
 made prophets is inferred from various passages in 
 
280 OF THE COVENANT OF GRACE. 
 
 which they are said to be “taught of God,” (Isaiah liv. 
 13; John vi. 45,) “to have an unction from the Holy 
 One, and to know all things," (1 John ii. 20.) They are 
 under an obligation, as the prophets of old, to teach 
 others, to maintain the truth, to contend with errors 
 and vices, to profess the name of Christ, to promote his 
 kingdom, and to *show forth the praises of him who 
 hath called them out of darkness into his marvellous 
 light ;" not to mention, that in the infancy of Christianity, 
 many received the gift of prophecy. That they are also 
 made kings and priests, Peter teaches us, (1 Peter ii. 9, 
 and John, Rev.i. 6.) Their priesthood consists in their 
 being near to God; so that they can approach freely at 
 any time; in their offering the sacrifices of praise, 
 thanksgiving, and devoted obedience; in their frequent 
 attendance on the sanctuary and ordinances of God; 
 and in their sacrificing the old man and its affections and 
 lusts before God. They are also kings, seeing that God 
 hath given them “all things," (1 Cor. iii. 21,22.) They 
 are inaugurated in baptism; they overcome the world ; 
 they subdue their sins, and the lusts of the flesh; they 
 tread Satan under their feet; they possess the spiritual 
 riches of the divine word and the divine grace; and 
 they look forward in hope to a crown of glory. 
 
 CHAPTER XVII. 
 OF THE COVENANT OF GRACE. 
 
 Tue first covenant having been broken by the fall of 
 man, the justice of God could have inflicted punishment ; 
 but we have beheld him pitying the human race, and 
 giving his Son to satisfy justice by his death, and thereby 
 entering into anew covenant with mankind; concerning 
 this covenant we must now speak a little more particu- 
 larly. It will not be amiss to observe here, that the 
 scripture appears to intimate a certain covenant be- 
 tween the Father and the Son; by which, however, we 
 understand no more than the will of the Father giving 
 
F AU 
 
 OF THE COVENANT OF GRACE, 281 
 
 the Son to be the Head and Redeemer of men, and the 
 will of the Son in giving himself as a surety for them; 
 for the scripture represents the Father as requiring from 
 the Son obedience unto death, and in return promising 
 to him a name above every name; and the Son as offer- 
 ing to do the will of God, and accepting the promise of 
 a future kingdom and glory. The Father is introduced 
 as speaking to the Son in this manner,—*I have called 
 thee in righteousness, I will give thee for a covenant of 
 the people—that thou mayest be my salvation to the 
 ends of the earth," (Isaiah xlii. 6; xlix. 6); and therefore 
 the Son is represented as saying, * This commandment 
 have I received of my Father," (John x. 18.) Again the 
 Father is introduced as saying, * He shall see his seed, 
 and the pleasure of the Lord shall prosper in his hand"— 
 ** Ask of me, and I shall give thee the heathen for thine 
 inheritance,” (Isaiahliii. 10; Psalm ii. 8); and the Son as 
 saying, * Lo, I come to do thy will, O God. I have glo- 
 rified thee on the earth, I have finished the work which 
 thou gavest me to do, and now, O Father, glorify me," 
 &c. (Psalm xl. 7, 8; John xvii. 4, 5.) 
 
 God having thus entered into covenant with our 
 Surety Christ Jesus, was pleased alsoto enter into cove- 
 nant with us in him. Now this covenant we define to 
 be, a free and gratuitous agreement between an offended 
 God and offending man, in which God promises to man 
 pardon and salvation through the merits and satisfaction 
 of Christ, and man on his part promises faith and obe- 
 dience. The only author of this covenant is God, who 
 alone could raise fallen man, and make a new covenant 
 in the place of the old. God is here considered as 
 offended, but at the same time as a merciful Father, 
 capable of being propitiated, and willing to be reconciled 
 to offending man. Man, with whom the covenant is en- 
 tered into, is considered as a sinful creature, but con- 
 scious of his guilt and misery. The Mediator of the 
 covenant is Christ. In this covenant God promises that 
 he will be our God, which promise includes both our 
 reconciliation and communion with him, and also the 
 communication of those good things which are neces- 
 sary for us, particularly holiness, life, and immortality. 
 Again, God requires from us that we should be Ais peo- 
 ple, namely, he requires of us faith, repentance, worship, 
 and obedience, all which he produces in us by his Spirit. 
 The seals of this covenant are the sacraments. It is 
 called the new covenant, EOD the old is abolished, 
 
282 OF THE COVENANT OF GRACE. 
 
 and the covenant of grace, because man in no way 
 whatever could merit it, but God of his mere mercy 
 entered into it with man; and also to distinguish it from 
 the first covenant, which is called the covenant of works, 
 which was entered into with Adam, and renewed on 
 Mount Sinai. 
 
 These two covenants indeed agree with each other in. 
 various particulars :—of both, God is the author ; in both 
 there are the same contracting parties; in both is pro- 
 mised eternal life and happiness: but they differ also in 
 many respects; in the covenant of works God is con- 
 sidered as Creator and Lord, in the covenant of grace 
 as Redeemer and Father ; in the first there were was no 
 mediator, in the second Christ is the Mediator; in the 
 one God dealt with man as upright, in the other he deals 
 with man as a sinner; the former depended on man's 
 own obedience, the latter depends on the obedience of 
 Christ ; in the former was promised /ife, namely, a state 
 consisting of all good things; in the latter is promised 
 salvation, which, along with life, includes also deliver- 
 ance from sin and death; in the first God required. 
 works, saying, Do this and live; in the second he re- 
 quires faith, saying, Believe, and thou shalt be saved. 
 The covenant of grace does indeed require works of 
 righteousness, but not that we may merit eternal life by — 
 them ; nor does the imperfection of Christian obedience, 
 provided it be sincere, stand in the way of our salvation. 
 
 Since the covenant of grace was made in Christ, it 
 may be inquired, whether it was in operation under the 
 Old Testament, before Christ’s coming; the answer, 
 however, is easy. We can have no doubt that it did 
 operate under that Testament, when we consider, that 
 the covenant of grace under the New Testament is the 
 same with the covenant formerly made with Abraham. 
 (Luke i. 68, 70, 72, 73.) Hence the apostle adduces the 
 justification of Abraham by faith as a pattern of our 
 justification. (Rom. iv.) Nor was there anything set 
 forth in the covenant under the New Testament, that 
 was not set forth to Abraham, renewed to Moses, and 
 confirmed both during and after the captivity. There 
 was the same Mediator under the Old as under the New 
 Testament, namely, the seed of the woman, the seed of 
 Abraham, the messenger of the covenant, even Christ, 
 “the same yesterday, and to-day, and for ever,” (Heb. 
 xiii. 8,) by whose grace the fathers were saved equally 
 with ourselves. (Acts xv. 11. And let it not seem 
 
OF THE COVENANT OF GRACE. 283 
 
 strange, that the fathers were saved by Christ’s death, 
 although he appeared in the world after their death ; for 
 moral causes may be in operation before they are made 
 manifest. We observe farther, that the condition of the 
 covenant was the same under both dispensations, 
 namely, faith, which was *imputed unto Abraham for 
 righteousness; (Gen. xv. 6,) and that there were the 
 same promises, such as justification, remission of sins, 
 santification, and eternal life; for Abraham is said to 
 have *looked for a city which hath foundations," and 
 Jacob declared that he * waited for the salvation of the 
 Lord." (Psalm xxxii. 1,2; Jer. xxxi. 34; Deut. xxx. 6; 
 Ezek. xxxvi. 26; Heb. xi. 10; Gen. xlix. 18.) Job also 
 declares that he * knew his Redeemer lived," (Job xix. 
 25); and David was persuaded of his own resurrection. 
 Itis true, the promises of the New Testament are said to 
 be * better," (Heb. viii. 6), but this is said, because they 
 are more clearly set forth, more deeply impressed, and 
 more widely extended; otherwise no promises can be 
 more excellent than those which were made to Abra- 
 ham, Isaac, and Jacob. The sacraments, also, both of 
 the Old and New Testament signified the same Saviour, 
 and the same blessings. 
 
 But although the covenant of grace existed under the 
 Old Testament, yet there is a difference between the 
 two economies, not in the substance of the covenant, 
 but in the mode of the dispensation. The old dispensa- 
 tion looked to Christ as yet to come, the new to Christ as 
 already come. The period ofthe old dispensation was the 
 period of night, the Sun of Righteousness having not yet 
 arisen: for divine mysteries were covered with the veil 
 of ceremonies ; the face of Moses had a veil over it, and 
 therefore the Apostle says that “the way into the holiest 
 of all was not yet made manifest." (Heb. ix. 8.) But the 
 period of the new dispensation is that of the day, the 
 veil of ceremonies and types being withdrawn; whence 
 we are said * with open face to behold the glory of 
 the Lord." (2 Cor. iii. 18.) The one had the shadow 
 of future good things, the other the substance; un- 
 der the former was the spirit of bondage, seeing that 
 the Spirit of God stirred up in the ancient saints mo- 
 tions agreeable to the condition of servants; under 
 the latter is the spirit of liberty, the spirit of adop- 
 tion; for “where the spirit of the Lord is, there is 
 liberty." (2 Cor. iii. 17.) The old economy also was 
 very severe, exacting a rigid obedience to the law, there- 
 
284 OF THE COVENANT OF GRACE. 
 
 by compelling men to look forward to Christ; but the 
 new economy is mild and gracious, more frequently re- 
 sounding with evangelical promises, without however 
 excluding injunctions of obedience to the law; and be- 
 sides, there is added a larger effusion of the Holy Spirit's 
 comforting and sanctifying influences. Lastly, the old 
 economy was confined to one nation, and was destined 
 to last only till the first coming of Christ; whereas the 
 new is extended to all nations alike, and will remain till 
 Christ's second and final advent. 
 
 But because on this subject the expressions which di- 
 vines are accustomed to use, are very often confounded, 
 we must observe, that the name of the old covenant is 
 sometimes given to that covenant, which was entered 
 into with our first parents before the fall, and which was 
 renewed on Mount Sinai; and sometimes to the cove- 
 nant of grace, which was established with our first pa- 
 rents after the fall, and was confirmed under the old dis- 
 pensation. Hence it happens that there is a different 
 mode of expression ; sometimes speaking of the old cov- 
 enant as altogether different from the new, since in this 
 case by old covenant is meant the covenant of works 
 made with innocent Adam; at other times saying, that 
 the old differs only from the new covenant in the mode 
 or manner, the old covenant here meaning the covenant 
 of grace made after the-fall. Should any one ask why 
 the covenant of grace, being one and the same, was dis- 
 pensed in a different mode, first obscurely, then clearly, 
 it may be answered, that it was agreeable to the divine 
 wisdom to deal in one way with the church, while in its 
 infancy and childhood, in another way when it arrived 
 at years of maturity ; and also, that it was consistent 
 with the nature of things for the times or periods to be 
 darker, in proportion to their distance from the rising of 
 the Sun of Righteousness. 
 
OF THE ABOLITION OF THE LAW. 285 
 
 CHAPTER XVIII. 
 OF THE ABOLITION OF THE LAW. 
 
 Berore we leave this part of the subject, some questions 
 are to be settled. First, it may be inquired whether the 
 moral law is altogether abrogated under the New Tes- 
 tament. To this we reply—that this law has no longer 
 that use which it had in the state of innocence, when it 
 was the means of obtaining life and happiness: it can 
 now no longer justify. (Rom. iii. 20; Gal. iii. 12.) Be- 
 lievers also are no longer under the curse of the law, 
 since * Christ hath redeemed them from it, being madea 
 curse for them." (Gal. iii. 13.) Yet the law is not abolish- 
 ed with regard to moral regulation; since it is always a 
 perfect rule of conduct, the brightest transcript of God's 
 purity, most clearly delineating the features of inward 
 and outward rectitude, and therefore we are bound to 
 observe it. It is also a bridle to restrain the passions of 
 men, which would otherwise break out, and a mirror, 
 in which we see our own sinfulness and weakness, and 
 the just judgment of God against sinners. Now we 
 prove that the morallaw is not in this sense abrogated, 
 because Christ and the apostles commend it, and incul- 
 cate the observance of it, (Matt. xxii. 36, 37; Rom. xiii. 
 8, 9,) and because without good works we can expect 
 no salvation, for * without holiness no man shall see the 
 Lord." (Heb. xii. 14.) Christ has delivered us from the 
 curse of the law, but not from the obligation of obedi- 
 ence to God, which is indispensable to the creature; 
 nay, *being made free from sin," we thereby * become 
 the servants of righteousness.” (Rom. vi. 18.) If we are 
 no longer “under the law,” as a covenant to obtain life, 
 as Adam was; or under it as a schoolmaster, as the Is- 
 raelites were; yet we are under it, as a perfect rule of 
 conduct, according to which we must rightly frame our 
 lives and conversation. Nor should we be deterred 
 from obeying it, on the ground of its increasing or a 
 ing strength to sin, (Rom. vii. 5, 8, 13,) for this is only 
 accident, through the corruption of man, who is inclii 
 
 to forbidden objects; as a high-mettled horse more. 
 
286 OF THE ABOLITION 
 
 proudly resists his rider, the more tightly he is checked 
 by the bridle; neither should we be deterred on the 
 ground of the law being “the letter that killeth,” (2 Cor. 
 lii. 6,) for it is thus called, when we consider it apart 
 from the promises of grace, and in contradistinction to 
 the ministration of the gospel. 
 
 The case is not the same with the ceremonial as with 
 the moral law: for although it is useful to meditate on 
 the doctrine which is represented under that law, yet 
 the faithful are not at all obliged to observe it. “Christ 
 having been now manifested, there is no further need of 
 a schoolmaster; (Gal. iii, 25,) and the distinction be- 
 tween nations having been taken away by Christ, there 
 is no occasion for “the middle wall of partition ;" (Eph. 
 ii 14,) while, the debt having been paid by him, “the 
 hand-writing is blotted out.” (Col. ii. 14.) In short, the 
 truth having been exhibited, there is no more room for 
 Jigures. Now the abolition of this law had been pre- 
 dicted, along with the promise of the new covenant, (Jer. 
 xxxi. 31, 32, &c.) and also in Dan. ix. 24—27, where the 
 Messiah, it is said, “shall seal up the vision and the pro- 
 phecy, and cause the sacrifice and the oblation to cease ;” 
 and in Psalm cx. 4, where a new priest is foretold; for, 
 according to the apostle, “ the priesthood being changed, 
 there is made of necessity a change also of the law,” 
 (Heb. vii. 12.) To which we may add what is said con- 
 cerning the taking away of “the ark of the covenant,” 
 (Jer. iii. 16, 17.) 
 
 Further, let it be observed, that the ceremonial law 
 was only made for the Israelites ; it was abrogated when 
 the Gentiles were called to the knowledge of God ; hence 
 the apostles require from us no other than spiritual sac- 
 rifices, Rom. xii. l. 1 Peter ii. 5.) The true God is no 
 longer to be worshipped at Jer usalem, the temple being 
 destroyed; he is every where to be worsbipped “in spirit 
 and in truth.” Indeed how could it be possible, that the 
 Indians, the Europeans, or the inhabitants of the most 
 distant regions north or west, should go to Jerusalem 
 three times every year to keep the festivals ; and be con- 
 tinually travelling thither, as often as they happened to 
 contract any guilt or impurity 2 what city, or what 
 country could be capable of containing them? whence 
 could they procure so many victims, and altars for so 
 many victims? whence could they obtain a sufficient 
 supply of frankincense, oil, and salt? "The more ration- 
 al Jews acknowledged the impossibility of all this, and 
 
 Án 
 
OT THE LAW. 287 
 
 fherefore maintained, that many of the ceremonies were 
 not originally designed by God ; that they were figures 
 and representations of spiritual things; that in the time 
 of the Messiah they would be allowed to eat swine's 
 flesh, and other things unclean; that all the festivals, 
 except two, would be done away; and that all the 
 sacrifices would be abolished, except that of thanks- 
 giving. 
 
 The ceremonial law was virtually abolished by the 
 death of Christ, who on the cross * blotted out the hand- 
 writing of ordinances that was against us;" but its 
 actual abolition was accomplished at different times and 
 by degrees. The ceremonies were not done away im- 
 mediately after Christ’s ascension; hence the apostles 
 observed them, partly that they might win or conciliate 
 the Jews, partly that they might put an end to the old 
 dispensation in the most decent and becoming manner. 
 Paul would have Timothy to be circumcised; he per- 
 formed his vow of shaving his head; and the apostles 
 assembled in the council at Jerusalem, though they 
 would not impose on the Christians the intolerable yoke 
 of ceremonies, yet commanded them to “ abstain from 
 meats offered to idols, and from things strangled, and 
 from blood,” (Acts xv. 20, 29,) because the Jews, chiefly 
 on account of these things, professed their aversion to 
 the Gentiles. Yet were these ceremonies, which were 
 observed for a time, afterwards abrogated by the apos- 
 tles, when they saw them abused by the Jews and false 
 prophets; hence Paul would not circumcise Titus, and 
 sharply reproved Peter for Judaizing, (Gal. ii. 3, 4, 11, 
 12.) They finally ceased to be observed at all after the 
 destruction of the temple; and this was not a simple ab- 
 olition, one in which a thing ceases to exist, without any 
 other to succeed in its place, but rather a consumma- 
 tion, or perfecting ; where, in the place of something im- 
 perfect, something more perfect succeeds. 
 
 In the mean time, from the abrogation of the ceremo- 
 nial law we are not to infer the abrogation of all cere- 
 monies whatever in the Christian church ; for outward 
 rites are necessary for the sake of good order, and are 
 aids to divine worship; provided they be not imposed 
 as matters of absolute necessity, and as being merito- 
 rious, and be not so multiplied as to form a servile yoke 
 for the oppression of Christians. "These ceremonies dif- 
 fer from the ceremonial law. This signified a Saviour 
 that was to come, those set forth one that has come, the 
 
288 OF THE ABOLITION OF THE LAW. 
 
 latter was a necessary part of divine worship at that 
 time, the former are only adjuncts of divine worship. 
 As to the political law of the Jews, that has been abol- 
 ished in two respects; first, as it served to distinguish 
 the Jewish commonwealth from all others, and as it was 
 a type of the Redeemer’s kingdom. Now there is no 
 longer any difference between Jews and Gentiles in 
 Christ, (Gal. iii. 28,) and the Messiah having appeared, 
 there is no need for his kingdom to be typified. \Second- 
 ly, it is abrogated in those things which are of particular 
 obligation, and which were only applicable to the Jews; 
 as the law concerning the marriage of a brother’s wife, 
 the law of divorce, the jubilee, the first-born, the sowing 
 of fields with different seeds, &c. &c. But it is not ab- 
 rogated in those things which are of universal obligation, 
 being founded on the law of nature; which serve for the 
 explanation of the Decalogue, and are found in the New 
 Testament. The Jewish nation may be considered in 
 two characters, as a people, and as the Jewish people; 
 whatever applies to them simply as a nation, can be ap- 
 plicable to others; but whatever applies to them as the 
 Jewish nation, is of no more obligation upon us, than the 
 laws of the ancient Assyrians, Persians, Greeks, and 
 Romans, or the municipal laws of any foreign nations. 
 
CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY. 
 
 BOOK THE SEVENTH. 
 
 OF CALLING AND FAITH. 
 
 CHAPTER I. 
 
 OF CALLING IN GENERAL. 
 
 Havre treated of Christ as the Mediator, it remains that 
 we should treat of the benefits which are received 
 through him. The first benefit is calling, by which how- 
 ever we are not to understand what is very often meant 
 by this term; for any kind of pursuit or mode of life is 
 termed a calling, (1 Cor. vii. 20,) and an election to any 
 office, whether political or ecclesiastical, as to a king- 
 dom, priesthood, or apostleship, is termed a calling in 
 the scripture. But by the word here used, we under- 
 stand an act of God's grace, by which men. destitute of 
 saving knowledge, and dead in sins, are called, through 
 the preaching of the gospel, and the power of the Holy 
 Spirit, from a state of sin and condemnation, and from 
 the dominion of Satan, unto communion with Christ, 
 and to the obtaining of salvation in him. "This same act 
 of grace is also called a creation, in which God * calleth 
 the things that are not, as r id they were," and a re- 
 5 
 
> 
 290 OF CALLING IN GENERAL. 
 
 surrection, in which, by the omnipotent power of Christ, 
 we are called to rise from the death of our sins. By this 
 calling are signified, the misery of man, who being far 
 off from God, needs to be recalled from his wandering ; 
 the means which God uses for his conversion, viz., the 
 word of the gospel preached, than which nothing is more 
 adapted to convert a rational creature; and the great 
 dignity to which the sons of God are called; since digni- 
 ties or honours are usually bestowed through calling. 
 The necessity of this calling is abundantly proved from 
 the corrupt and wretched state of man betore it takes 
 place; for men before their calling are blind, dead in sin, 
 the servants of corruption, and the slaves of Satan. 
 
 There is a two-fold calling; one external, the other 
 internal. The external takes place through the ministry 
 of the word and sacraments, which are outward means; 
 the internal is effected by the word and Spirit of God, 
 acting upon the understandings and wills of men, as we 
 shall see hereafter; the former very often takes place 
 without the latter, but the latter always supposes the 
 former. Of both callings God is the author, who “ stands 
 at the door and knocks,” inviting men to his kingdom ; 
 of both, the preached word is the instrument, and the 
 glory of God the end ; the objects of both are men mise- 
 rable and sinful, all equally dead in sin, and helpless in 
 everything that is zood. But they differ in various par- 
 ticulars. In outward calling, God only commands what 
 is man’s duty ; in imvard calling he works or produces 
 what he commands. Outward calling takes place only 
 through the word; inward calling by the Spirit accom- 
 panying the word. The former is common to many, to 
 all, indeed, who hear the gospel; the latter belongs to a 
 few, to the elect only; whence it is said to be a * calling 
 according to God's purpose." * Whom he did predesti- 
 nate, them he also called," (Rom. viii. 29, 30.) This lat- 
 ter is always effectual, * Every one tbat hath heard and 
 learned of the Father cometh unto me;" says Christ, 
 (John vi. 45,) while the former, if it be separated from 
 inward calling, is ineffectual to salvation, although it has 
 its uses. 
 
 Calling may be further distinguished into ordinary 
 and extraordinary; the one is that which God uses in 
 the ordinary dispensation of his grace through the min- 
 istry of men; the latter is out of the common course, 
 and respects those persons, whom Christ immediately 
 called ; in this way also Paul was called. 
 
OF OUTWARD CALLING. 291 
 
 CHAPTER II. 
 
 OF OUTWARD CALLING. 
 
 Tue word Gospel has several significations among sacred 
 and profane writers. It signifies any joyful or favour- 
 able news, also the reward to be given for that news, as 
 Cicero exclaims, O three delightful epistles, for which I 
 know not what rewards (ivayy:a) I shall give. It also 
 means a sacrifice offered for any joyful event, as Isocra- 
 tes says, ivayyua zPixayer. In the scriptures it signifies 
 the glad tidings of the Messiah's coming, and the procla- 
 mation of grace made by the incarnate Saviour himself, 
 or by his apostles ; also the evangelical history of his life, 
 death, and resurrection. Now when we say that we are 
 called by the preaching of the gospel, we mean by the 
 word gospel in this case, the doctrine of God's grace and 
 mercy towards mankind, founded on Jesus Christ. This 
 gospel not only commenced with the birth of Christ, but 
 it was also proclaimed from the beginning of the world, 
 after the fall of Adam; when God said that “the seed of 
 the woman should bruise the head of the serpent,” (Gen. 
 iii 15.) By the preaching of this gospel men have been 
 and still are called, not only Jews, but also Gentiles, ac- 
 cording to numberless divine oracles, in which the calling 
 of the latter was predicted and promised. Under the 
 Old Testament, indeed, God gave the written law only 
 to the descendants of Jacob, suffering other nations to 
 walk in their own ways, (Psalm cxlvii. 19, 20; Acts xiv. 
 16.) But now the distinction between nations has been 
 done away, and “the sound of the apostles has gone out 
 into all the earth," (Rom. x. 18; Col. i. 23.) 
 
 This gospel is not, indeed, proclaimed to all people, for 
 there are many who have never heard any thing of the 
 gospel, and who still remain in the darkness of ignorance. 
 Nor has God the same purpose towards all those who are 
 outwardly called, since some are non-elect, others elect : 
 God calls the latter, in order to make them partakers of 
 salvation, but he has not the same design in reference to 
 the former, who he knows will never partake of salva- 
 tion. For if it were the divine intention to save all that 
 are called, God would then fail in his purpose, which is 
 
292 OF OUTWARD CALLING. 
 
 inconsistent with every idea of his character. It is not 
 strange that God should suffer the gospel to be proclaimed 
 to the non-elect, on whom it does not please him to be- 
 stow faith; since it is not strange, that God is pleased to 
 allow the one to be mixed with the other: the Creator 
 of men has a right to prescribe to them their rule of duty, 
 and it is a great kindness of God towards his creatures, 
 to point out to them the way of salvation. If indeed 
 God had chosen that the elect should live apart from the 
 non-elect, there would be cause to wonder that the gos- 
 pel should be preached to the latter, seeing that the gos- 
 pel contains promises of a salvation which they are never 
 to possess; but as the case really is, it ought to seem no 
 more strange, than that God should be pleased to send 
 rain upon rocks and barren places, as well as upon fields 
 sown with grain, upon meadows, and gardens, although 
 we know that rain is wholly useless in the former places; 
 for every one knows that this is done, because God has 
 net thought fit to alter the laws of nature, which he has 
 wisely ordained; and the same reasoning applies to the 
 outward calling of those persons who will not finally be 
 saved. 
 
 But should any further reason be sought, why God 
 appoints the gospel to be proclaimed to the non-elect, 
 we answer that this is done in order to restrain their cor- 
 ruption, and prevent it from breaking out beyond all due 
 bounds; at least this is the case with some of them, to- 
 wards whom the preaching of the gospel answers the 
 same end as the various chastisements by which God 
 bridles the wickedness of the ungodly; and with others 
 of them, the preaching of the word reveals or detects the 
 depravity of their hearts, (Luke ii. 35. Now although 
 God does not at all intend the salvation of the non-elect, 
 yet he deals with the greatest truth and seriousness when 
 he calls them, nor can any charge of mockery or deceit 
 be brought against him. All that are called by the gos- 
 pel, says the Synod of Dort, are seriously called, for God 
 seriously and truly shews in his word what is acceptable 
 to him, and also seriously promises rest for their souls, 
 and eternal life, to all that come to him by faith. Those 
 who reject the word are very severely reproved in scrip- 
 ture, and will be punished for that rejection, (Isaiah i. 2, 
 3; Ixv. 2, 3; Matt. xi. 16; John v. 40; Proverbs i. 24— 
 26); whereas those who obey the divine calling and re- 
 ceive the word, are commended, and will be rewarded. 
 (John xiv. 21; Acts xvii. 11.) i 
 
OF INWARD CALLING. 293 
 
 CHAPTER III. 
 
 OF INWARD CALLING. 
 
 Iywarv calling also takes place through the preaching 
 of the gospel, but accompanied by the inward grace of 
 the Holy Spirit; hence it is termed * calling according 
 'to the divine purpose," (Rom. viii. 28,) also regeneration, 
 sanctification, and conversion. It is termed calling, for 
 reasons already alleged; it is termed regeneration, to 
 denote the entire inability of man to what is good; to 
 denote the great change which takes place in him, so 
 great that he seems to be born anew; and also to inti- 
 mate the almighty power of divine grace: it is termed 
 sanctification, because man thereby is made holy: and 
 conversion, because he is then turned from the creature 
 unto God. Calling and regeneration denote the mere 
 acts of God, and not our own; sanctification and con- 
 version denote the acts of God, and our own also, as 
 stirred up within us by the grace of God. "These terms, 
 however, are frequently distinguished in this manner; 
 effectual calling is the giving of faith and repentance, 
 and thus it precedes both; regeneration sometimes in- 
 cludes effectual calling, and the renovation of corrupt 
 nature; at other times, it is strictly taken for the latter 
 only; sanctification is the continuance or carrying on 
 of regeneration; conversion sometimes means the same 
 as regeneration, sometimes as repentance; but very 
 generally all these terms are used indiscriminately. 
 
 But that the subject of inward or effectual calling, and 
 ofthe mode in which the grace of God acts upon men, 
 may be rightly understood, we shall explain our mean- 
 ing in several propositions, only premising, what we 
 have before observed, that man is of his own nature 
 utterly impotent in reference to all spiritual good, being 
 dead in sin, and utterly incapable of doing any thing 
 that can please God; that he cannot even do the least 
 thing which may influence or dispose God to bestow 
 grace upon him, nor in any way dispose or make him- 
 self meet to receive divine grace, any more than a dead 
 man can dispose himself to PVT life, or a blind man 
 
 5 
 
294 OF INWARD CALLING. 
 
 sight. This being premised, we assert first, that those 
 whom God pleases to convert by his grace, he generally 
 disposes secretly and gradually to conversion, by means 
 partly external, partly internal. He externally disposes 
 them through the preaching of the word, either the law 
 or the gospel; sometimes by temporal blessings; some- 
 times by chastisements and afflictions. He disposes 
 them internally, when he terrifies their conscience with 
 a sense of his displeasure, shows to them the heinous- 
 ness of sin, implants in them a desire of conversion and 
 amendment, and sets before them holiness in its most 
 attractive forms. Secondly, this grace, which we may 
 call disposing grace, is also given to many who are not 
 elect. Hence they are said to be “ enlightened,” and “to 
 have tasted the heavenly gifts,” &c. (Heb. vi. 4.) Thirdly, 
 what may be called sufficient grace, i.e. which is sufh- 
 cient for conversion, is not given to all; there are vast 
 numbers to whom there is “ not given a heart to under- 
 stand, nor eyes to see,” to whom “it is not given to 
 know the divine mysteries,” (Matt. xi. 27; xiii. 11.) God 
 “hath mercy on whom he will have mercy,” (Rom. ix. 
 18.) This grace is granted to the elect only, to whom 
 “it is given to believe,” and who are “drawn by the 
 Father.” “Whom he did predestinate, them he also 
 called.” Fourthly, the operation of divine grace in our 
 conversion is partly known, and partly unknown; it 
 works by wonderful and indescribable methods, which 
 we are not permitted thoroughly to understand and ob- 
 serve.—Fifthly, God converts men through the preach- 
 ing of his word, which is a necessary instrument, since 
 God always acts in a manner that is suited to a rational 
 creature, and according to Paul, “faith cometh by 
 hearing, and hearing by the word of God,” (Rom. x. 
 17.) The word is therefore called “the seed of regen- 
 eration,” (1 Pet. i. 23.) Sixthly, although God calls men 
 by his word, the immediate operation of the Holy Spirit 
 is necessary to give it effect. This is proved from those 
 passages of scripture in which David prays that his 
 *eyes may be opened to see wondrous things out of 
 God's law ;" and Christ is said to have * opened the un- 
 derstandings of his disciples, that they might understand 
 the scripture;" and the Lord to have * opened the heart 
 of Lydia, that she attended unto the things which were 
 spoken by Paul, (Psalm cxix. 18; Luke xxiv. 45; Acts 
 xvi. 14;) also from 1 Cor. iv. 6, 7, where the apostle dis- 
 tinguishes the influence of man in * planting and water- 
 
OF INWARD CALLING. 295 
 
 ing” by the word, from the secret infuence of * God 
 giving the increase.” Also, from those passages, in 
 which the utter inability of man is set forth, as when he 
 is called blind and dead; for as it is not enough, in order 
 that the blind may see, to set light before him, but there 
 is also required the restoration of the organ or power of 
 sight; so, for the spiritual sight of faith, the revelation of 
 doctrine in the word is not sufficient, unless the faculty 
 within be restored and disposed to receive the object. 
 Also, from that passage in which God is said to employ 
 in our conversion “ the exceeding greatness of his power, 
 according to the working of his mighty power;" (Eph. 
 i. 19,) which expressions would be frigid and unmeaning, 
 if God in converting men merely proposed the gospel 
 plainly to them with certain attendant circumstances. 
 The same point is proved from this fact—that so far is 
 the word, when proposed to the corrupt heart, from be- 
 ing able to influence it, or deliver it from its prejudices, 
 that on the contrary, this very word serves to confirm 
 and increase these prejudices ; for “the preaching of the 
 cross (to the natural man) is a stumbling-block and fool- 
 ishness,” (1 Cor. i. 23.) 
 
 The operation of the Holy Spirit, although indescrib- 
 able, is very remote from enthusiasm. In enthusiasm 
 the objects which are impressed on the mind, do not 
 come from without, but are inwardly suggested by the 
 mind itself But in the Spirit’s operations the object is 
 always understood to make its approach from without, 
 and to be derived from the word. Enthusiasm takes 
 place by sudden motions, which go before reason itself, 
 and often exclude it altogether; the operation of the 
 Spirit draws along with it the cordial consent of the will. 
 Once more, enthusiasm affects the mind, while the will 
 oftens remains unchanged; and hence it is found even 
 in the ungodly; whereas the operations of divine grace 
 necessarily include a change of the heart. Although we 
 cannot explain the operation of grace, yet we may make 
 a few remarks upon it. We believe, then, that this 
 divine work exercises an immediate influence on the 
 body and on the soul, in order that the passions may 
 not pervert our reason and judgment. It also prevents 
 such motions from being excited within the brain, as 
 would excite evil thoughts in the mind. It calls off the 
 mind from all those ideas and thoughts which would di- 
 vert it from holiness. It prevents those objects from 
 fastening on the mind, which have a tendency to corrupt 
 
LI 
 
 296 OF INWARD CALLING. 
 
 it. It induces such attention, during the reading or 
 hearing of the word, as prevents the mind from forming 
 a hasty or wrong judgment. It very often suggests and 
 brings to remembrance the truths which we have heard 
 or read. It fills the mind with great delight, either when 
 we read the word, or are desirous of reducing it to prac- 
 tice. Lastly, it increases this sacred pleasure more and 
 more, so as to overcome the pleasures of sin. 
 
 In the first stage of our calling, when man is rendered 
 capable of believing, he is merely passive, and does not 
 act at all, as is proved by those passages of scripture 
 which describe him to be blind and dead, and as being 
 created, born again, raised from the dead. The Spirit, 
 however, does not act upon us as upon stocks and stones, 
 since it never acts without the word, nor has its opera- 
 tion any other design, than to give effect to the word 
 and impress it upon the mind. It not only acts on the 
 understanding, but also on the will and affections; and 
 it must necessarily so act, because we find in general, 
 that every man judges according as he is affected, 
 whence it follows that the Spirit acts on the will and af- 
 fections, that we may be able to attend to the truths pro- 
 posed to us. Converting grace may be said to act phy- 
 sically and morally ; it acts morally, when by means of 
 the word it teaches, inclines, and persuades: it acts ply 
 sically, by infusing into the soul a divine delight, and by 
 so acting on the body as to restrain the passions or affec- 
 tions. 
 
 So powerful is the operation of the Spirit, that it can- 
 not be overcome by man; flesh and blood does indeed 
 for a long time resist, but is finally vanquished by grace, 
 for who could successfully resist the power which 
 brought the world out of nothing, and raises the dead 
 from the tomb? Now this point is established by two 
 arguments: first, if grace so operated, that it was in 
 man’s power either to use it, or resist it, man would owe 
 more to himself, and to his own will, than to God; he 
 would then “ make himself to differ from others,” which 
 Paul denies to be the case. (1 Cor. iv. 7.) And thus he 
 would have * whereof to glory;" nay, the very fore- 
 knowledge of God would be rendered doubtful and un- 
 certain. 'The other argument is derived from John vi. 
 44, 45, where, after Christ had said, * No man can come 
 to me, except the Father draw him," he adds, “every 
 one that hath heard and learned of the Father, cometh 
 to me;” for by these two verses we are taught the ne- 
 
OF INWARD CALLING. 297 
 
 cessity, and the invincible efficacy of grace. For it 
 always produces the effects which it is designed to pro- 
 duce; if it is only given to stir up some good motions, 
 and to implant the desire of a new life, it effects this 
 purpose; if it is given to work a full and complete con- 
 
 version, this also it effectually accomplishes. 
 
 But although the operation of the Spirit is most pow- 
 erful, yet it is most winning and delightful, and in no 
 way does violence to our natural liberty ; for it operates 
 by the illumination of the understanding, and by the 
 persuasion of the will. We are drawn, but we are in- 
 structed, we are created, but we are illuminated; the 
 gospel which converts, is called “the arm of the Lord,” 
 but it is compared to honey; it is called “ the power of 
 God,” but it is compared to milk; it is the sceptre of his 
 strength, but also of his grace. Jt is to be feared, says 
 Prosper, lest we should seem to destroy free agency, by 
 saying, that everything by which God is propitiated is to 
 be referred to him, as coming from him! This by no 
 means follows ; for in the operation of the Spirit of God, 
 the will is assisted, not destroyed: this is the effect of 
 grace, that the will, corrupted by sin, deluded by vanities, 
 surrounded by temptations, entangled in difficulties, does 
 not remain in all this weakness and infirmity, but recov- 
 ers its strength, being healed by the power of the merciful 
 Physician, and rejoices that it is instructed without first 
 asking, and sought without first seeking. 
 
 With regard to the sanctification of infants, we may 
 observe, that it cannot be denied that elect infants are 
 sanctified ; for were it not so, they could not, when they 
 died, seeing they were impure, enter the kingdom of 
 heaven. Now they are not sanctified through the word, 
 for they are not capable of hearing it; but by the Spirit, 
 who is the only author of their sanctification. Although 
 the mode in which the Spirit thus operates is indescrib- 
 able, yet the fact cannot be denied. It is probable that 
 this operation consists in breaking off a certain moral 
 union or sympathy, which the soul immediately and 
 naturally acquires with the corrupt body; and, since 
 this moral union depends upon certain corporeal mo- 
 tions of the spirits impressed by the parents, at which 
 motions certain affections arise in the soul, it is probable 
 that the Holy Spirit breaks off this union; on the one 
 hand by altering the motions of the spirits, either by | 
 suspending or restraining them, and on the other hand, 
 by stirring up other motions in the soul. 
 
298 OF FAITH. 
 
 CHAPTER IY. 
 OF FAITH. 
 
 Tue first act of inward calling, and the first motion of 
 the new man, is faith, the necessity of which is so great, 
 that it is celebrated in scripture as the bond of our union 
 with Christ, the condition of the covenant of grace, the 
 fruit of election, the beginning of sanctification, and the 
 infallible means of salvation. To speak of it accurately, 
 we must examine into the following particulars. Inhow 
 many senses this word is taken, what are the objects of 
 saving faith, what are its acts in reference to these ob- 
 jects, who is the author of faith, who is the subject, 
 what is the difference between a temporary faith, and 
 E of the elect, and what are the opposites of 
 aith. 
 
 First, we must ascertain in how many ways the word 
 faith is taken; sometimes it is used for that fidelity 
 which we observe to others, by which that which is pro- 
 mised and agreed upon is performed, and in this sense 
 it is attributed to God, (Rom. iii. 3,) sometimes for the 
 evangelical doctrine which is the object of faith, (Gal. i. 
 23; iii. 25,) sometimes for an outward profession of 
 faith, as Gal. vi. 10, * the household of faith ;" sometimes 
 for the assent of the mind, in which sense it is here to 
 betaken. Buteven in this sense we must discriminate 
 between the following descriptions of faith: first, there 
 is a faith which consists in a bare assent to revealed 
 truth, which even devils may have, (James ii. 19,) and 
 which is called historical faith, not only as believing the 
 histories contained in scripture, but as believing them 
 merely as histories, without being influenced by them to 
 true holiness. Then there is the faith which consists in 
 an assent to some particular promise concerning a mi- 
 "aculous event, to be accomplished either by us, or in 
 us; and this is called the faith of miracles; which was 
 of two kinds, one, which was required in those by whom 
 God was pleased to work miracles; of which Christ 
 speaks, saying, *If ye have faith as a grain of mustard 
 seed, ye shall say unto this mountain, Remove hence;" 
 
 —- 3 
 
OF FAITH. 299 
 
 &c., (Matt. xvii. 20;) the other, required in those for 
 whom or for whose benefit miracles were to be wrought, 
 for which end Christ was accustomed to put the question 
 to those who came to be healed, Do you believe? Again, 
 there is a faith, which besides an assent to revealed 
 things, has some experience of the truth, and is connect- 
 ed with some degree of joy, but “has no root,” and 
 finally ceases to exist when “persecutions arise ;” this 
 is the faith of temporary professors. Lastly, there is 
 justifying and saving faith, of which we are now to 
 treat, only premising, that this faith possesses in it all 
 that is good in historical and temporary faith, to which 
 is sometimes added the faith of miracles. But the latter 
 may be possessed without justifying faith,as by Judas, 
 and others alluded to in Matt. vii. 22, while in vast num- 
 bers of believers there has been, and will be, justifying 
 faith without the faith of miracles; though in the infancy 
 of Christianity these two were often united. 
 
 And now what is the object of saving faith? We may 
 observe generally, that the object of it must be truth, 
 without any falsehood, and this is no other than the 
 Word of God. But we observe also, that there is a two- 
 fold object of faith, one general, comprising the whole 
 word of God, in its histories, prophecies, doctrines, pre- 
 cepts, promises, and threatenings; the other, special and 
 particular, which is the doctrine of Jesus Christ, and the 
 promises of remission of sin and of salvation in him, as 
 made to this and that individual. Now that the specific 
 object of saving faith is the special promise of mercy in 
 Christ,is proved from several arguments, particularly 
 because, if true faith had not this object, it would not be 
 different from the faith of devils, and therefore could not 
 save; and because also the faith of the saints has al- 
 ways had respect to this special mercy in Christ ;. thus 
 Paul testifies that he believes that * Christ loved Aim, 
 and gave himself for him,” (Gal. ii. 20,) and that * he ob- 
 tained mercy," (1 Tim. i. 16.) But this point will ap- 
 pear more fully when we speak of the acts of faith; to 
 which we will now advert, only first observing, that the 
 idea of faith includes knowledge, as is evident from the 
 scriptures, where we read, *by his knowledge (namely, 
 of Christ) shall my righteous servant justify many.” 
 (Isaiah lii. 11.) “This is life eternal, that they might 
 know thee, the only true God," &c. (John xvii. 3.) And 
 faith is called *the knowledge ofthe truth." (1 Tim. ii. 
 4; 2 Tim. iii. 7.) It is also evident from faith being re- 
 
300 OF FAITH. 
 
 presented as coming by means of the word; since the 
 word cannot be believed except it be known. 
 
 Now there are several acts of faith; the first is that by 
 which we assent to the whole word of God, and espe- 
 cially to the promises of the gospel; and are not only 
 persuaded of the truth and excellency of the gospel, but 
 also of its supreme excellency and superiority to all 
 other systems. This assent is most strong and certain, 
 seeing it is founded on the authority and veracity of that 
 God who speaks, and who cannot lie. By this first act 
 of faith we are persuaded that Christ is the true and pro- 
 mised Messiah, the hope of Israel, the consolation of the 
 church, the only name given to men, whereby we can be 
 saved. The second act of faith is that by which we are 
 persuaded, not only in general, that Christ is the Sa- 
 viour, but also that he is the Saviour of all those, who, 
 truly repenting of their sins, seek true righteousness and 
 salvation in him, and take refuge in him alone; and 
 consequently that he is our Saviour, if we thus repent, 
 and seek refuge in him. The first act is common to 
 men and devils, the second cannot exist in devils, since 
 they are well assured that there is no salvation reserved 
 for them. 
 
 The third act of faith is that, by which, actually and 
 truly repenting of our sins past, and feeling our own 
 misery, and inability to deliver ourselves from it, we go, 
 as it were, out of ourselves, and renouncing our own 
 
 righteousness, hunger and thirst after the righteousness - 
 
 of Christ, and desire to be “found in him, not having our 
 own righteousnéss, but that which is of the faith of 
 Christ :” (Phil. iii. 9.) And not only so, but acknowledg- 
 ing no other Mediator but Christ, and persuaded that his 
 blood and righteousness are of infinite value, we pray 
 the Father to impute to us the obedience of the Son; 
 we give ourselves up entirely to Christ, and are most in- 
 timately united to him, saying, with the church, “I found 
 him whom my soul loveth: I held him, and would not 
 let him go.” (Cant. iii. 4.) These are the three direct 
 acts of faith, the last of which is properly the act which 
 we term justifying. 
 
 The fourth act is that, by which, looking back upon 
 ourselves, and beholding in ourselves the conditions 
 which Christ requires of those whose Saviour he is, we 
 conclude that Christ died for us, and that he is ours 
 with all his benefits; such an act of faith was that of 
 Paul, (Gal. ii. 20,) already quoted; and others. (1 Tim. 
 
 / 
 
OF FAITH. 301 
 
 i. 16. 2 Tim. i. i2.) This act is attended with the great- 
 est consolation, and that peace of conscience arising 
 from the possession of Christ, enabling us, as knowing 
 our fellowship with Christ, and being assured of his love, 
 to rejoice in the Lord, and to challenge all our enemies ; 
 to *sit under his shadow with great delight, and to find 
 his fruit sweet to our taste," (Cant. ii. 3). 
 
 But a question here arises, whether confidence or 
 assurance is of the essence of faith, or only an effect of 
 it; upon this, divines are not agreed. As for ourselves, 
 we venture an opinion, that by the word confidence is 
 meant either the act by which we depend and rely on 
 the merits of Christ, cleaving to him as the source of 
 salvation ; or a firm persuasion of having obtained the 
 pardon of our sins and reconciliation with God; or 
 spiritual might, by which we bear up under those evils 
 against which we have to contend during this mortal 
 life; or tranquillity of conscience. In the first of these 
 senses confidence is of the essence of faith, nor can faith 
 be conceived to exist without such confidence; in the 
 second sense it is not of the essence of faith, if we con- 
 sider only its direct acts, but it is of the essence of faith, 
 if we consider the reflex act; or rather it does not so 
 much belong to the essence, as to the perfection of faith ; 
 it may be said to be the property of a strong and con- 
 Jirmed, but not ofa weak faith. Moreover, that this con- 
 Jidence or full persuasion is not an essential act of faith, 
 appears from this argument—no one can assure himself 
 that he is reconciled to God, without discovering by re- 
 flection that true faith is in him, for he thus reasons, 
 * He who believes in Christ is reconciled, I believe, 
 therefore," &c. Thus this persuasion supposes faith 
 already to exist in the heart; therefore it is not of the 
 essence of faith, which is further confirmed by the cir- 
 "cumstance of many pious believers doubting. In the 
 third and fourth of the above senses, confidence appears 
 to be the effect of faith. 
 
 From these positions it is easy to discover the nature 
 of true faith, and to give a definition of it according to 
 the different acts which we have considered as belong- 
 ing to it. Nor is it a matter of surprise, that divines 
 give such different definitions of it; for some endeavour 
 to describe its entire essence, namely, both that which it 
 possesses in common with the historical belief, and that 
 which peculiarly belongs to it; others, regarding not 
 only its complete essence, ^ also that which it has a 
 
302 ' OF FAITH. 
 
 tendency to produce in believers, describe it as a firm 
 persuasion of the pardon of sin; though the fact is, that 
 the believer can continue without this, at least for a time. 
 Others draw their definition of faith from those things, 
 without which true faith, even in its lowest degree, can- 
 not exist at all, as when they define it by a hungering 
 and thirsting after righteousness; some attend only to 
 the direct acts of faith ; others to the reflex; others to 
 both. Thus, according to different points of view, it 
 may be differently defined, and there is no occasion to 
 adduce every mode of definition. I shall only make a 
 few observations on that description of faith we read of 
 in Heb. xi. 1, where it is called “the substance of things 
 hoped for, the evidence of things not seen.” It is not 
 quite clear what is to be understood by substance, and 
 what by evidence, The word izécracts (substance) denotes 
 the existence of a thing, also a base or foundation ; also 
 subsistence or firmness, such as does not yield to the 
 assaults of enemies. When, therefore, the apostle says 
 that “faith is the substance of things hoped for,” the 
 meaning may be, that faith not only places the things 
 we hope for. before the mind, as if they were present ; 
 but is also the prop or support of the soul, leaning on 
 which it fears nothing, and yields to no assault. The 
 word ércyxos (evidence) denotes two things, viz. certain 
 demonstration, and conviction of mind; and therefore 
 faith is so called, because it fully convinces or assures us 
 of the things which we can neither see with our eyes, 
 nor fully comprehend in our minds. 
 
 We proceed to inquire, who is the author of faith? 
 The scripture teaches that it is God, not only by its gen- 
 eral assertion, that “every good gift is from above, and 
 cometh down from the Father of lights,” (James i. 17,) 
 but also by its particular and express declaration, that 
 faith “is the gift of God,” (Ephes. ii. 8.) The means by 
 which God produces faith, is the word; for “ faith cometh 
 by hearing, and hearing by the word of God,” (Rom. x. 
 17,) which is therefore called * the seed of regeneration,” 
 (James i. 18; 1 Peter i. 23.) But we should to no pur- 
 pose hear the word, unless the Spirit wrought with it, to 
 subdue the passions, dispel the prejudices, and sanctify 
 the heart; as we have already noticed. We need only 
 observe further on this head, that God is not the author 
 of faith in such a manner as to believe in us, for it is we 
 that believe, not God; he it is who gives us the power to 
 believe. We observe also that, according to the scrip- 
 
OF FAITH. ; 303 
 
 ture, the Spirit both precedes, produces, and also follows 
 faith, as when it is said, * After that ye believed, ye were 
 sealed with the Holy Spirit," (Eph. i. 13.) To understand 
 this apparent contrariety, we must distinguish between 
 the different operations of the Spirit, some of which intro- 
 duce us into communion with Christ, others follow this 
 communion; the former produce faith, the latter follow 
 it. 
 We next inquire who are the subjects of faith? The 
 reply is, only the elect, hence it is called “the faith of 
 God's elect ;” (Titus i. 1,) and it is only given to those, 
 “that are the called according to his purpose,” (Rom. 
 viii. 28,) and are “ ordained to eternal life,” (Acts xiii. 48.) 
 Moreover, the subjects of faith are only those who can 
 make use of their reason; not infants, who are incapable 
 of hearing and meditating upon the word, and of the 
 several acts or operations of faith. 
 
 We must also examine, as proposed, into the difference 
 between temporary and true faith. Now it is not dura- 
 tion which always distinguishes them; for those who 
 have the former often die in this faith, which yet does 
 not save them, and therefore in regard to such persons, 
 faith cannot be strictly said “to be fora time.” The first 
 difference consists in their origin; God indeed may be 
 said to produce both; but true faith proceeds from elec- 
 tion, and hence it is called “the faith of God's elect ;" 
 whereas temporary faith depends upon common grace, 
 which bestows some spiritual blessings even upon the 
 non-elect. The Spirit of regeneration and adoption is 
 the principle of true faith, but the spirit of illumination 
 is the author of temporary faith. The second difference 
 is derived from the motives which influence temporary 
 and true believers in their respective beliefs. The latter 
 embrace the gospel principally as a system that is good 
 and Aonourable in itself, though at the same time they 
 embrace it as a system that is agreeable and useful; 
 hence, when they cannot retain the gospel without re- 
 nouncing all their worldly interests and pleasures, they 
 prefer doing this to denying the gospel and casting off: 
 the profession of religion. But the former embrace the 
 gospel principally as a system that is useful and agree- 
 able, and therefore, if they cannot profess true religion 
 without renouncing their worldly interests, they choose 
 to renounce the former, rather than the latter. The third 
 difference is derived from the root or foundation of faith; 
 the faith that is temporary “ has no root,” (Matt. xiii. 21,) 
 
304 OF FAITH. 
 
 it is seated in the outward surface of the soul, i. e. in the 
 understanding only ; whereas true faith is seated in the 
 heart ; hence the faithful are said to be * rooted in Christ,” 
 and “ grounded in the faith,” (Col. i. 23; ii. 7.) The fourth 
 difference is seen in this, viz. that temporary faith is not 
 connected with the sanctification of the heart, and there- 
 fore, if at any time its possessors perform some outwardly 
 good actions, and appear to amend their lives, and “ es- 
 cape the pollutions of the world,” yet whenever the al- 
 lurements of the world and the flesh, or persecutions 
 arise, they return to their former impurity. But true 
 faith “ worketh by love;” and while it sets before us the 
 exceeding great love of God and Christ, it inspires us 
 with love towards them in return, and imprints the cha- 
 racters of holiness so deeply upon the soul, that it con- 
 siders nothing to be more excellent than an entire dedi- 
 cation to God; and at the same time so deeply engraves 
 on the heart the promises of eternal happiness, that the 
 believer is ready to endure every thing for such happi- 
 ness ; hence those who have this faith are said to “ bring 
 forth fruit,” (Matt. xiii. 8—23.) In temporary faith there 
 arises joy, partly from the novelty and uncommonness 
 of the things revealed, partly from the vain persuasion 
 that the blessings offered in the gospel belong to it; but 
 in true faith there is far nobler and more solid joy, 
 springing from real love to the most precious truths, and 
 from the sure expectation of glory. 
 
 With regard to the opposites of faith, which is the last 
 point of consideration, they are, doubt, which is a with- 
 holding of assent, or hesitation about divine things, and 
 has for its object either the whole Christian religion, or 
 some particular doctrine ;—unbelief, when a man refuses 
 to assent to divine truth ;—infidelity, when a man does 
 not believe the truth, because it is not revealed to him— 
 and finally, mistrust. But here we may also take occa- 
 sion to observe, that true faith has different degrees; for 
 there is strong faith, and weak faith. Weak faith is that 
 which knows only the elements of piety, as was the case 
 with the Hebrew converts; (Heb. vi. 1,) that which has 
 not yet attained to the knowledge of some important 
 doctrine: thus those who were not fully instructed in 
 the nature of Christian liberty, are called * weak in the 
 faith;" (Rom. xiv. 1; xv. 1; 1 Cor. viii. 9, 10,)—that which 
 very imperfectly assents to those things which God hath 
 revealed to us; such was the faith of Martha; (John xi. 
 28, 24) —that which has a conflict with many doubts, as 
 
OF THE PERSEVERANCE OF FAITH. 305 
 
 the faith of the father of the demoniac, (Mark ix. 24.)— 
 that which is formed rashly, without any foundation, and 
 is therefore unstable. But strong faith belongs to those 
 who have made great progress in the knowledge of the 
 gospel, who firmly assent to evangelical truths, and de- 
 votedly adhere to Christ. 
 
 CHAPTER V. 
 OF THE PERSEVERANCE OF FAITH. 
 
 True faith always perseveres, and is never lost. "This is 
 proved by the following arguments. We must reason 
 in the same way concerning faith, as concerning election, 
 since the former is the efiect of the latter. Now the de- 
 cree of election is unchangeable, as we have before 
 proved; therefore faith is unchangeable. Again: if faith 
 could be lost, then the covenant of grace, which God 
 promises to perform towards us, could also be abolished 
 with regard to those who ceased to believe; but the 
 covenant of grace also is unchangeable, and can never 
 be revoked, as we well know; for in this way it is dis- 
 tinguished from the covenant of works, which was broken 
 and made of none effect. *I wil make an everlasting 
 covenant with them, that I will not turn away from them 
 to do them good; but I will put my fear in their hearts, 
 that they shall not depart from me,” (Jer. xxxii. 40.) * The 
 mountains shall depart, and the hills shall be removed ; 
 but my kindness shall not depart from thee, neither shall 
 the covenant of my peace be removed, saith the Lord,” 
 (Isaiah liv. 10.) Again: if faith could be lost. the union 
 of the faithful with Christ could be dissolved ; whereas 
 that union is so firm that nothing can separate them from 
 him, (Rom. viii. 38, 39.) And Christ himself thus speaks, 
 . “My sheep hear my voice, and I know them, and they 
 follow me; and I give unto them eternal life: and they 
 shall never perish, neither shall any man pluck them 
 out of my hand,” i. e. neither Satan, nor the world. nor 
 the flesh, the three enemies Ee all Christ's people. (John 
 6 * 
 
. 906 OF THE PERSEVERANCE OF FAITH. 
 
 x. 27, 28.) Moreover, if faith could be lost, it would be 
 possible that *he that believeth on the Son, should not 
 have eternal life," contrary to Christ’s own declaration, 
 (John iii. 36,) and elsewhere; and that they should not 
 be “glorified” whom God hath “called,” contrary to 
 Paul’s assertion. (Rom. viii. 30.) Further: they whe 
 believe are “sealed by the Holy Spirit unto the day of 
 redemption,” (Eph. i. 13, 14; iv. 30.) but those who are 
 thus sealed surely cannot perish. Lastly, faith is the 
 effect of Christ’s death and intercession; but both these 
 are of infinite value, and Christ’s intercession is con- 
 tinual. 
 
 To these arguments we might add those passages of 
 scripture, in which our spiritual life is called “ incorrup- 
 tible seed," (1 Peter i. 23.)—* a well of water springing 
 up into everlasting life," (John iv. 14.) and particularly 
 that memorable passage in 1 John iii. 9, * Whosoever is 
 born of God doth not commit sin ; for his seed remaineth 
 in him; and he cannot sin, because he is born Of God.” 
 Inthis passage let it be observed, that the seed of the 
 . new birth is said to * remain or abide in him," and be- 
 cause it thus abides, the believer cannot sin, (i. e. habit- 
 ually and wilfully.) Nor must we imagine that this 
 seed can be cast out, by men permitting the seed of the 
 devil to be cast into their hearts, and to bring forth the 
 fruit of sin; for it is implied that this seed so occupies 
 the soul, that there is no place left for the seed of the 
 devil—* that wicked one toucheth him not," (1 John v. 
 18) The same truth is established from 1 John ii. 19. 
 “They went out from us, but they were not of us: (i. e. 
 they were not believers) for if they had been of us, they 
 would no doubt have continued with us: but they went 
 out, that they might be made manifest that they were 
 not of us." 
 
 But although we maintain that true faith cannot be 
 lost, yet we allow that it is not always in exercise: 
 hence it happens that the faithful sometimes fall into 
 very great sins, as David, Solomon, Peter, and others, 
 at which time they would justly deserve to be excluded 
 from the kingdom of heaven, and to be condemned to 
 eternal punishment, did not God take pity on them, and 
 restore them to holiness. Still in such persons faith does 
 not fail; nor is it strange to assert that faith subsists 
 along with grievous sins, since it is admitted that contra- 
 ries or opposites can unite in the same subject; in this 
 manner, although flesh and blood are contrary to each 
 
OF THE ASSURANCE OF FAITH. 307. 
 
 other, yet they cannot entirely expel each other, while 
 we live in this mortal state. The case is the same with 
 faith in believers, when they fall into any great sins, as 
 it is with the soul in the body, while in a state of insen- 
 sibility: the soul is not lost, neither is faith; or as it is 
 with the seed which lies hid in the earth during the win- 
 ter’s cold. Let us close this chapter with the words of 
 Fulgentius. Grace prevents the wicked, that he may be- 
 come righteous, follows after the righteous, that he may 
 not become unrighteous ; it prevents the blind, to give him 
 the light which he does not possess, it then follows after 
 him when seeing, in order to preserve the gift it has be- 
 stowed. It prevents the fallen that he may rise, it follows 
 after the risen, that he may not fall again; it prevents 
 sinful man by giving him a good will, it follows after him, 
 having a good will, by working in him the power of doing 
 what is good. 
 
 CHAPTER VI. 
 OF THE ASSURANCE OF FAITH. 
 
 Tue question here is, whether a man can be sure of his 
 faith, and consequently of his salvation? We cannot 
 doubt of the affirmative, when we read in scripture, “I 
 know whom I have believed," (2 Tim. i. 12.) And “he 
 that believeth on the Son of God hath the witness in him- 
 self,” (1 John v. 10.) Besides, whoever is sure that he 
 has the Spirit of God dwelling in him, can be sure of his 
 faith, since where the Holy Spirit is, there is faith; now 
 the faithful may certainly know that they have the for- 
 mer privilege, (1 John iii. 24.) for “the Spirit itself bear- 
 eth witness with our spirits, that we are the children of 
 God,” (Rom. viii. 16.) And if no one could be sure of 
 his faith, it would be in vain to prescribe examination 
 for that purpose, as Paul does, (2 Cor. xiii. 5.) Besides, 
 we may reason in the same way concerning the spirit- 
 val, as concerning the natural life; now in the latter, 
 the soul not only understands, but is also conscious to 
 
308 OF THE ASSURANCE OF FAITH. 
 
 itself of its own operations, and knows that it does un- 
 derstand; so in the spiritual life the soul has this pecu- 
 liar property, that it not only puts forth the acts of faith 
 and charity, but by a reflex view of itself is conscious 
 of so doing; hence we have observed, that there are re- 
 flex as well as direct acts of faith. The same arguments 
 which prove that the faithful man can be sure of his 
 faith, prove also that he can be sure of his salvation. 
 
 But we must here put in afew cautions. First,a man 
 must not hastily conclude that he has faith, without a 
 careful examination; for the ungrounded presumption 
 of a carnal spirit may counterfeit the assurance of faith. 
 Therefore we must particularly regard the effects of 
 a true faith; which we shall ascertain that we possess, 
 if we feel our own corruption, and are out of conceit 
 with ourselves—if we hate sin, grieve at the commission 
 of it, avoid the occasions of it, and aim at sanctification 
 —if our faith be such as stirs up within us the love of 
 Christ, and the desire of enjoying him—if we not only 
 embrace Christ as our priest who hath expiated our sins, 
 but also submit to his dominion as our king; in other 
 Words, if we regard him not only as our surety, but also 
 as our head—if we follow him, not only triumphing, but 
 also suffering—if we feel peace and joy unspeakable—if we 
 delight in reading, meditation on the word, and prayer. 
 From all these effects we shall be able. to ascertain 
 real faith, though we must observe, that the above marks 
 or signs are not always so clearly discerned by us, which 
 however must not cause us to despair, merely if our 
 ^ pursuit of holiness be relaxed, and our joy disturbed by 
 the influence of doubts and fears. 
 
 We observe again, that this assurance is not always 
 the same, but different, according as faith is sometimes 
 weak and infirm, at other times, strong and lively ; 
 somtimes beset with temptations and struggles, at other 
 times free from them. For although this assurance is 
 necessary to the comfort of the believer, it is not abso- 
 lutely required to constitute the reality of faith as if 
 every moment we were to be certain of faith and salva- 
 tion; a mother does not always feel the motion of the 
 child which she bears, nor is the believer always sensi- 
 ble of the motions of the new man within him. Neither 
 is this assurance incompatible with fear; hence we are 
 enjoined to “ work out our own salvation with fear and 
 trembling ;” (Phil. ii. 12.) but we must distinguish be- 
 tween servile fear, such as is in slaves, who only dread 
 
OF THE ASSURANCE OF FAITH. 309 
 
 punishment, and filial fear, which consists in humility, 
 in a steady resolution of cleaving to God, and a contin- 
 ual care to abstain from sin; the first of these fears is 
 inconsistent with assurance, the second is not so, for it 
 takes away carnal security, but not the real confidence 
 of believers. Those who are certain of salvation are 
 most afraid of sin; which they hate, as provoking the 
 divine anger; they stand in awe of God, and carefully 
 watch, lest they lose aught of his grace, and lest they 
 should have * received it in vain.” 
 
 Moreover, the believer ought not to be afraid, as long 
 as he perceives that he is walking in that path which 
 leads to salvation; and this assurance is connected with 
 the pursuit of holiness, and therefore not only the im- 
 penitent sinner should not be sure of salvation, but not 
 even the believer himself, when he is sensible of having 
 fallen into very great sin, and not yet amended his life. 
 It may also be remarked, that the assurance which a be- 
 liever should have concerning his faith and salvation, is 
 not of the same nature as the assurance which we have 
 of the doctrines contained in the word of God; for the 
 latter is absolutely necessary to the essence of faith, but 
 not the former; without the one the believer may be 
 
 - saved, provided he be devoted to holiness; but without 
 the other he cannot be saved at all. 
 
 Finally, the doubts which spring up within us con- 
 cerning our salvation, proceed for the most part from an 
 evil principle ; for we doubt of salvation, either for want 
 of faith in God’s promises, like unbelievers, who doubt 
 whether there is a God, or a heaven; or from an unrea- 
 sonable apprehension that God will not have mercy 
 upon us; as for instance, when the believer, following 
 after holiness with all his might, yet doubts his salvation, 
 because he cannot reach the perfection he desires, or 
 because he is afflicted. Or else this doubt arises from a 
 man’s not being able to discover in himself the motions 
 on which to found his assurance; and to disperse and 
 remedy these unbelieving doubts, we must trace them 
 up directly to their cause and origin. 
 
CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY. 
 
 BOOK THE EIGHTH. 
 
 OF JUSTIFICATION AND SANCTIFICATION. 
 
 CHAPTER I. 
 
 OF JUSTIFICATION IN GENERAL. 
 
 * Wuom God called, them he also justified,” (Rom. viii. 
 30); having therefore treated of calling, we must now 
 treat of justification, which is, according to the great 
 Luther, the article by which a church stands or falls. 
 The word justification (to justify) answers to the Greek 
 dxaovy, and to the Hebrew psn. But in the sacred wri- 
 tings it does not always admit the same sense as the 
 word éxaow, which in profane authors signifies to 
 
 unish any one for an injury done by him to another. 
 
 he word justify is in general, indeed almost always, 
 taken in a forensic sense—to acquit any one in judg- 
 . ment, to account and to declare him to be righteous. 
 Take the following passages — *I will not justify the 
 wicked"—* He that justifieth the wicked, and he that 
 condemneth the just, are both an abomination to the 
 Lord”—“ Wo unto them which justify the wicked for re- 
 ward”—“ By thy words thou shalt be eto o by thy 
 
OF JUSTIFICATION IN GENERAL. 311 
 
 words thou shalt be condemned,” (Exod. xxiii. 7; Prov. 
 xvii. 15; Isaiah v. 23; Matt. xii. 37.) Whenever, in- 
 deed, the scripture professedly speaks of the justification 
 of man before God, as in the epistles to the Romans and 
 to the Galatians, the term is always used in a forensic 
 sense, and never for sanctification. Thus we read in Job 
 ix. 2, 20. * How should man be just with God ? if1 justify 
 myself, my own mouth shall condemn me.” And in 
 Psalm cxliii. 2. * Enter not into judgment with thy ser- 
 vant, O Lord; for in thy sight shall no man living be 
 justified.” In Rom. iii. 19, 20. * Now we know that 
 what things soever the law saith, it saith to them who 
 are under the law, that every mouth may be stopped, 
 &c. Therefore by the deeds of the law there shall no 
 flesh be justified in his sight.” And in Rom. iv. 7, 8, to 
 * justify" a sinner Paul explains by “remitting or for- 
 giving sin,” by “not imputing it,” and by “ covering it.” 
 And in Rom. v. 9, 10, justification and reconciliation 
 with God by Christ's death are made synonymous. In 
 Rom. vi. 1, the apostle introduces this alleged objection 
 against the doctrine of justification, “shall we continue 
 in sin, that grace may abound?” Now if by justification 
 he meant sanctification, or the infusion of righteousness, 
 this objection would have been ridiculous, In Rom. viii. 
 33, 34, justification is opposed to condemnation and accu- 
 sation, * Who shall lay any thing to the charge of God's 
 elect? It is God that justifieth ;—who is he that con- 
 demneth?" See also Gal. ii. 16. All this is confirmed 
 by the sacred writers constantly using the terms of a 
 judicial process, since they represent the accusing law, 
 the guilty party, the handwriting or bond against them, 
 divine justice demanding punishment, the advocate 
 pleading our cause, satisfaction for sin and righteous- 
 ness imputed, the throne of grace before which we are 
 acquitted, and the judge who acquits us. All this leads 
 to the conclusion, that justification ought to be under- 
 stood as in the case of a guilty person, who deserves 
 condemnation, and yet is justified or acquitted. 
 
 In other passages of scripture, where the subject of 
 justification is not handled, we do not deny that the term 
 may be used in a different sense from the above. Thus 
 it is said, * They that justify many (the word in the ori- 
 ginal) i. e. turn many to righteousness, shall shine," &c. 
 (Dan. xii. 3); and “ he that is dead is justified (éedxatwrat,) 
 i e. freed from sin," (Rom. vi. 7. We may here ob- 
 serve these three things—first, that Paul sometimes de- 
 
312 OF JUSTIFICATION IN GENERAL, 
 
 scribes the benefits of justification amd sanctification 
 under the general term washing; thus 1 Cor. vi. 11. 
 “Ye are washed, ye are sanctified, ye are justified in 
 the name of the Lord Jesus, and by the Spirit of our 
 God.” For there are two things in sin to be washed 
 away, its guilt and its stain, which is done by Christ 
 and the Spirit, the former having merited both benefits, 
 the latter sanctifying, and giving also the sense of justi- 
 fication; unless we had rather consider the apostle as 
 ascribing justification to the “name” of Christ, and sanc- 
 tification to the “Spirit.” Secondly, that in the Epistle 
 to the Hebrews the writer does not use the word justifi- 
 cation, but the words sanctification, consecration, puri- 
 Jfication, seeing that all his allusions are to the sacrifices 
 of the old dispensation, which were said to sanctify, to 
 consecrate, and to purify. Thirdly, that Peter and John 
 in their writings have not used the word justification, but 
 other words and expressions conveying the very same 
 meaning. 
 
 Now as man may be considered under three charac- 
 ters, either as innocent and upright; or asa sinner, but 
 penitent and believing; or as regenerate, and following 
 after holiness, so we may view a three-fold justification, 
 corresponding with their characters. It is the justifica- 
 tion of man asa sinner, of which we are now particularly 
 to speak; but previously we may say a word or two 
 about the justification of man, as innocent and upright. 
 Now we say that, if the first man had persevered in in- 
 nocence, he would have been justified by the fulfilment 
 of the natural law which God had engraven on his heart, 
 and of other commandments which God might have en- 
 joined on him; in short, by perfectly loving God and his 
 neighbour. If he had done this, he would have been 
 pronounced righteous, and would have acquired a right 
 to eternal glory, not indeed as if he had properly merited 
 it, for the creature can merit nothing from the Creator, 
 but according to the free promise and covenant of God. 
 We must however observe, that in this case, we cannot 
 use the word justification with much accuracy, for justi- 
 fication does not properly take place where there is no 
 guilt or no accusation. The manner, therefore, in which 
 God would have justified innocent man, would have been 
 simply a declaration of man’s holiness and righteous- 
 ness; justification in this sense may be defined the act 
 of God as a judge, by which he bestows on man perfectly 
 holy, eternal life and glory; thus the proper condition 
 
OF THE JUSTIFICATION OF A SINNER. 313 
 
 required of innocent man in this case, would have been 
 perfect holiness, and the foundation of his acceptance the 
 meritorious worthiness of good works, although, as we 
 have said, he could not, strictly speaking, have merited 
 any thing at the hands of his Maker. 
 
 CHAPTER II. 
 
 OF THE JUSTIFICATION OF A SINNER. 
 
 We define this to be a judicial act on the part of God, 
 as the supreme and merciful Governor, whereby he for- 
 gives the sins of those who repent, and gives them a title 
 to eternal life, on account of the satisfaction and obedi- 
 ence of Jesus Christ imputed to them, and apprehended 
 by faith. We will now proceed to explain and enlarge 
 upon this definition. That justification is a judicial act, 
 is proved from what we have already said of the word 
 being used in a forensic sense. It is the act of God, and 
 of God only; for God alone can forgive sins, he alone 
 searcheth the heart, he alone can give a right and title 
 to life eternal, and deliver from eternal punishment ; he 
 is the “ one lawgiver, whois able to save and to destroy,” 
 (James iv. 12.) It is true, forgiveness of sins is some- 
 times attributed to pastors, but only because they de- 
 clare or pronounce the sentence of the heavenly Judge; 
 and sometimes to the sacraments, but merely as the seals 
 of the remission which God bestows. Moreover, justifi- 
 cation is the act of God as the supreme Governor, not 
 merely as the injured party, nor as the Lawgiver, but as 
 the Judge, who is to preserve inviolate his own laws, 
 and who alone has power to dispense with the rigorous 
 exaction of them. And it is theact of God as a merciful 
 Judge, because the subjects of it are miserable sinners, 
 such as are all men by nature, under the curse of the 
 law, whom therefore God could punish as a Judge, but 
 whom he saves as an appeased Judge and merciful 
 Father. We must notice also the two parts of which 
 justification consists, viz., E remission of sins, and the 
 7 
 
314 OF THE JUSTIFICATION 
 
 right or title to eternal life; these twothe scripture joins 
 together, * Christ was made under the law, to redeem 
 them that were under the law,” that is, from the curse 
 of it, * that we might receive the adoption of sons,” i. e. 
 the right to life, which flows from adoption. So again, 
 Paul declares that “ by faith we receive remission of 
 sins, and an inheritance among them that are sanctified,” 
 i. e. a right or title to eternal life, (Acts xxvi. 18.) These 
 two benefits are joined together; for although they 
 could be separated in the nature of things, so that a sin- 
 ner might obtain remission of sins, and yet not be crown- 
 ed with eternal glory, yet are they inseparably connect- 
 ed together in the covenant of grace. 
 
 The first of these benefits is set forth under different 
 forms of expression—such as remission, sins being some- 
 times represented as debts—pardon, alluding to the par- 
 don which a judge grants to a criminal—cleansing, sin 
 being ofien compared to fi/th, in which also there is an 
 allusion to the blood of a propitiatory sacrifice—blotting 
 out, which expression gives us the idea of a book in 
 which divine justice notes down all our sins in order to 
 punish them. It is further set forth by covering sin, God 
 being regarded as hiding our sins under the veil of his 
 mercy, so that his justice cannot behold them; also by 
 non-imputation, alluding to the account books of mer- 
 chants or traders. Also by reconciliation, denoting pre- 
 vious enmity ; deliverance, denoting previous bondage; 
 making white, (Isaiah l. 18,) an allusion, if we may be- 
 lieve some persons, to what happened in the case of the 
 scape-goat, who was sent away into the wilderness with 
 a rope of red colour, which, during his journey, miracu- 
 lously became white, if God pardoned the sins of the 
 people; but if not, remained red. The other benefit is 
 also expressed by various terms, and particularly by 
 that of adoption, of which we shall treat presently. 
 
 The foundation of both these benefits is not the inhe- 
 rent righteousness, or good works of sinners themselves: 
 for our justification, according to David and Paul, is 
 without works, (Psalm exliii. 2; Rom. iii. 20, 28; iv. 6; 
 Gal. ii. 16 ;) not merely works done before grace, which 
 are nothing but sins, but works done even after grace 
 received. If any man had ever been justified by works, 
 surely it would have been David, or Abraham; but they 
 were not so justified. Besides, if the foundation of this 
 benefit were our own righteousness or good works, the 
 two covenants would be confounded; whereas they are 
 
OF A SINNER. 315 
 
 diametrically opposed to each other; nor can imperfect 
 righteousness, such as is defiled with many stains, con- 
 stitute any such foundation. Now such is the character 
 of all our righteousness, which is compared to “ filthy 
 rags,” (Isaiah lxiv. 6.) Jf you lean upon it, says even 
 one of the Popes, Adrian Vl. it is a mere reed, which will 
 break, and also pierce through the hand of him that thus 
 leans upon it. Nor can such a righteousness deserve 
 the remission of sins, since the forgiven sinner receives 
 the very contrary to what he has truly deserved. 
 
 And here we cannot avoid citing the excellent words 
 of Calvin, Jt is an easy thing, he says, to trifle in the 
 schools of human divinity about the sufficiency of works 
 for the justification of men; but when we come into the 
 presence of God, all such conceits must vanish away, be- 
 cause there the question assumes a serious aspect, and 
 there is no sportive strife of vain words. If then we wish 
 to seek after true righteousness to any purpose, we must 
 direct our whole attention to this single question, How we 
 can answer our heavenly Judge, when he shall call us to 
 account. Let us place before our eyes that Judge, not 
 such a one as our own understandings choose to imagine, 
 but such a one as is set before us in the seripture; one, 
 by whose brightness the stars are darkened, by whose 
 strength the mountains melt away, by whose wisdom “the 
 wise are taken in their own craftiness,” before whose pu- 
 rity all things appear unclean, whose justice cannot be 
 endured even by angels, who cannot “clear the guilty," 
 whose indignation when once lighted up, burns even to 
 the lowest hell, let such an one, I say, sit upon his throne 
 to examine the deeds of mortals, and who can stand up- 
 right before him, “who can dwell with devouring fire, 
 who can lie down in everlasting burnings” (of God’s dis- 
 pleasure)? Jt is indeed an easy thing, as long as we 
 continue to compare ourselves with men, for any man to 
 think that he possesses a goodness, which another man 
 cannot despise ; but when we raise our thoughts to God, 
 all this confidence immediately falls to the ground, and 
 vanishes away, and our souls stand affected towards 
 God in some such way as our bodies towards the visible 
 heaven; for the eye, as long as it confines itself to the 
 gaze of objects beneath and around it, receives many 
 proafs of its own quick-sightedness ; but when it is fixed 
 upon the sun, being dazzled and overpowered by its in- 
 tolerable splendour, it is sensible of no less weakness from 
 the contemplation of that luminary, than it was of 
 
316 OF THE JUSTIFCATION 
 
 strength from the contemplation of theinferior creatures. 
 (Institutes b. iii. c. 12. 
 
 Therefore the foundation and the meritorious cause 
 of our justification is some other righteousness than our 
 own, even the righteousness of Christ, imputed to us by 
 the Father. 'To prove this, let it be observed, that our 
 justification is the act of God as a judge, though sitting 
 on a throne of grace—that God exercises mercy without 
 injuring justice—that no one can be justified without a 
 perfect righteousness — that this perfect righteousness 
 cannot be found in ourselves—that it can only be found 
 in God, and therefore in Christ, who baving taken upon 
 himself the office of our surety, most fully satisfied God's 
 justice, and * brought in everlasting righteousness," and 
 was pleased to unite himself to us by a double tie—by 
 his participating in our nature, and by our participating 
 in his Spirit, in order that his righteousness might be 
 imputed to us. Nor should the term impute occasion 
 any surprise; for it is ofted used by Paul. That Christ's 
 righteousness is imputed to us, the scripture plainly 
 teaches: thus Paul—* By the righteousness of one the 
 free gift came upon all men unto justification of life: by the 
 obedience of one shall many be made righteous." (Rom. 
 v.18,19.) And, *Christ was made sin for us, that we 
 might be made the righteousness of God in him." (2 Cor. 
 v. 21.) For we are “made righteousness in Christ,” in 
 the same way as he was “made sin for us;” now he was 
 made sin, inasmuch as our sins were imputed to him; 
 and therefore we are made righteousness in him, be- 
 cause his righteousness is imputed to us. Thus Luther 
 directs one to whom he writes, to address Christ thus— 
 Thou, Lord Jesus, art my righteousness, I am thy sin ; 
 thou tookest what was mine, and gavest me what was 
 thine ; thou assumedst what thou wast not, and madest 
 me what I was not ;-and in another place he represents 
 the faithful soul as saying to Christ—IJ am thy sin, thou 
 art my righteousness ; I therefore triumph securely, be- 
 cause neither my sin shall prevail above thy righteous- 
 ness, nor shall thy righteousness suffer me to be or to 
 continue a sinner. It is only this righteousness which 
 could have appeased the wrath of God, and obtained for 
 us remission of sins. ‘Through this man,” says Paul, “is 
 preached unto you the forgiveness of sins; and by him all 
 that believe are justified from all things, from which ye 
 could not be justified by the law of Moses.” (Acts xiii. 
 
OF A SINNER. 317 
 
 38, 39.) Therefore the Redeemer is called * Jehovah— 
 or the Lord—our righteousness.” (Jer. xxiil. 6.) 
 
 But here we may remark, that, when we say that the 
 righteousness of Christ is imputed to us, we mean no- 
 thing more, than that God treats us in the same manner, 
 as if the obedience of Christ, which was performed on 
 our account, were our own; which should no mofe ap- 
 pear strange, than that Christ should have been treated 
 by the Father, as if he had really committed the sins 
 which we only had committed, or that among men a 
 debtor should be said to be free and discharged from all 
 further obligation, on account of payment made by an- 
 other person. Now this obedience of Christ hath ob- 
 tained for us perfect remission of sins, and complete de- 
 liverance from all punishment; hence God is said to 
 “east all our sins behind his back, not to impute, to blot 
 out, not to remember them,” which could not be said, if 
 he still demanded the penalty of our sins; hence it is that 
 the justified are said to “have peace with God,” and that 
 “there is no condemnation to them;” which could not 
 be said, if there were still any punishment to be suffered. 
 
 We do not, indeed, deny that believers are often ex- 
 posed to various afflictions; which of themselves are real 
 punishments for sin; according to the threatenings of 
 the law, but which cease to be punishments to those 
 who are reconciled with God in Christ; they are only 
 fatherly chastisements, and are to be even numbered 
 among the divine blessings; hence there is joy connected 
 with them, and we may even “glory in them.” They 
 cannot, therefore, be called properly punishments, though 
 they are so in their own nature, and tend to “the de- 
 struction of the flesh;” for they are not inflicted by God’s 
 anger for the recompense of sin and the destruction of 
 the sinner. Here it may not be unprofitable to cite an 
 excellent form of consolation, which is attributed to An- 
 selm, Archbishop of Canterbury, and in which there is 
 an admirable view of our justification by the merits of 
 Christ. The sick man is asked, Dost thow believe that 
 thou canst not be saved, but by the death of our Lord? 
 He replies in the affirmative. He is then addressed thus 
 — Therefore praise God, and give thanks to him always, 
 as long as thou livest, and place all thy confidence, hope, 
 and love in him, and in nothing else, and commit thy soul 
 to the death and passion of our Lord Jesus Christ. And 
 if the Supreme Judge should be pleased to enter into judg- 
 ment with thee, then say be Lord, I place the death 
 
 vA * 
 
318 OF THE JUSTIFICATION 
 
 of Christ between me and thy judgment, and I claim to 
 myself no other merit. And should the Judge say, Thou 
 hast deserved condemnation, then say, Lord, thy mercy 
 and thy bitter death I place between me and thee. 
 
 This justification, moreover, is said to be by faith, as 
 the scripture expressly teaches, (Rom. iii. 25. Gal. ii. 16,) 
 but here we must observe, that faith does not properly 
 justify us of itself, as though the act of believing were 
 reckoned as our righteousness before God; because we 
 are not justified, except by a perfect and complete right- 
 eousness, which certainly faith is not, and because our 
 justification is particularly ascribed to the grace of God 
 and the redemption by Christ, (Rom. iii. 24.) But justi- 
 fication is ascribed to faith for two reasons; not merely 
 as it is the condition of the covenant, without which God 
 will not forgive sins, and upon which he will forgive them. 
 We must not, indeed, deny that many find fault with 
 this mode of speaking, viz. that we are justified through 
 faith, as the condition of the covenant; for they observe 
 that there is, properly speaking, no condition of justifica- 
 tion, except perfect obedience; that the law requires 
 this, and that the gospel does not substitute any other 
 obedience, but only shews that the law has been fully 
 satisfied by the Surety Christ. But these are the rea- 
 sons why justification is attributed to faith, viz. because 
 through it we cleave to Christ, whose righteousness is 
 the only foundation of our acceptance ; and also because 
 through it we apply that righteousness to ourselves, and 
 by it alone are persuaded of the good will of God to- 
 wards us. And not without reason is this office assign- 
 ed to faith, before all other graces, because it alone, out 
 of all others, can subsist or stand with divine grace, see- 
 ing that it is employed, as it were, in the mere receiving 
 and apprehending of an object which is placed without 
 it, and because, as Toletus a Papist observes, by faith it 
 is more clearly shewn how man is justified, not by his 
 own merit, but by the merit of Christ, and by it alone is 
 * boasting excluded." 
 
 Although faith is a work, seeing it is an act of the 
 mind, yet in the matter of justification it is distinguished 
 from works; for faith only receives, it gives nothing, 
 whereas works give, and do not receive. Let this be 
 ilustrated by a comparison—the reaching forth of the 
 hand by a beggar, by which he receives alms, is the act 
 and work of the beggar, yet it does not relieve him, as 
 far as it is a work, but as far as in this way he applies 
 
OF A SINNER. 319 
 
 to himself the gift, and makes it hisown. Nor did Paul, 
 when he declared that man is not justified by works, 
 mean that he could be justified by evangelical, though 
 not by legal works. For in no place does he oppose the 
 one to the other, but excludes all works. The works 
 of Abraham and David had no share in their justifica- 
 tion; and yet these were evangelical works. 
 
 We must not, however, omit to observe, that this 
 faith, which is said to justify, is not true and liv- 
 ing faith unless it be joined with repentance, hope, 
 love, and other graces. God never forgives a man 
 his sins, unless, while he believes, he also repents of 
 sin, and firmly resolves to amend his life, and perform 
 good works; for he does not justify, in order that we 
 may be at liberty to sin for the future. Thus, then, there 
 are two things without which there is no justification— 
 one is supposed, and this is faith, including a firm resolu- 
 tion of doing good works; the other is imposed, and that 
 is good works themselves. This may be illustrated by 
 the following example — suppose a man to adopt a 
 stranger as his son, and by this act of adoption to give 
 him a title to his estate; this adoption cannot take place 
 without something being supposed at the time, and 
 another thing being imposed afterward ; that which is 
 supposed at the time is, that the person to be adopted is 
 willing to serve his benefactor ; that which is imposed is, 
 that he actually do serve him. The effects of-justifica- 
 tion are peace of conscience, which is a mutual harmony 
 between God and the justified sinner, the sense of di- 
 vine love, the hope of glory, and joy in tribulation, (Rom. 
 v. 1—5.) 
 
 As to the question which is sometimes raised, whether 
 justification is from all eternity, or only in time, no one 
 will deny that it was decreed from eternity, but still, it 
 actually takes place only in time. For calling certainly 
 takes place in time, and calling precedes justification, 
 (Rom. viii. 30,) therefore the latter takes place in time 
 also. Besides, we are justified by faith, which is intime, 
 nor is God ever said to forgive sins, except a man first 
 repent and believe. Justification therefore takes place 
 in time, at the period of effectual calling, when a sinner 
 is translated from a state of sin into a state of grace, and 
 is united to Christ by faith. It is sensibly experienced 
 by the believer, so that he knows he is justified ; it is 
 sealed at the hour of death, when God more particularly 
 assures the soul, that its sins are forgiven; but the pub- 
 
320 OF ADOPTION. 
 
 lic declaration of it will take place at the last day, when 
 Christ upon his throne of grace will exercise the last 
 solemn act of judgment, and will crown the faithful with 
 that glory, to which he gave them a right and title by 
 justifying them upon earth. Should it be inquired, 
 whether remission or forgiveness be extended to future 
 sins; although some divines contend, that, from the mo- 
 ment of our entrance into communion with Christ, there 
 is no sin of which we do not obtain the remission, yet 
 we think it better to say, that remission is not extended 
 to future sins. For in the first place, as long as there is 
 no sin, punishment is nof due to it, and when it is not 
 due, it cannot be said to be remitted. Again, to remis- 
 sion of sin are required repentance and confession, 
 which therefore suppose sin to be actually committed ; 
 hence we are commanded to seek forgiveness daily, 
 which can only be applied to actually committed sins. 
 Observe, also, that when a believer falls into sin, the for- 
 giveness he has once received is not done away, nor do 
 the sins forgiven him, rise up again in judgment, but 
 still he incurs the wrath of his heavenly Father, and 
 stands in need of fresh forgiveness. 
 
 Finally, justification is the same or equal in all true be- 
 lievers, both of the Old and of the New Testament. “It 
 is one God,” says Paul, “ which shall justify the cireum- 
 cision by faith, and the üncircumcision through faith,” 
 (Rom. iii. 30.) The same truth is largely set forth in 
 Rom. iv. and Heb. xi. Add to this what Peter says, that 
 to Christ “give all the prophets witness, that through 
 his name whosoever believeth in him shall receive re- 
 mission of sins,” (Acts x. 43.) It is true, however, that 
 there is a difference between the justification of the an- 
 cient saints, and our own, in regard to the experience and 
 degree of it. 
 
 CHAPTER III. 
 OF ADOPTION. 
 
 Tue other part of justification is adoption, or the be- 
 stowal of a right to eternal life, which flows from the im- 
 
OF ADOPTION. 321 
 
 putation of Christ’s righteousness, for “he was made 
 under the law, to redeem us, that we might receive the 
 adoption of sons,” i. e. havea title to life, for ** if children, 
 then heirs,” (Gal. iv. 4, 5. Rom. viii. 17.) The word 
 adoption is sometimes taken for the external receiving 
 of men into covenant with God, as was the case with the 
 Jews, (Rom. ix. 4.) Hence the Israelites are called the 
 * sons of God,” and the “ first-born,” (Deut. xxxii. 19, 20. 
 Exod. iv. 22.) Sometimes the word is taken for the ex- 
 perience and liberty of adoption, such as belongs to be- 
 lievers under the New Testament, who, having become 
 as it were adult, and no longer children, are said to have 
 received the spirit of adoption. Sometimes it is taken 
 for the full manifestation of adoption, which shall take 
 place in the future resurrection (Rom. viii. 23.) It is also 
 taken for that act of God, by which, of his mere grace, 
 through faith in Christ, he admits the elect into lis 
 family, and bestows on them the name and privilege of 
 sons, for the obtaining of the eternal inheritance. 
 
 Now adoption, as the word is used in law, is a lawful 
 act, in imitation of nature, instituted for the comfort of 
 those who have no children of their own. The cere- 
 mony of adoption took place among the Romans in this 
 form. The father and the person to be adopted presented 
 themselves to the praetor, and then the former said to the 
 latter, Wilt thou become my son? to which he replied, J 
 will. In many respects divine and human adoption re- 
 semble each other; for both are acts of free favour—in 
 both a stranger is admitted into the family—in both the 
 name of the family is given, and also a title to the inhe- 
 ritance—both are the consequence of two acts, of which 
 in divine adoption, one is the act of God's will, the other 
 of our own; for God says in the gospel, * Wilt thou be 
 my son ?" and by faith we each answer, *I will" There 
 is, however, a very great difference between human and 
 divine adoption; the former was instituted to console 
 the childless, and to supply the deficiency of nature; the 
 latter takes place for our comfort, not for that of God, 
 who had a Son, even his well-beloved—the former leads 
 to the possession of the property of the deceased father ; 
 the latter to a share in the happiness of the Father ever- 
 lasting—the one can bestow the name and titles, but not 
 the disposition and qualities of sons; in the other, the 
 adopting Lord changes the heart. Lastly, the one sup- 
 poses its objects to be good, and does not make them so; 
 the other does not suppose, but makes its objects good. 
 
322 OF ADOPTION. 
 
 By this adoption we have God as our Father, and we 
 are his children; not indeed by nature, as Christ was; 
 noras the angels, who are called the sons of God, be- 
 cause God created them, and stamped upon them the 
 image of his holiness, and for other reasons; (Job. i. 6; 
 xxxviii. 7;) nor as Adam, who is also called the son of 
 God, (Luke iii. 38,) though this passage may be ex- 
 plained otherwise; but we are called the sons of God by 
 grace, and because we have received from him a new 
 nature. The dignity of this sonship appears from the 
 dignity of Him who adopts—from the divine nature of 
 which the adopted partake--from their spiritual union, 
 and marriage with Christ — from the inheritance pro- 
 mised to them. By this adoption, also, we have free ac- 
 cess to God and the knowledge of his mysteries, and are 
 assured of his protection, care, and love. We have also 
 atitle to the blessings of grace and glory, and to the in- 
 heritance of heaven, which is purchased by the blood of 
 Christ. Atthe same time we engage to pay unto God 
 filial reverence, love, and obedience. 
 
 This privilege is common to all the faithful; still, under 
 the Old Testament, “believers being under tutors and 
 governors,” though children, * differed nothing from : 
 servants,” (Gal. iv. 1, 2,) nor did they enjoy the full exer- 
 cise of their privilege, being in *the spirit of bondage." 
 Whereas believers under the New Testament, being as 
 it were adult, and in possession of their freedom, are ad- 
 mitted through Christ into the audience-chamber of their 
 Father, and in “the spirit of adoption" are enabled to 
 “cry, Abba, Father.” Upon this word Abba, we may 
 remark, what learned men observe, that the word Adi 
 signifies a natural father, but at the same time an adopted 
 or civil father, an elder, a master, a magistrate; but the 
 word Abba signifies nothing but a natural father. Among 
 the Jews none but a freeman was allowed to address any 
 one by the title of Abba. This word descended to the 
 Greeks; hence, in Callimachus, Diana calls Jupiter àmza, 
 and Ausonius uses the verb abare for déeMtte, i. e. to ad- 
 dress any one kindly and familiarly, as a brother. 
 
. 
 OF CHRISTIAN LIBERTY. 323 
 
 CHAPTER IY. 
 OF CHRISTIAN LIBERTY. 
 
 Tuts 1s that which accompanies adoption; but it is not 
 to be understood as an exemption from all laws human 
 and divine, and a liberty to live at one’s pleasure, and to 
 indulge the lusts of the flesh; nor yet as an exemption 
 from the jurisdiction of magistrates or governors; but as 
 a mystical and spiritual freedom, by which we are de- 
 livered from the tyranny of sin, the curse of the law, and 
 the yoke and bondage of the Levitical ceremonies, and 
 being renewed by the Holy Spirit, offer a voluntary and 
 cheerful obedience to God. The faithful, indeed, under 
 the Old Testament, partook of this liberty, inasmuch as 
 they were freed from the tyranny of sin, and the curse 
 of the law; but those under the New Testament, in ad- 
 dition to these privileges, are exempt from the yoke of 
 ceremonies, * the elements of the world," (Gal. iv. 3), and 
 also from the judicial laws of the Israelites, which were 
 peculiar to that nation. 
 
 To Christian liberty belongs liberty of conscience, by 
 which the conscience is subject to God only, so that no 
 authority can oblige the faithful to do any thing contrary 
 to its dictates, and no human laws directly and immedi- 
 ately bind the conscience, although it may be subject to 
 them indirectly and by the law of God. To Christian 
 liberty belongs also the free use of things indifferent, 
 which use, however, is regulated in scripture by these 
 two rules—we must be fully assured that we are not 
 doing wrong, when we use things indifferent, since 
 ** whatsoever is not of faith is sin," (Rom. xiv. 23.) We 
 must also consider, not only what is “lawful,” but also 
 what is “expedient,” (1 Cor. vi. 12; x. 23.) The 14th 
 chapter of the epistle to the Romans is full of instruction 
 on this subject. 
 
 In the enjoyment of our Christian liberty, we must also 
 take care to abstain from giving any offence, or laying 
 any stumbling-block before others, either by word or deed. 
 We must have a particular regard to “the weak,” nor 
 must we make a free use even of things indifferent, if we 
 
924 J OF CHRISTIAN LIBERTY. 
 
 can perceive that thereby any persons will judge ill of 
 our piety, or will be led by our conduct in this respect to 
 undervalue religion. But by *the weak" we by no 
 means understand persons who are obstinate in error 
 or who design, as the apostle says, *to spy out our lib- 
 erty," (Gal. ii. 4, 11, 12), but those brethren who are not 
 yet sufficiently instructed in Christian liberty, like many 
 of the Jews newly converted, for whose sake therefore 
 the decree of the council at Jerusalem was framed, (Acts 
 xv.) But I close this chapter with the excellent remarks 
 of Calvin—We must carefully observe, says he, that Chris- 
 tian liberty is in all its parts spiritual, that the whole 
 force and design of it is directed to the pacifying of trem- 
 bling consciences before God; whether they are uneasy 
 about the forgiveness of sins, or full of doubt whether their 
 imperfect and defiled services are acceptable to God; or 
 whether they are perplexed about the use of things indif- 
 ferent. Therefore a very wrong use is made of this lib- 
 erty, both by those who make it a cloak for their lusts, so 
 as to abuse the gifts of God to those lusts, and by those 
 also, who think it no liberty at all, unless they openly dis- 
 play it before men, and consequently in so doing pay no 
 regard whatever to weak brethren, The first of these 
 kinds of abuse is much practised in the present age. 
 There is scarcely any one, whose means permit him to be 
 thus expensive, who is not delighted with the most profuse 
 splendour in his entertainments, in his dress, and in his 
 houses ; who does not aim to be conspicuous among the rest 
 by every kind of luxury; and who does not rest wonder- 
 fully self-complacent in all this prodigality—every thing 
 being defended under the pretext of Christian liberty. 
 * These are things indifferent, say they—I allow it, pro- 
 vided we use them indifferently; but when they are too 
 eagerly sought after, and too prodigally used, though 
 otherwise lawful in themselves, they become sinful by 
 vicious excess. (Institutes, b. iii. c. 19.) 
 
OF THE JUSTIFICATION OF A RIGHTEOUS MAN. 325 
 
 CHAPTER VY. - 
 OF THE JUSTIFICATION OF A RIGHTEOUS MAN. 
 
 WE have spoken of the justification of man as a sinner ; 
 we must now speak of his justification as a righteous 
 man, i. e, that by which he proves that he is justified, 
 and that he possesses a true justifying faith. Now this 
 justification is by works, even in the sight of God, as well 
 as of men; and of this James speaks, when he declares 
 that “ by works a man is justified, and not by faith only.” 
 (James ii. 24.) To illustrate this, we must remark that 
 there is a two-fold accusation of man. First, he is ac- 
 cused before God’s tribunal of the guilt of sin, and this 
 accusation is met or done away by the justification of 
 which we have already treated. Secondly, the man who 
 has been thus justified may be accused of hypocrisy, 
 false profession and unregeneracy; now he clears him- 
 self from this accusation, and justifies his faith by his 
 works—this is his second justification; it differs from 
 the first; for in the first a sinner is acquitted from guilt, 
 in the second a godly man is distinguished from the 
 ungodly. In the first God imputes the righteousness of 
 Christ; in the second he pronounces judgment from the 
 gift of holiness bestowed upon us; both these justifica- 
 tions the believer obtains, and therefore it is true that 
 * by works he is justified, and not by faith only.” 
 
 From these remarks it is plain, that James is easily 
 reconciled with Paul, especially if we consider, that Paul 
 had to do with justiciaries, who sought to be justified 
 by the law, i. e. by their own works; but James had 
 to deal with a sort of Epicureans, who, content with a 
 mere profession, neglected good works; it is no wonder 
 then, that Paul should insist upon faith, and James upon 
 works. Moreover, Paul speaks of a lively and effica- 
 cious faith, but James of a faith without works. Paul 
 also speaks of the justification of the ungodly or sinner, 
 James of that justification, by which a man as it were 
 justifies his faith, and proves himself to be justified. For 
 it is his design to show that it is not enough for a Chris- 
 tian man to glory in the eee of sins, which is un- 
 
 S 
 
326 OF THE JUSTIFICATION OF A RIGHTEOUS MAN. 
 
 questionably obtained only by a living faith in Christ, 
 but that he must endeavour to make it manifest by his 
 works, that he is truly renewed, that he possesses real 
 faith and righteousness, and lives as becomes a regene- 
 rate and justified person. Hence it is plain, that Abra- 
 ham is properly said to have been justified, when he 
 offered up Isaac, because by this he proved that he had 
 real faith, and cleared himself from every charge of hy- 
 pocrisy, of which he might have been accused. In this 
 sense that passage may be explained, (Rev. xxii.,) “he 
 that is righteous, let him be righteous still,” i. e. let him 
 show by his works that he is justified ; although the words 
 may be differently read and explained. When James 
 says that “by works was faith made perfect," (James 
 ii. 22,) this is to be understood as referring to the efficacy 
 of faith, which exercised itself in works, and proved that 
 it was perfect, as when “strength is said to be made 
 perfect in weakness,” i. e. fully known and declared. 
 Again, when it is said, that “the scripture was fulfilled 
 which said, Abraham believed God, and it was imputed. 
 to him for righteousness,” (James ii. 23;) the meaning 
 is, that it was thereby proved that he had been before 
 justified by faith. 
 
 We may add a word or two concerning the justifica- 
 tion of our own cause, as it may be called, of which we 
 so often read in the Psalms of David, and in the book of 
 Job, whereby we defend ourselves against the charges 
 of the devil or even of our own friends; thus Paul says. 
 of himself, * With me itis a very small thing that I should 
 be judged of you, or of man's judgment," &c. (1 Cor. iv. 
 34.) Ofthis kind also was the justification of Phinehas, 
 of whom it is read that the * judgment executed by him. 
 was counted unto him for righteousness,” (Psalm evi. 
 30, 31; Num. xxv. 11, 12,) i. e. he was judged to have 
 acted rightly, although there seemed several things to 
 be disapproved of in what he did ; for it was not suitable 
 for a priest, as Phinehas was, to stain his hands with 
 blood; nor was he one of “the judges of Israel," (Num. 
 xxv. 5, who had the power of punishing the guilty; 
 neither also did he observe the forms of a regular and 
 lawful judgment. 
 
 The whole doctrine of justification displays the glory 
 of God ; it sets forth his amazing goodness, his inviola- 
 ble justice, his wonderful wisdom ; it humbles the sinner, 
 takes away all ground of boasting, comforts the soul 
 when cast down and harassed with a sense of its sins, 
 
OF SANCTIFICATION, &c. 327 
 
 the accusation of the devil, and the terrors of the law, 
 and tends to the promotion of real holiness. 
 
 CHAPTER VI. 
 
 OF SANCTIFICATION AND ITS CONNEXION WITH JUSTIFICA- 
 TION. 
 
 We will first inquire, what sanctification is? It is some- 
 times taken for a separation from a common, and con- 
 secration to a sacred use; thus the persons appointed to 
 conduct the service of the temple, were called holy ; the 
 temple itself, and its vessels and all the instruments of 
 divine worship were called holy ; the city of Jerusalem 
 also was holy, and God is said to have sanctified, i. e. 
 set apart the sabbath days. Sometimes the term istaken 
 for a kind of federal holiness, arising from external call- 
 ing, as Israel was said to be “holiness unto the Lord,” 
 (Jer. ii. 3;) sometimes for the whole of man’s spiritual 
 change under the gospel, in which sense it includes ef 
 fectual calling; thus believers are described as the 
 * sanctified.” Sometimes the term is used more strictly, 
 for that divine operation, whereby a man, who is already 
 by faith united to Christ and justified, is, by the ministry 
 of the word and the power of the Spirit, more and more 
 separated from the world, delivered from his natural 
 corruption, and made conformable to the image of God ; 
 his depraved habits and qualities are rectified, and holy 
 ones are implanted, so that the man ceases from evil, 
 and follows after what is good. To speak more fully on 
 this subject, sanctification takes place, when God so illu- 
 minates the minds of believers, that they clearly under- 
 stand all those things which tend to their greater confi- 
 dence in the divine promises, and to their progress in 
 real godliness. This illumination Paul prays for on be- 
 half of the faithful: (Eph. i. 17, 18; Col.i. 9.) Also, when 
 he produces in them an aversion to all evil, and implants 
 in them a perfect hatred of sin, and an ardent desire 
 after holiness; when he turns them from the creature to 
 the Creator, restrains the tumult of the passions, and - 
 
328 OF SANCTIFICATION AND ITS 
 
 brings them into subjection to the will and command- 
 ments of God; when, also, he brings the body into sub- 
 jection, and restrains the eyes, the hands, the tongue, 
 the ears, and other members, from being the occasions 
 of sin. In short, by sanctification, the image of the old 
 Adam is defaced, and the image of the second Adam is 
 impressed. “The old man is put off,” * the new man is 
 put on,” and all these things are effected by the power 
 of the Holy Spirit. 
 
 This sanctification differs from justification in several 
 respects: and they are expressly distinguished in scrip- 
 ture; thus (1 Cor. vi. 11,) * Ye are washed, ye are justi- 
 fied, ye are sanctified.” Justification delivers us from 
 the guilt, sanctification from the filth, of sin; justification 
 consists in the remission of sins through the righteous- 
 ness of Christ imputed; sanctification is the renewal of 
 the soul, and is inherent in us; justification is perfect, and 
 is equal in all that are justified ; sanctification is imper- 
 fect, is bestowed in an unequal measure, and is gradu- 
 ally increased in every believer “ according to the meas- 
 ure of the gift of Christ.” But although these benefits 
 are distinct, yet are they never separated; hence they 
 are often designated in scripturé by one and the same 
 word, “ There is forgiveness with thee, that thou mayest 
 be feared,” (Psalm cxxx. 4.) “The Lamb of God” is 
 said * to take away the sin of the world,” (John i. 29,) i. 
 e. he takes it away by removing the curse, and washing 
 away the stain. God has joined these two blessings to- 
 gether in the covenant of grace, in which he promises 
 that “ he will be merciful to the unrighteousness or sins 
 of his people,” and that * he will write his law in their 
 hearts." (Jer. xxxi. 33, 34 ; Heb. viii. 10—12; x. 16.) 
 
 Nor does the nature of the case allow it to be other- 
 wise ; for the justice of God cannot permit him to adopt 
 into his family, and bestow a title to eternal life upon 
 any of our race, without at the same time stamping his 
 own image upon them: since there can be no fellowship 
 of light with darkness, and * without holiness no man 
 shall see the Lord," (Heb. xii. 14,) nor can any * partake 
 of the inheritance of the saints in light," unless first 
 “made meet for it." (Col. i. 12) Christ is not only 
 * made unto us righteousness,” but also ** sanctification ;” 
 (1 Cor. i. 30;) he is not only our surety, who has made 
 satisfaction for us, but also our head, who makes us holy 
 by the communications of his grace; his death, which is 
 the propitiation for our sins, furnishes us with numerous 
 
CONNEXION WITH JUSTIFICATION. 329 
 
 motives to holiness; by showing us the heinousness of sin, 
 God’s hatred of it, the unspeakable love of Christ, and 
 the property which he has acquired in us by that death. 
 (Rom. xiv. 8,9; 1 Cor. vi. 19, 20; 2 Cor. v. 14, 15; Titus 
 ii. 14; 1 Peter i ii. 24) The gospel which reveals to us 
 the good tidings of forgiveness, also urges us to holiness, 
 as a law, commanding us to “deny ungodliness and 
 worldly lusts, and to live soberly, righteously, and_god- 
 ly, in this present world.” (Titus ii. 11, 12.) The Spirit 
 which is given us, is also a * spirit of holiness," as well 
 as a *spirit of adoption ;" the faith which justifies us, 
 ** purifieth the heart," (Acts xv. 9,) the baptism, which is 
 administered * for the remission of sins," is called * the 
 washing of regeneration," (Titus iii. 5,) and if in the 
 Lord's Supper the body of Christ broken, and the blood 
 of Christ, shed, for sin, are exhibited to our eyes for the 
 remission of our sins, they are also exhibited, as the 
 nourishment of that spiritual life, which consists of 
 sanctification. 
 
 We may add, that sanctification is sometimes set forth 
 as the work of God in man; (1 Thess. v. 23;) at other 
 times, as the duty of man towards God. (2 Cor. vii. 1; 
 1 Thess. iv. 3; 1 Peteri. 15, 16.) We may also make a 
 few remarks on the imperfection of this sanctification. 
 For that it is imperfect, is proved from all those passages 
 of scripture in which it is said, that * sin always dwelleth 
 in us," that “in many things we all offend,” that * none 
 can say he hath made his heart clean,” that “ there is not 
 a just man, who doeth good, and sinneth not, " and that 
 we cannot say with truth, * We have no sin,’ ' (Prov. xx. 
 9; James iii. 2; L John i. 8) &c. &c.; also from that 
 single passage which says, * The flesh lusteth against 
 the spirit," &c., (Gal. v. 17,) and similar passages. But 
 here let us not confound the struggle which takes place 
 in the unregenerate, with that which is in the regenerate. 
 In the latter the struggle is between the flesh and the 
 spirit ; in the former between the flesh and reason ; be- 
 tween lusts that are contrary to each other ; for instance, 
 between avarice and luxury ; moreover, the unregene- 
 rate only feel this struggle when they commit gross sins; 
 the regenerate when they commit the smallest or least 
 sins. The imperfection of sanctification is also evident 
 from the confession of all the saints, such as Job, David, 
 Isaiah, Daniel, Paul, John, &c. &c., and also from the 
 daily petition which we are directed to offer for forgive- 
 ness of sins. 
 
 28 * 
 
330 OF GOOD WORKS. 
 
 We do not indeed deny, that we read in scripture of 
 some persons who were perfect, and perfectly loved God 
 and kept his commands, (2 Chron. xv. 17; Jobi. 1; Luke 
 i. 6,) but if we carefully examine the cases of these per- 
 sons, we shall find that by perfection is only meant the 
 sincerity of their obedience, and that they are called per- 
 fect, in comparison with others among whom they lived. 
 We also allow that the scripture exhorts us to perfection, 
 (Matt. v. 48.) not, however, as though we can attain to 
 it on earth, but because we must always aim at it with 
 all our might. Lastly, it should not be a matter of sur- 
 prise that God, whose works are perfect, does not sanc- 
 tify his people perfectly ; for all his works are perfect in 
 that mode, and in that degree, in which he wills them to 
 be perfect; now he does indeed will us to be perfectly 
 holy, but not in this life; therefore he makes us holy by 
 degrees, while we live here below. Thus it has pleased 
 him to make a difference between earth and heaven ; 
 thus it hath pleased him to exercise his people in the 
 same way as he chose to exercise the Israelites, by suf- 
 fering the Amorites and Philistines to remain in Canaan, 
 that the former might not grow torpid through inactiv- 
 ity ; thus also it has pleased him to show that salvation 
 is owing to his own free grace, and that eternal life is 
 given us by him, not as weighing owr merits, but as free- 
 ly bestowing pardon. 
 
 CHAPTER VII. 
 
 OF GOOD WORKS. 
 
 SancrIFICATION is displayed and promoted by good works ; 
 in speaking of which we must consider, what is a good 
 work, whether such works are necessary, and whether 
 they merit eternal life. To produce a good work, it is 
 required, first, that it be done according to the will of 
 God revealed in his word, which is the only rule of faith 
 and conduct; sin being a departure from this will of 
 God. Secondly, that it be something positive, and not a 
 bare ceasing from operation; otherwise the man who 
 
OF GOOD WORKS. 331 
 
 sleeps or who is idle might be said to perform a good 
 work; though it may be admitted that ceasing from 
 operation may be called a good work, provided there is 
 joined with it some positive and good intention, or if 
 this cessation of action arises from the danger of falling 
 into some sin, which the action, if performed, would oc- 
 casion. Thirdly, that it be done in faith, i. e. with a 
 firm persuasion that it is agreeable to God, since * what- 
 Soever is not of faith is sin ;" and * without faith it is im- 
 possible to please God," (Rom. xiv. 23; Heb. xi. 6,) and 
 * to the defiled and unbelieving nothing is pure," (Titus 
 i 15.) Whatever, then, is done against the dictates of 
 conscience, is sin; not that conscience is the supreme 
 law of our actions, but it is a subordinate law; and 
 therefore whoever acts contrary to the voice of con- 
 Science, commits sin, inasmuch as he does what he be- 
 lieves to be wrong. Fourthly, that it be done for a good 
 end, namely, to “the glory of God;” (1 Cor. x. 31,) 
 otherwise all actions are evil; thus, giving of alms, 
 prayer, and fasting, are pronounced sins by Christ, 
 (Matt. vi.) when they are done with the design of ob- 
 taining glory from men. Augustine rightly observes, 
 Whatever good is done by man, and is not done to that 
 end for which true wisdom commands it to be done, al- 
 though it appear good, it becomes sin, through its wrong 
 end. 
 Mere intention is not sufficient to constitute a good 
 work; if it were so, there would be no need of the illu- 
 mination of the mind, or of a right knowledge of the di- 
 vine commandments; but whatever proceeded from a 
 good intention would be pleasing to God, and therefore 
 a good work; those who are of this opinion thereby 
 make their own will the rule of all actions, and thus 
 usurp the place of God. Neither is a good purpose with- 
 out action sufficient; but the act must follow the pur- 
 pose, or at least there must be nothing on our part to 
 hinder it from following. From what has been said 
 then, we conclude thatthe splendid actions of the heathen 
 were not good works, since they wanted the above con- 
 ditions. They were virtues of glass, if we may so 
 speak; while they were transparent, they were broken: 
 they united the splendour of the diamond with the brit- 
 tleness of crystal. Many excellent things, indeed, are 
 recorded of the heathen, as of Socrates, who is said to 
 have been tolerant of injuries, possessed of firmness of 
 mind, rectitude of purpose, frugality, chastity, and tem- 
 
332 OF GOOD WORKS. 
 
 perance; and also of Aristides, who is said to have 
 wronged no man, nor to have given cause for sorrow to 
 any one, to have been the most strenuous advocate of 
 justice, and distinguished for his honesty ; similar vir- 
 tues are recorded of Camillus, Fabricius, Cato, Epami- 
 nondas, and many others. 
 
 In order to account for these virtues, we may observe 
 that a work must not be instantly pronounced good, be- 
 cause it has the appearance of being so; and the remark 
 will apply to the virtues of the heathen, which Cicero 
 made concerning their wisdom; 7'hose who were ac- 
 counted wise, and called so, as M. Cato and C. Lelius, 
 were not really wise; nor even the seven wise men them- 
 selves ; but from a vast number of common and ordinary 
 duties * which they performed, they bore the appearance 
 and likeness of wise inen. We must observe also that 
 those heathens merely offered incense to their own 
 glory; for the pride of Socrates is pointed out not only 
 by Aristophanes, but also by his own disciple Plato. 
 Every one is acquainted with the pride of the Stoics, 
 who maintained that £o live indeed was owing to the 
 gods, but to live well was owing to ourselves. In their 
 actions, their aim was not to please God, but to please 
 either themselves or other men. Plutarch relates of 
 Aristides, called the Just, that Ae injured no one, for this 
 end, that he might make his way into the affections and 
 good will of all. We are far, however, from confound- 
 ing the continence of Scipio with the monstrous de- 
 pravity of Nero, or from confounding Fabricius with 
 Catiline, not because the one was good, but less bad than 
 the other, as Augustine observes. 
 
 As to the necessity of good works, it is clearly estab- 
 lished from the express commands of God, from the ne- 
 cessity of our worshipping and serving God, from the 
 nature of the covenant of grace, in which God promises 
 every kind of blessing, but at the same time requires 
 obedience, from the favours received at his hands, which 
 are so many motives to good works, from the future 
 glory which is promised, and to which good works stand 
 related, as the means to the end, as the road to the goal, 
 as seed-time to the harvest, as first fruits to the whole 
 gathering, and as the contest to the victory, and from 
 the necessity of consulting the advantage of our neigh- 
 bours, and of * making our calling and election sure,” 
 
 * Or, duties which did not reach the perfection of virtue, media officia. 
 
OF GOOD WORKS. 338 
 
 (which is done by good works.) These good works are 
 performed by believers, and although they are not per- 
 fect, yet they may be truly called good, because they are 
 wrought by the special influence of the Holy Spirit in 
 their hearts, and by the assistance of God's grace; hence 
 they please God, who promises them a reward. 
 
 But although they are good, they are not meritorious, 
 or deserving of eternal life. This is evident from four 
 considerations. .Pirst,a work, to be meritorious, must 
 be our own, for no one can be said to deserve aught for 
 what belongs to another; but good works are the gifts 
 of grace, and the fruits of the Spirit, and there is no one 
 who must not adopt Paul's language, * By the grace of 
 God, I am what I am." (1 Cor. xv. 10.) Secondly, a 
 meritorious work must be one that is not due, for no one 
 can have any merit in paying what he owes; but good 
 works are due; * When ye shall have done all those 
 things which are commanded you, say, We are unpro- 
 fitable servants: we have done that which it was our duty 
 to do," (Luke xvii. 10.) Thirdly, there must be a pro- 
 portion, not only between him who deserves, and him 
 from whom it is deserved, but also between the good 
 work and the promised reward; but there is no propor- 
 tion between the two in the present case; not even 
 when the good work is martyrdom, the most excellent 
 of all. For (all) “ the sufferings of this present time are 
 not worthy to be compared with the glory which shall be 
 revealed," (Rom. viii. 18.) Fourthly, a meritorious good 
 work must be perfect ; for where there is sin, there can- 
 not be merit; but our works are imperfect, and are 
 therefore compared to “ filthy rags,” (Isaiah Ixiv. 6.) 
 
 Hence eternal life is called * the gift of God,” whereas 
 death (eternal) is called “the wages of sin.” (Rom. vi. 
 23.) Eternal life is also compared to an * inheritance," 
 to which the idea of merit is inapplicable. It is indeed 
 set forth under the character of a reward, but such a 
 reward as is called *a gift by grace." Christ has most 
 fully merited life and salvation for us, nor is there any 
 need of the addition of human merits; nay, these cannot 
 be added without affront to Christ. Even the blood of 
 Christ cannot give us the power of meriting anything 
 before God, because it cannot make us infinite, or pro- 
 duce any proportionate relation between God and men, 
 or any proportion between our good works and eternal 
 life. It cannot release our good works from their natu- 
 ral obligation, nor cause them to be done by our own 
 
334 OF THE DECALOGUE 
 
 strength. And yet without these several conditions no 
 merit can exist. 
 
 CHAPTER VIII. 
 
 OF THE DECALOGUE OR MORAL LAW. 
 
 Since the moral law is the rule of life and conduct, which 
 law is comprised in the decalogue, or ten command- 
 ments, it will be necessary to give an exposition of it. 
 But first we must make a few preliminary observations. 
 This law is divided into two tables, one of which con- 
 tains the sum of the obedience we owe to God, the other 
 of that which we owe to man;; it is also divided into ten 
 commandments, of which the first four belong to the first, 
 the last six tothe second table. Again, there are certain 
 rules for explaining the decalogue. The first rule is, 
 that the negative are included in the affirmative, and the 
 affirmative in the negative precepts, for what is good 
 cannot be performed, without the opposite evil being 
 avoided, nor the forbidden evil be avoided, without the 
 opposite good being performed. The second ruleis, that 
 under one species, which is expressed, all the species of 
 the same genus are comprehended ; and where one fault 
 is prohibited, all others of the same kind, and analogous 
 to it, together with every thing that tends or leads to it, 
 are also prohibited. The third rule is, that the cause is 
 included in the effect, the species in the genus, the cor- 
 relative in the relative. The fourth rule is, that the law 
 regulates not only the outward actions, but also the in- 
 ward thoughts of the mind. For “the law is spiritual,” 
 as Paul says; (Rom. vii. 14,) nor is the case the same 
 with the heavenly Lawgiver, who searcheth the reins 
 and the heart,as with an earthly lawgiver, who only 
 takes cognizance of that which meets the senses. The 
 fifth rule is, that Jove is the sum and end of all the com- 
 mandments. The sixth rule is, that the affirmative pre- 
 cepts are not always binding, but admit of various in- 
 terpretations and modifications according to time and 
 
OR MORAL LAW. 335. 
 
 place; for instance, a son is not always bound to obey 
 his father; but the negative precepts are always binding, 
 at all times, and in all places, without any regard to cir- 
 cumstances. Moreover, there are certain rules of the 
 obedience which is due to the law—it must be sincere, 
 universal, perfect, and persevering. It must be per- 
 formed.by the whole man--the love of our neighbour 
 must be subject to the love of God—and we must pay 
 greater obedience to the moral precepts of the second 
 table, than to the ceremonial precepts of the first, be- 
 cause God will have mercy, and not sacrifice. 
 
 Having laid down these rules, let us now come to the 
 commandments of the law, before which God has placed 
 a kind of preface, in order that the law, which he is 
 about to deliver, may not be despised. He uses three 
 arguments to enforce its sanction, viz. the power and 
 right which he claims to himself, and by which he binds 
 his chosen people to obedience--the promise of grace, by 
 the sweetness of which he wins them to the pursuit of 
 holiness—and the service he has done them, by which he 
 will convict them of ingratitude unless they make a 
 suitable return for his kindness. 
 
 In the first commandment, in which it is forbidden “to 
 have any other gods than one," there is forbidden 
 atheism, polytheism, magie, the worship of the crea- 
 tures, angels, saints, relics, and images; and there is 
 commanded the true acknowledgment of God, fear, and 
 reverence, love, hope, and confidence towards him, 
 prayer, obedience, and thanksgiving—in short all the 
 duties of true religion. We call this the first command- 
 ment, in opposition to their opinion, who say that the 
 words, “I am the Lord thy God, who brought thee out 
 of the land of Egypt, and out of the house of bondage,” 
 constitute the first commandment; as was the opinion 
 of the more modern Jews, and of some of the fathers. 
 
 In the second commandment God forbids two things— 
 to make the invisible and incomprehensible Being the 
 object of our senses, or to represent bim under any out- 
 ward form; and to worship images in any way what- 
 ever. The wiser heathens believed that the deity ought 
 not to be represented by any image; for Numa, as Plu- 
 tarch relates, forbade any image of the deity to be made, 
 resembling either man, or beast; nor was there before 
 among the Romans, any graven image of God; but for 
 the 160 years which preceded, while they were con- 
 tinually erecting temples and places of worship, they 
 
336 OF THE DECALOGUE 
 
 made no material representation of their divinities, be- 
 cause they thought, as it is said, that it was profane to 
 liken superior to inferior things, and that we could have 
 no other idea of God than by the mind. And Antiphanes 
 declared that God could not be known from any image, 
 nor be visible to the eyes, and that he could not resemble 
 any thing. This commandment also forbids every kind 
 of idolatry, whatever is comprehended in the scripture 
 under this name; it condemns also those who make 
 those images, which they know will be worshipped by 
 idolaters.* 
 
 In the third commandment it is forbidden, not indeed 
 to swear by the name of God; for this God expressly 
 enjoins, (Deut. vi. 13. Jer. iv. 2,) and an oath is neces- 
 sary for the confirmation of the truth, and putting “an 
 end to all strife ;” but it forbids all profanation of God's 
 name, viz. all blasphemy, (Lev. xxiv. 16.) The Rabbins 
 relate, that there was among the Jews, what was called 
 the judgment of zeal, whereby those were acquitted from 
 guilt, who, on hearing the name of God blasphenied, had 
 killed the blasphemers without waiting for the sanction 
 of the magistrate. There is also here forbidden all abuse 
 of God's name in things unlawful—“ all rash and trifling 
 oaths; for the name of God is forbidden to be taken in 
 vain, and not merely falsely, and therefore the Septua- 
 pint renders nw by ixi paraiw,—all oaths sworn by the 
 creatures, (Matt. v. 34,35. James v. 12.) Thus in Jer. v. 
 7,they are condemned who *swore by those which are 
 no gods," whence itis plain that the Pharisees were igno- 
 rant of the meaning of this command, when they thought 
 it lawful to swear by the temple and the altar. It also for- 
 bids all perjuries, (Psalm xxiv. 4,)—all rash imprecations, 
 and all rash and trifling vows, such as are those which 
 are made in actions evil in their own nature, or in 
 actions, good in themselves, but preventing a greater 
 good; in things impossible, and in things useless and 
 foolish. In this commandment we are also enjoined to 
 observe the highest reverence towards God, and to 
 think, speak, and do nothing, which may in any way 
 tend to dishonour Him. 
 
 The fourth commandment enjoins the sanctification 
 of the sabbath, which is done both by the pastors, and 
 by the flock. The pastors sanctify it by the preaching 
 
 * And therefore it must condemn also those who derive any gain, 
 profit, or revenue from idolatrous worship. 
 
OR MORAL LAW. 337 
 
 of sound doctrine—by the due administration of the 
 sacraments—by the offering up of public prayers—by 
 the pure and affectionate visitation of the flock com- 
 mitted to them. The people sanctify it by the attentive 
 hearing of the word—by public and private prayer—by 
 reading and meditating on the sacred scriptures—by 
 works of love—by mutual exhortations—by ceasing 
 from their ordinary and worldly occupations. Those 
 works are excepted, which have an immediate reference 
 to the worship and glory of God; also works of charity 
 and mercy, and therefore the Pharisees falsely accused 
 Christ for healing the sick on this day; also works of 
 necessity, imposed on us by Providence, such as pre- 
 paring food, kindling fire, or defending ourselves against 
 the attack of enemies. We must observe further, that 
 in this fourth commandment there is something ceremo- 
 nial and something moral; the ceremonial part is the 
 consecration of the seventh day to God, the moral is the 
 consecration of some part of time to God; for itisa 
 part of divine worship, to worship God in the public as- 
 semblies or congregations, which cannot be done, unless 
 the time of meeting be agreed upon by the worshippers. 
 The Jews, on the sabbath day did not dare to gather the 
 manna, to cut wood, to kindle a fire, to bake, or to 
 seethe, &c. &c. (Exod. xvi. 29. Num. xv. 32. Exod. xxxv. 
 3; xvi. 23;) nay, some of the Pharisees carried their 
 scruples so far, as not to dare even to roast an apple, to 
 peel garlick, or to kill a gnat. Observe also, that the 
 sabbath was a sign of the covenant between God and 
 the Israelites, (Exod. xxxi. 13. Ezek. xx 12,) and that it 
 shadowed forth that twofold rest of believers which they 
 obtain in Christ; viz. their spiritual rest, which consists 
 both in peace of conscience, and ceasing from evil works, 
 and their heavenly rest, in which they shall be free from 
 all their troubles, and from all sin. Lastly,let it be ob- 
 served that the sabbath was abolished, with other cere- 
 monies of the law, and in the place of it succeeded the 
 Lord's day; which the apostles did not expressly com- 
 mand, but which they observed; whose example there- 
 fore the church is bound to imitate, although one day is 
 not in itself holier than another. A more suitable day 
 could not have been selected, than the Lord's day, on 
 which Christ the Redeemer of the world arose from the 
 dead, having completed the work of our redemption ; 
 and on which the Holy Spirit was poured out upon the 
 apostles. aa 
 
338 €" OF THE DECALOGUE 
 
 In the fifth commandment, called “the first command- 
 ment with promise,” (Eph, vi. 2,) reverence, obedience, 
 gratitude, and love are enjoined, not only upon children, 
 towards their parents, but also upon all inferiors, towards 
 their superiors; and at the same time, love, regard, good- 
 will, fidelity, and justice, are enjoined upon superiors 
 towards their inferiors. This commandment forbids 
 contempt and disobedience of children to their parents, 
 and that inhumanity, which leads the former to refuse 
 the latter assistance in their need and distress. Hence 
 we see why the Pharisees were condemned, who, under 
 the vain pretence of piety to God, maintained that they 
 were exempt from the duties they owed to their parents, 
 by making use of this form of vow, “It is corban, or a 
 gift, by whatsoever thou mightest have been profited by 
 me,” (namely, had it not been due to the service of God ; 
 also, what is to be thought of those who think that chil- 
 dren may choose such a mode of life, as will divert them 
 from the obedience due to their parents. "This com- 
 mandment also forbids disobedience of servants to mas- 
 ters, ingratitude of scholars towards their teachers, of 
 people towards their pastors, and of dependants towards 
 their patrons; contempt of the younger toward their 
 elders, and of pretended submission on the part of infe- 
 riors towards their superiors. 
 
 In the sizth commandment is forbidden, not the homi- 
 cide which is done by the authority of the judge or ma- 
 gistrate, for the scriptures command this; nor does 
 Christian charity forbid it; it is private revenge that is 
 forbidden, not the just punishment of crimes. Neither is 
 the right of war here forbidden, which is allowed in the 
 Old Testament, and not condemned by the New ; neither 
 that homicide, which is committed against one who 
 makes a violent attempt upon a man's life, though with 
 these conditions—that the defender be altogether blame- 
 less in the matter, and no way of escape given him from 
 his adversary—that it be done with the single intention 
 of self-defence—and that it be done in the very act of 
 their meeting together. As for accidental homicide, this 
 is no sin, not being foreseen. But there is forbidden in 
 this commandment ail homicide which is committed upon 
 our own private authority and ill design, whether it pro- 
 ceed from hatred, or revenge, and whether it be perpe- 
 trated by violence or by craft, by sword or by poison, 
 directly or indirectly. Self-murder is also forbidden, by 
 which a man sins against God, himself, his family, the 
 
OR MORAL LAW. 339 
 
 commonwealth, and the church. This kind of murder 
 
 the wiser among the heathen condemned; for Virgil 
 
 represents those who have laid hands upon themselves, 
 
 e separated from the lot of the blessed in the Elysian 
 elds— 
 
 Proxima deinde tenent meesti loca, qui sibi lethum 
 Insontes peperére manu, lucumque perosi 
 Projecére animas, 
 
 The next in place and punishment are they, 
 Who prodigally threw their lives away— 
 Fools, who, repining at their wretched state, 
 And loathing anxious life, suborned their fate. 
 
 And the Pythagoreans maintained that we were placed 
 by God in this world, as in a post or station, from which 
 it was unlawful to depart without the consent of our 
 leader. Duels also are here forbidden, which no plea 
 can render lawful; not the defence of empty honour; 
 not the infliction of vengeance; not the clearing one’s 
 self from an accusation. The sixth commandment also 
 forbids hatred, the desire of revenge, envy, abusive lan- 
 guage, and the motions of inward anger: in short, what- 
 ever is contrary to the true and sincere love of our neigh- 
 bour, or the lawful defence of ourselves. (Lev. xix. 17, 
 -18; Zech. viii. 16, 17; Matt. v. 21, 22.) It also enjoins 
 the defence and assistance of our neighbour, love, gen- 
 tleness, and the pursuit of peace and concord. 
 
 The seventh commandment forbids all unlawful inter- 
 course, such as whoredom, adultery, incest, rape, concu- 
 binage, sodomy, and polygamy, which is contrary to the 
 original institution of marriage, (Gen. ii. 24; Mal. ii. 15; 
 Matt. xix. 4—6;) and to the injunction of Paul, who 
 teaches, that the husband and wife respectively “have 
 not power of their own bodies.” (1 Cor. vii. 4.) It for- 
 bids also all filthy conversation and gestures, (Rom. xiii. 
 13; Eph. iv. 29; Col. iii. 8;) every thing that is repug- 
 nant to Christian temperance and sobriety, the inward 
 motions of concupiscence, even lustful Jooks. (Matt. v. 
 28.) It also enjoins modesty, chastity, temperance, and 
 all those virtues which tend to the true sanctification of 
 the mind and body. 
 
 The eighth commandment forbids theft, which may be 
 defined, the laying hands upon, or making use of, what 
 belongs to another, against the will of the owner. It also 
 forbids sacrilege, embezzlement, plagiarism, robbery, 
 
340 OF THE DECALOGUE OR MORAL LAW. 
 
 &c. It also forbids immoderate and griping usury, tricks, 
 frauds, and all over-reachings in merchandize, weights, 
 measures, &c. It also forbids covetousness, idleness, 
 and sloth. In this commandment are required content- 
 ment, frugality, sincerity, justice, and charity to the poor 
 and needy. 
 
 In the ninth commandment are forbidden false testi- 
 mony, slander, unjust judgment, backbiting, lying, and 
 every species of hypocrisy ; while truth, candour, fidelity, 
 the defence of our neighbour’s reputation, his due com- 
 mendation, together with just and charitable judgments, 
 are enjoined. 
 
 The tenth commandment forbids all unlawful lusts, 
 even the first risings of concupiscence, which “ could not 
 have been known but by the law,” as the apostle says. 
 It serves the purpose of bridling the motions and desires 
 of the heart; of taking the mask from hypocrites who 
 make a display of outward sanctity, and humbling their 
 pride; of showing more clearly the nature of the Law- 
 giver, and of the obedience due to him, and of exposing 
 more fully our own corruption and weakness. There 
 may be said to be three objects of lust or evil desire, 
 namely, pleasure, riches, and honour ; pleasures stir up 
 lust (properly so called,) riches avarice, and honours 
 ambition. The fountain of this evil desire is not dried 
 up in this life, but the streams are cut off by the Holy 
 Spirit in the regenerate, so as not to break out into open 
 action. The remedy for the disease of concupiscence is, 
 to contemplate the death of Christ, and to think of our 
 own. 
 
 Now this law, the ten commandments, which have 
 been briefly explained, is a perfect rule of conduct, to 
 which nothing must be added, and from which nothing 
 must be taken ; for it comprises all the duties we owe to 
 God and our neighbour; since it requires us to love God 
 with all our heart, and with all our strength, and our 
 neighbour as ourselves. The true meaning of it the 
 Pharisees had perverted; Christ therefore vindicated it 
 from their glosses; but in so doing he did not correct 
 the law itself, but only the false interpretations of it by 
 the Jews. Whatever, therefore, is enjoined in the Old 
 and New Testaments, may be referred to this law. 
 
OF REPENTANCE, 341 
 
 CHAPTER IX. 
 OF REPENTANCE. 
 
 Since sanctification is imperfect, and we fail in many 
 things, repentance is necessary. This word is taken in 
 two senses. It signifies that entire change, by which a 
 sinner is turned from sin to righteousness; in this sense 
 it is used in Luke xxiv. 47; Actsiii 19; xxvi. 20. it 
 also signifies that act of a sinner, whereby he mourns 
 and grieves for his sins, desires deliverance from them, 
 and forms the resolution of amending his life; in this 
 sense the term is used, Matt. iii. 2; iv. 17. The Greeks 
 use the word peravéiia and perapédeca, Which are sometimes 
 used promiscuously, though some think that perapédea 
 denotes grief of mind, and ycavóa conversion itself; that 
 the former is used concerning those who do not truly 
 repent, as Judas,—the latter never in this sense. It is, 
 however, certain, that the origin of the words does not 
 prove this distinction, that the Greek writers use them 
 indifferently, and that they are so used in scripture; for 
 ueray£eia. is taken in a good sense, Matt. xxi. 29, 30, and 
 prravóia in a bad sense. Luke xvii. 3,4; Matt. xii. 41. 
 The Septuagint also renders the Hebrew word by both 
 Greek words indifferently. 
 
 To true repentance the knowledge or acknowledgment 
 of sin is necessary, (Psalm li. 3;) also sorrow for sin, and 
 that of “a godly sort,” (2 Cor. vii. 10,) which arises from 
 the consideration of sin, from the fear of punishment, 
 but especially from the thought of having offended God. 
 The effects of this sorrow are confession, made either to 
 God, (Psalm li. 4, 5; xxxviii. 4; 1 John i. 9,) or publicly 
 with the whole church; (Neh. ix. 2, 3,) or in the presence 
 of the church for public offences; (2 Cor. ii. 6,) or before 
 men, and our offended brethren, in order to reconcilia- 
 tion. (James v. 16.) Also tears, as in the case of David, 
 Peter, and Magdalene, (Psalm vi. 6; Matt. xxvi. 75; 
 Luke vii. 38;) and sometimes fasting, together with a 
 full purpose of amendment of life; hence the works of 
 new obedience are called *fruits meet for repentance." 
 (Matt. iii. 8.) Repentance p be also divided into three 
 
342 OF REPENTANCE. 
 
 kinds—that by which we repent of our sins in general— 
 that by which we repent of particular sins—and that by 
 which we repent of sins unknown to us, or committed 
 through error. 
 
 The author of repentance is God, who uses various 
 methods to produce it in us, such as his word, which is 
 accompanied by the influence of the Spirit; in this word 
 there are found many things which operate as motives 
 to repentance; for it proclaims the anger of God against 
 the impenitent—examples of divine judgment—various 
 benefits by which we are encouraged to repent—promises 
 of grace and forgiveness to the penitent—and examples 
 of divine mercy towards such. God also sends various 
 afflictions upon those sinners whom he designs to lead 
 to repentance, and also different judgments upon man- 
 kind, in order to alarm those whom he designs to con- 
 vert. Repentance, in order to be acceptable to God, 
 must be prompt, sincere, uninterrupted, and persevering. 
 
 But the question has been raised, whether repentance 
 is found in the unconverted or reprobate? If by repent- 
 ance we understand nothing more than some sorrow on 
 account of sins committed, we grant that it may be 
 found in the reprobate; but if we mean true repentance, 
 we are sure that this can be found only in believers. 
 There is another question also, whether repentance 
 precedes or follows faith? We reply, that the acts of 
 repentance must be distinguished; a sense of sin, and 
 sorrow for it, do precede faith; but renewal of heart, and 
 the practice of good works do follow faith. 1t is also in- 
 quired, why it is said that one penitent sinner causes more 
 joy in heaven than ninety nine just persons? (Luke xv. 
 7.) The answer is, because in the conversion of sinners 
 there is a brighter display of the wisdom, goodness, and 
 power of God. The Jews had a saying, that, when a 
 Hebrew sinned, the angels wept; Christ declares that 
 when a sinner repents, the angels rejoice. 
 
 The opposites of repentance, are false penitence, and 
 impenitence. The former belongs to those, who pretend 
 that they are sorry for the sins they have committed, 
 and yet are not sorry; as Pharaoh, Simon Magus, and 
 those who content themselves with an outward show of 
 piety, and the observance of certain ceremonies. Im- 
 penitence is shown by those, who are not sorry for sins 
 committed, and are not willing to amend their lives; 
 and this is temporary or final. There are different causes 
 of this impenitence, such asa notion that there is no 
 
OF PRAYER AND OATHS. 343 
 
 God, or that he does not attend to human affairs—the 
 false hope of impunity, from a rash persuasion of God’s 
 infinite mercy—and sometimes a despair of obtaining 
 pardon. Now the punishments of impenitence are vari- 
 ous, both of a temporal and of a spiritual nature, in this 
 life, and in the next. (Lev. xxvi.; Deut. xxviii.; Ezek. 
 xiv.; Rom. i. 25—28; Eph. iv. 18, 19; John iii. 36; Rom. 
 ii. 4,5.) But to the penitent free remission of sins is 
 promised, (Ezek. xviii. 21 ; Prov. xxviii. 13; Acts iii. 19.) 
 
 Since we have just hinted at religious fasting, it will 
 be well to make a few remarks upon it. And first, it is 
 of divine institution. (Joel i. 14; ii. 15; Matt. vi. 16, 17.) 
 It was frequently practised under the Old Testament. 
 (Lev. xvi. 29; Ezra viii. 21; Zech. vii. 5; viii. 19.) Under 
 the New Testament no fixed time for fasting has been 
 prescribed by Christ and his apostles, but every one is 
 allowed to fast in time of mourning, of public or private 
 calamity, whether present or imminent, and for the sake 
 of obtaining any good, or averting any evil, of a tempo- 
 ral or a spiritual nature, without the superstitious obser- 
 vance of any particular day. Observe also, that fasting 
 is a thing neither good nor evil in itself, “ for the king- 
 dom of God is not meat and drink, but righteousness," 
 &c. (Rom. xiv. 17.) It may tend greatly both to restrain 
 the wantonness of the flesh, and to give the mind a 
 greater freedom and fervour in the worship and service 
 ofGod. Nor must it be observed after the manner of 
 hypocrites, but it must be joined with true devotion and 
 holiness of life, (Isaiah lviii. 6, 7.) 
 
 CHAPTER X. 
 OF PRAYER AND OATHS. 
 
 As prayer very much tends to promote sanctification, 
 we shall now speak of it; first observing that by prayer, 
 the whole worship of God is to be understood, and thus 
 * every one that calleth upon the name of the Lord shall 
 be saved," (Acts ii. 21; Rom. x. 13.) Now prayer is 
 
344 OF PRAYER AND OATHS. 
 
 here taken for invoking, or calling on the divine Being, 
 either in secret desires, or express words, that he would 
 grant things needful to ourselves and to others; united 
 with a confidence of being heard and answered. It is 
 religious worship, and the greatest sacrifice which can 
 be offered to God; for he to whom we pray, is omnis- 
 cient ; hearing and understanding every petition, even 
 the secret desire, and knowing the necessities of all 
 men. He is also omnipotent, and is able to grant our re- 
 quests; he is gracious and kind, and refuses not to grant 
 what is asked; (James i. 5,) and therefore God alone is 
 to be invoked; he alone is the proper object of our trust 
 and confidence. It follows then, that the saints are not 
 to be prayed to, nor to receive.any religious worship, 
 though we are bound to think well of these blessed ser- 
 vants of God, now admitted into full communion with 
 him,—to cherish the pleasing remembrance of them, to 
 praise their warfare and their victory, to maintain their 
 doctrine, to admire and imitate their virtues, and to 
 thank God on their behalf. Now that they are not to be 
 worshipped will appear to every one who considers— 
 that such worship is nowhere enjoined in scripture— 
 that, on the contrary, we are commanded to worship and 
 serve God only—that to pray, when used absolutely, 
 means to pray to God, there being no lawful invocation 
 of any except God—that no example of praying to saints 
 appears in scripture—that the saints are not omniscient 
 or omnipotent, and that such a practice was unknown to 
 the apostolic age, and to the first and purer ages of the 
 church afterwards. 
 
 The necessity of prayer is proved from two things; 
 first, from the command of God; (Matt. vii. 7; Luke 
 xxi. 36; Psalm 1, 15,) to which also a promise is added, 
 “ Ask, and it shall be given you,” “ Whatsoever ye shall 
 ask in my name, that will I do,” (John xiv. 13.) For 
 although God knows what we need, he yet chooses that 
 we shall ask; he requires this homage of us, by which 
 we express our humility and faith, and acknowledge the 
 majesty, truth, all-sufficiency, omniscience, and omnipo- 
 tence, and inexhaustible goodness of the Lord. Secondly, 
 from the sense of owr own wants the necessity of prayer 
 is evident. The very heathen acknowledged this neces- 
 sity ; Socrates prayed continually, and Plato enjoins this 
 duty upon all. Now we ought to pray, not only for our- 
 selves, but for others also, (James v. 16; Eph. vi. 18; 1 
 Tim. ii. 1, 2,) not only for our friends, but even for our 
 
OF PRAYER AND OATHS. 345 
 
 enemies, (Matt. v. 44). To pray, indeed, for the dead, 
 we conceive to be absurd; for no command of the kind 
 is recorded—no example of the kind is found in scrip- 
 ture—and we can obtain nothing for the departed; 
 nothing for the godly, who are already saved; nothing 
 for the ungodly, who are irrevocably excluded from sal- 
 vation. 
 
 As to the subject of our prayers, we may ask all 
 things that are agreeable to the will of God, (1 John v. 
 14,) and which are consistent with our calling; both spi- 
 ritual and temporal good, but the former absolutely, the 
 latter conditionally, i. e. if it tend to God’s glory, and to 
 our own salvation; which reminds us of the excellent 
 petition of an ancient poet recorded by Plato— 
 
 Zev Bacirev, 7a pev ecSha kat evxouevots kat avevxrois 
 Appt dudov, ra de dewa xat évxXopévors dxadstots- 
 
 If asked, or not, great Ruler of the sky, 
 "omm good ; but evil, e'en if asked, deny. 
 
 The conditions or requirements of prayer are, that it 
 be offered in faith,i. e. a firm persuasion of being ac- 
 cepted of God in Christ; and that the thing we ask is 
 good, conducive to God's glory, and to our real happi- 
 ness. Prayer should be offered with seriousness, with 
 earnestness, with fervour and affection, with pure heart 
 and hands, with constancy and perseverance, with hu- 
 mility, with brotherly love, and in the name of Jesus 
 Christ, (James i. 6; | Cor. xiv. 15; James v. 16; 2 Tim. 
 ii 22; 1 Tim. ii. 8; Eph. vi. 18: 1 Thess. v. 17; Luke 
 xviii. 1, 13; Matt. v. 23, 24; John xiv. 13, 14.) Bodily 
 gestures are lawful in prayer, since they express our 
 awful reverence of God, and true humility in his sight, 
 and also as they assist in promoting attention of the 
 mind during this sacred exercise. The bending or bow- 
 ing of ihe knees, was the posture commonly used by the 
 saints in the Old Testament, (1 Kings viii. 54; 2 Chron. 
 vi 13; Ezra ix. 5; Dan. vi. 10; Acts vii. 60; xx. 36; 
 xxi 5; Eph. iii. 14,) and this posture has every where 
 obtained in the Christian church ; sometimes standing 
 was used,(Luke xviii 13.) Justin, in his Apology, de- 
 scribing the public services of the Lord's day, says, 
 Then we all rise up together, and pour forth prayers. 
 And again, On the Lord's day, we offer up, standing, 
 three prayers, in remembrance of him who rose on the 
 
346 OF PRAYER AND OATHS. 
 
 third day. In the Liturgy improperly ascribed to Mark, 
 the deacon is represented as exclaiming, Let us stand 
 up to pray. We may only add, that under the New 
 Testament we are not tied to any place, but every where 
 it is lawful to lift up holy hands, (1 Tim. ii. 8). Of all 
 prayers the most excellent is the Lord’s Prayer, which 
 many writers have explained. 
 
 An oath is, strictly speaking, a species of prayer, by 
 which we appeal to God, the searcher of hearts, as a 
 witness of those things which we affirm or promise ; and 
 as an avenger, if we swear falsely. That such an oath 
 is lawful, is proved from those places of scripture which 
 evidently show God to have been the author of an oath, 
 as a means of settling contention, (Exod. xxii. 11; Heb. 
 vi. 16,) and from the example of the saints, particularly 
 Paul, Rom. i. 9; 2 Cor. i. 23; xi. 31; Gal. i. 20; Phil. i. 
 8; 1 Thess. ii. 5; v. 27,) and it is expressly said of the 
 angel, that “he lifted up his hand to heaven, and sware 
 by him that liveth for ever and ever," (Rev. x. 5,6.) In 
 order that an oath may be properly taken, it should be 
 taken in the name of God—not in that of the creatures ; 
 hence Christ condemns those who swear by heaven, by 
 Jerusalem, &c. It ought also to be expressed in plain 
 words, without any equivocation; not rashly, but after 
 serious and careful deliberation: but it ought not to be 
 taken for any thing trifling and of little consequence, 
 but for a thing which tends to God's glory, and to the 
 putting an end to serious dissensions. 
 
 An oath is commonly considered, as either affirma- 
 tory, or promissory. The former is that by which we 
 assert any thing in the name of God, the latter, by which 
 we bind ourselves to the performance of something. It 
 is notlawful for those who are under the power of others, 
 totake any such oath. Nor isit lawful for any one to 
 bind himself to what is sinful; therefore the Jews were 
 wrong, who bound themselves by oath to L cem 
 until they had killed Paul, (Acts xxiii. 12); and David 
 also, when he swore that he would destroy the house of 
 Nabal (1 Sam. xxv. 22.) Neither should an oath be 
 taken concerning a thing that is impossible. 
 
 We may add a few remarks concerning vows; by 
 which we oblige ourselves before God, either to do, or 
 toleave undone something, as we think it will serve to 
 promote his glory and our own salvation, and show our 
 gratitude to him. Now we must observe, that every 
 vow must be made to God only, (Deut. xxiii. 21; Psalm 
 
OF PRAYER AND OATHS. 347 
 
 Ixxvi 11.) For it isa kind of prayer, by which we im- 
 plore his help; and it sometimes contains an impreca- 
 tion of punishment, in case of not paying what we vow. 
 It must also be made voluntarily, and by those who are 
 at their own disposal. (Num. xxx. 6, 9.) Thesubject of 
 a vow, also must not be of an evil nature, as was the 
 case with Micah’s mother, (Judges xvii. 3,) and with 
 the Jews, (Acts xxiii. 12.) It must be what is possible, 
 not what is foolish and useless, unnecessary and un- 
 avoidable, nor that which would divert us from some- 
 thing better. Moreover, if in process of time vows be- 
 come hurtful, with respect to ourselves or others, or 
 impossible, or evil, they ought not to be kept; in all 
 other cases they are binding. There are two kinds of 
 vows—one general, which we undertake in baptism, and 
 which we often repeat, when we dedicate ourselves to 
 God ; the other particular, by which we specially con- 
 secrate something to God; but it must be carefully 
 noted, that the latter vow ought never to be contrary to 
 the former. 
 
CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY. 
 
 BOOK THE NINTH. 
 
 OF GLORIFICATION. 
 
 —.—— 
 CHAPTER I. 
 OF THE STATE OF THE SOUL AFTER DEATH. 
 
 * Wuom he justified, them he also glorified,” (Rom. viii. 
 30.) This glorification commences even in this life, by 
 a sense of God's love in Christ; by peace, joy, the com- 
 munication of spiritual gifts, and also by sanctification ; 
 hence Paul passes from justification immediately to glo- 
 rification. But what takes place very imperfectly in this 
 world, will be brought to perfection as soon as the soul 
 is separated from the body, when the former is convey- 
 ed by the ministry of angels into heaven, while the 
 tabernacle of the body is committed to the grave in hope 
 of a future resurrection. To speak more particularly on 
 this subject, the soul does not perish with the body, but 
 survives it; reason proves this, and scripture confirms 
 it, * The dust shall return to the earth as it was; and 
 the spirit shall return unto God who gave it.” (Eccles. 
 xii. 7; also Matt. xxii. 32.) To which may be added 
 those passages, in which believers in the hour of death 
 commend their souls to God, (Acts vii. 59; 1 Peter iv. 
 19.) Nor is the soul, when it survives the body, asleep 
 or insensible, which is a state bordering on annihilation ; 
 for this does not appear to be compatible with the nature 
 of a spirit, whose essence cannot be conceived as with- 
 out uc o Here we must distinguish between those 
 8 
 
OF THE STATE OF THE SOUL AFTER DEATH. 349 
 
 operations, in which the soul needs the assistance of the 
 body, and its other operations; the former it does not 
 exercise, after death, the latter it certainly does; for if 
 it ceased to think, it would cease to exist. Besides, why 
 should believers desire dissolution, if they were without 
 any delightful communion with God after death; and 
 why should the scripture pronounce them blessed, when 
 dead? We must observe, also, that the soul, after this 
 life, goes either into heaven or into hell, and into no 
 other place ; for the scripture mentions no other, neither 
 purgatory, nor limbus, nor subterranean caverns, nor 
 Lethean streams; whatever is asserted in reference to 
 such things, is founded on pretended revelations, on 
 false appearances, and on vain arguments. "That the 
 souls of believers are made happy in heaven, is proved 
 from the passage which declares, that * blessed are the 
 dead which die in the Lord ;" from the words of Christ 
 to the penitent thief, * To-day shalt thou be with me in 
 paradise ;" from the desire of Paul * to depart and to be 
 with Christ ;" and from his words elsewhere, * We know 
 that if our earthly house of this tabernacle were dissolv- 
 ed, we have a building of God, an house not made with 
 hands, eternal in the heavens." (Rev. xiv. 13; Luke 
 xxiii. 48; Phil. i. 23; 2 Cor. v. 1.) This heaven is called 
 * Paradise," “the bosom of Abraham,” (Luke xvi. 22,) in 
 allusion to the custom of the ancients at their feasts, in 
 which the head of one guest reclined as it were on the 
 bosom of another; as it is recorded of John, (John xiii. 
 23,) because, as Christ reclined on the upper part of the 
 couch, John was-nearest to him, and therefore is said to 
 have “leaned upon his bosom.” "That the souls of the 
 ungodly are sent down into hell, the * place of torment," 
 is proved also from scripture, (Luke xvi. 28,) which de- 
 scribes it as * outer darkness," (Matt. xxii. 13; Mark ix. 
 43, 44,) in allusion to the suppers of the ancients, at 
 which the interior of the house was illuminated with 
 lamps, but on the outside there was nothing but the 
 darkness of night. 
 
 30 
 
" 
 
 350 OF THE RESURRECTIÓN 
 
 CHAPTER II. 
 
 H 
 OF THE RESURRECTION OF THE DEAD, 
 
 Tue state of the soul after death is followed by the re- 
 surrection of the body from the dead; a doctrine which 
 appeared ridiculous to the heathens, was denied by the 
 Sadducees, and many other succeeding hereties, but 
 which is the foundation of the Christian religion. Be- 
 fore we speak particularly of it, we must observe, that 
 we are not treating of the mystical and spiritual resur- 
 rection of man, i. e. his regeneration and conversion to 
 God, (Eph. ii. 5; v. 14; Col. ii. 12; iii. 1;) nor of that 
 which divines call a civil resurrection, which is nothing 
 more than deliverance from a great calamity, and resto- 
 ration from a miserable to a happier condition ; but of a. 
 proper corporeal resurrection, and that too, not the par- 
 ticular resurrection of some persons, as recorded both 
 in the Old and New Testaments, but the universal re- 
 trenes of all men, which will take place at the last 
 ay. 
 
 Now that this resurrection will take place, is proved 
 by innumerable passages of scripture. Thus Christ 
 makes use of the remarkable words of God, saying, *I 
 am the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God 
 of Jacob,” to prove this doctrine, (Matt. xxii. 31, 32 ;) for 
 since the covenant of grace, in which God promises to 
 be the God of these his servants, not only refers to their 
 separated spirits, but also to their entire persons, which 
 God was pleased should bear the seal of the covenant 
 marked on their bodies ; it follows, that the life promised 
 in the covenant extends to the body, as well as to the 
 soul. Aben Ezra, commenting on the words, *I am the 
 Lord your God,” (Lev. xviii. 4,) says, that they contain 
 the promise of life in both worlds. The words of Job, 
 “JT know that my Redeemer liveth,” (Job xix. 25—27,) 
 refer to the resurrection of the body, and not to the res- 
 toration, in this life, of felicity once enjoyed; for Job 
 despaired of the restoration of his earthly felicity here 
 below, as is evident from chap. vi. 8, 9, 11; vii. 7, 8; x. 
 
OF THE DEAD. 351 
 
 20, 21; xvi. 22; xvii. 11, 13; xix. 20. Hence Jerome 
 asserted, that no one after Christ, spoke so plainly of the 
 resurrection, as Job had done before Christ. This doc- 
 trine is further evident from Psalm xvii. 15, * As for me, 
 I will behold thy face in righteousness: I shall be satis- 
 fied, when I awake with thy likeness ;" also from Dan. 
 xii 9. “Many of them that sleep in the dust of the earth 
 shal awake," &c.; and from innumerable passages in 
 the New Testament, such as John v. 23, 29; vi. 39, 40, 
 44; xi 24—26; Actsiv. 2; xvii. 18; xxiii. 6; xxiv. 15; 
 the whole of 1 Cor. xv.; | Thess. iv. 13—16; Rev. xx. 
 5,6. We also infer the universal resurrection from tbe 
 resurrection of Christ, which gave occasion to the an- 
 cients to call the latter the key of our graves, and the 
 pledge of our resurrection. For, besides that Christ was 
 the Redeemer of our bodies and souls, (whence it fol- 
 lows, that he must raise our bodies to enjoy with our 
 souls the life obtained by him,) we may say, that the 
 state of the members must be the same as that of the 
 head; for what sort of a body would that be, the head 
 of which was alive, while the members were dead? 
 * Because I live, ye shall live also," (John xiv. 19.) Christ 
 rising from the dead “ became the first fruits of them that 
 slept.” As therefore the first fruits were offered to God, 
 on the morrow after the sabbath, in the hope, or rather 
 for the consecration, of the harvest that was to follow, 
 so Christ, coming forth out of the grave, and lifted up 
 before the presence of God, as the first fruits, consecrat- 
 ed all his people to God, so that they should in the time 
 of harvest rise to the same life as their Saviour. A 
 proof of the resurrection may be also derived from the 
 justice and goodness of God ; for as virtue and vice be- 
 long to the whole man, and not to one part of him only, 
 so it is right, that the recompense due to both should ex- 
 tend to the whole man, and not merely to a part. 
 * Every one must receive the things done in his body, 
 according to that he hath done, whether it be good or 
 bad," (2 Cor. v. 10.) A further proof may be derived 
 from the indwelling Spirit, who hath chosen our bodies 
 to be his temples, (1 Cor. iii. 16; vi. 19.) Would the 
 Holy Ghost permit his temples always to remain in the 
 dust, and his dwelling-places to perish for ever? “Ifthe 
 Spirit of him that raised up Jesus from the dead dwell in 
 you, he that raised up Christ from the dead, shall also 
 quicken your mortal bodies by his Spirit that dwelleth 
 in you," (Rom. viii. 11.) 
 
~ 
 
 352 OF THE RESURRECTION 
 
 We must indeed acknowledge that it is difficult to 
 conceive the manner of the resurrection; but since this 
 is the work of a Being, whose knowledge nothing can 
 escape, and whose power nothing can resist, who can 
 think it impossible? We can no more conceive how God 
 will raise the bodies of the dead, than how he formed 
 Adam’s body out of the dust. God can by a single act 
 of his will restore whatever at any time has been either 
 devoured and consumed by beasts or men, or reduced 
 to ashes, or dissolved into moisture, or attenuated into 
 air. An emblem of this resurrection Paul exhibits to us 
 in the seed, which first dies, and then rises again, (1 Cor. 
 xv. 36—38.) Minucius Felix replies to Cecilius, who 
 derided the Christians’ expectation that they should rise 
 again after being reduced to dust and ashes, in the fol- 
 lowing words: Behold how for our comfort all nature 
 sels forth the future resurrection. The sun sets and 
 rises again, the stars decline and return, the flowers per- 
 ish and revive, plants and trees flourish again after 
 their decay, the seeds do not spring up again, without 
 Jirst being corrupted. Thus our bodies lie hid in the 
 grave, as the trees in winter time conceal their greenness 
 under the appearance of barrenness. We must there- 
 fore wait for the spring-time of these bodies. 
 
 All men will rise again; not only the godly, but also 
 the ungodly ; this is proved from the passage already 
 quoted, (2 Cor. v. 10,) as also from Acts xxiv. 15, where 
 Paul professes his hope that “there shall be a resurrec- 
 tion from the dead, both of the just and unjust.” See 
 also John v. 28, 29. Rev. xx. 12—15. But when we say 
 that ali will rise again, we except those who will be alive 
 at the time of Christ’s coming, and who will therefore be 
 only transformed or changed; as the apostle says, “ We 
 shall not all sleep, but we shall all be changed,” and “the 
 dead in Christ shall rise first: then we which are alive 
 and remain shall be caught up together with them in the 
 clouds, to meet the Lord in the air,” (1 Cor. xv. 52. 1 
 Thess. iv. 16, 17.) Hence those that are to be judged, 
 are divided into the living and the dead. (Acts x. 
 43.) But in what way this change will take place, we 
 are altogether ignorant. Yet, although the godly and 
 the ungodly will rise again, the resurrection of both will 
 be different; that of the godly will be effected by Christ, 
 as their Head, through the power of his quickening 
 Spirit, to immortal glory; that of the ungodly will be 
 
OF THE DEAD. 353 
 
 effected also by Christ, but as their Lord and Judge, 
 through his almighty power, unto eternal punishment. 
 The buried bodies will rise again, the same as to their 
 substance ; which is proved from the very nature of the 
 resurrection, which is nothing more than the second state 
 of a thing that has fallen or decayed; for only that 
 which is fallen can be said to rise again; if a new body 
 were formed by God, it would not be a resurrection, but 
 a creation. It is proved also from scripture, “In my 
 flesh," says Job, “I shall see God, whom I shall see for 
 myself, and my eyes shall behold." (Job. xix. 26, 27.) 
 The saine body which “is sown in corruption, and dis- 
 honour, shall be raised in incorruption” and glory, (1 
 Cor. xv. 42, 43, 53, 54,) and be “ made like unto Christ’s 
 glorious body,” (Phil. iii. 21.) It is evident also from the 
 resemblance of our resurrection to that of Christ’s; for 
 Christ did not assume a different body from the one he 
 had before; hence he declares, * Behold my hands and 
 my feet, that it is I myself,’ (Luke xxiv. 39,) and also 
 from the justice of God, which requires that the same 
 body that sinned, should be punished, the same that 
 fought the good fight should be crowned; and as the 
 same soul shall be arraigned in judgment, so also the 
 same body; nor indeed can it be conceived, that God 
 would punish bodies that had contracted no evil, and 
 spare those which had committed sin, and that he would 
 leave without any reward those bodies which ministered 
 to the soul in fastings, prayers, praises, and other exer- 
 cises of religion, while he bestowed the crown of right- 
 eousness on bodies which performed nothing. Ambrose 
 therefore justly observes, This is the proper order and 
 proceeding of justice, that since there is a common act of 
 the body and soul, so that the former brings into action 
 the thoughts of the latter ; both should stand in judg- 
 ment; both should be either punished or glorified. All 
 flesh, even the same flesh, perfect and entire, shall rise 
 again, says Tertullian. * 
 But although the bodies will be the same in substance, 
 they will be very different in quality ; the bodies of the 
 faithful will be raised in ** incorruption, glory, and pow- 
 er ;" the bodies of the wicked will also be incorruptible, 
 but so prepared as to be able, without food or sleep, to 
 endure the torments of hell for evermore. We need 
 scarcely add, that Christ by his omnipotence, will raise 
 up our bodies ; this resurrection being a work of infinite 
 power; and that it will € place at the last day. We 
 0 * 
 
354 OF THE END 
 
 may learn from this doctrine, to comfort ourselves 
 against the terrors of death, to encourage ourselves to 
 endure with fortitude all our trials, and to make those 
 bodies which are to be raised to immortality, “ the in- 
 struments of righteousness.” 
 
 CHAPTER III. 
 OF THE END OF THE WORLD. 
 
 Tue heathens believed in the consummation of all 
 things, or the end of the world; hence those lines of 
 Ovid- 
 
 Esse quoque in fatis reminiscitur, adfore tempus, 
 Quo mare, quo tellus, correptaque regia coeli, 
 Ardeat, et mundi moles operosa laboret. 
 
 He calls to mind that there will come a time, 
 Decreed by fate, when earth, and sea, and sky, 
 Enwrapp’d in flames shall burn, and the vast globe 
 Shall sink to ruin. 
 
 Hence Censorinus compared the age of the world to one 
 vast year, of which the winter was the deluge, and the 
 summer the burning of the earth; and the Chinese be- 
 lieve, that after a certain period of years, the world will 
 be burnt up by fire from heaven. But what the hea- 
 thens obscurely foresaw, the scripture plainly reveals, 
 (Psalm cii 26. 2 Peter iii. 7. Rev. xxi. 1.) Now we know 
 not the period of this consummation; for “of that hour 
 knoweth no man." One day is hidden from us that all 
 may be improved; the last hour the Lord has been 
 pleased to keep unknown to us, that we might always 
 be expecting it, and, since we cannot foresee it, be con- 
 tinually preparing for it. It was theopinion of the Jews, 
 and of some of the fathers, that the world would last 
 6000 years; but the reasons which they adduce are ex- 
 tremely futile. 
 
 The scripture teaches us that there will be various 
 signs preceding this great event; among others a multi- 
 
OF THE WORLD. 355 
 
 tude of false prophets and deceivers, wars and tumults 
 through the whole world, pestilences and earthquakes, a 
 terrible consternation, the persecution of the godly, and 
 extreme corruption of manners, profound security, the 
 universal propagation of the gospel, the revelation and 
 destruction of Anti-Christ, and especially the conversion 
 of the Jews, which Paul expressly declares, (Rom. xi. 12, 
 25, 26.) Christ also declares that there shall be “signs 
 in heaven,” (Matt. xxiv. 29. Luke xxi. 25, 26.) But it is 
 not clear, what is to be understood by “the sign of the 
 Son of man,” (Matt. xxiv. 30,) whether the Son of man 
 himself appearing in the clouds, or the rays of his glory, 
 or something else. The Jews reckon fifteen signs that 
 are to precede the last day, but they are mere ridiculous 
 fancies. 
 
 That the world at this period will be burned with fire, 
 is declared by Peter, (2 Pet. iii. 7, 10, 12,) and that in this 
 manner it will be renewed. For we do not believe that 
 by this last conflagration, the world will be reduced to 
 nothing, but only changed and renewed, as is evident 
 from Psalm cii. 26, where it is said, that “all of them 
 shall wax old like a garment; as a vesture shalt thou 
 change them, and they shall be changed ;” for in these 
 words the destruction of the world and the creatures is 
 expressed by the term changing; also from 2 Peter iii. 
 10, 12, where it is said, that *the elements shall melt 
 with fervent heat;" like unto metals; and also from 
 verses 5—7, where the second world is compared with 
 the first, which being overflowed with a deluge, yet 
 emerged from that deluge, restored, not annihilated. 
 But the same point is particularly clear from Rom. viii. 
 21, 22, where the creature is said to * groan and wait," 
 until it * shall be delivered from the bondage of corrup- 
 tion unto the glorious liberty of the children of God ;” 
 for this would by no means be said, if the creatures were 
 to be annihilated. Nor is it probable, that God could 
 choose to destroy so many glorious works; and there- 
 fore they will remain as monuments of the eternal 
 power, wisdom and goodness of God ; will set forth his 
 glory, and be perpetual objects of admiration to us. The 
 creatures will undergo a change, and by that change 
 will be delivered from all those abuses, which men now 
 make of them by their idolatry and wickedness ; they 
 will no longer serve the purposes of sin and sinners, but 
 will furnish a variety of means for praising and glori- 
 fying God. The mode of this transformation is however 
 
356 OF THE LAST JUDGMENT. 
 
 entirely unknown to us, nor must we curiously pry into 
 it. But “seeing that all these things shall be dissolved, 
 what manner of persons ought we to be in all holy con- 
 versation and godliness, looking for and hastening unto 
 the coming of the day of God.” 
 
 CHAPTER IV. . 
 OF THE LAST JUDGMENT. 
 
 Tuat there shall be a final judgment, is clear from the 
 scriptures, which declare, * God shall bring every work 
 into judgment." * Behold, the Lord cometh with ten 
 thousand of his saints, to execute judgment upon all." 
 * He hath appointed a day, in the which he will judge 
 the world in righteousness.” (Eccles. xii. 14. Jude 15. 
 Acts xvii. 31. See also Matt. xii. 36; xvi. 27. 2 Cor. v. 
 10. 2 Tim. iv. 1.) Itis clear also from the considera- 
 tion of God's justice and providence; the justice of God 
 requires that it should be well with the good, and ill with 
 the wicked; but this is not the case in this life, very - 
 often the contrary ; for virtue is most frequently trodden 
 under foot, while vice reigns triumphant. It is also evi- 
 dent from the testimony of conscience, which accuses, 
 torments, and condemns the wicked, summoning them 
 even now to the bar of Christ; and also from the con- 
 sent of nations; for what else did the heathens mean, 
 when they pretended that Rhamnusia, the avenging 
 goddess, Minos, Rhadamanthus, and Macus, would 
 judge mankind in the shades below 2? 
 
 We must consider who will be the judge. God is the 
 judge; but, by a particular dispensation, judgment will 
 be exercised by Christ, to whom it has been committed 
 by the Father; “for the Father judgeth no man, but 
 hath committed all judgment unto the Son." (John v. 22; 
 Acts x. 42; xvii. 31.) And this is that most awful and 
 sublime act, by which Christ, coming again from heaven 
 with supreme glory and majesty, will judge the whole 
 universe. He will execute judgment in that nature in 
 which he suffered for us. He will sit as Judge: he who 
 
OF THE LAST JUDGMENT. 357 
 
 once stood before the judge; he who was fulsely made 
 guilty, will condemn those who are really guilty, says 
 Augustine. This will tend very much both to the con- 
 solation of the godly, who will have for their judge, their 
 Advocate and Brother; and to the terror of the un- 
 godly, who will see him reigning, whom they persecuted. 
 He will exercise judgment according to both his natures; 
 the divine conferring infinite knowledge and power, the 
 human visibly performing the acts of judgment. He will 
 judge as God, because it belongs to God only to know 
 all things; he alone can * make manifest the counsels of 
 the hearts ;” he alone possesses power to execute such 
 judgment. He will also judge as man, seeing that in 
 human nature he will pronounce sentence. He possesses 
 all the qualities of a judge; he will be supreme, from 
 whom there can be no appeal; omniscient; all-right- 
 eous; all-powerful. His glory will be resplendent. 
 (Matt. xxv. 31.) He will be surrounded by his angels, 
 (Luke ix. 26; 2 Thess. i. 7; Jude 14,) who will gather 
 all that are to be judged, will separate them, will cast 
 down the wicked into the place of torment, and probably 
 raise up the righteous to heaven. (Matt. xxv. 32; xiii. 
 41, 42, 49.) Whether the saints will be assessors to 
 Christ in this judgment, we cannot determine; we do 
 er ee it can be inferred from the passage in 1 Cor. 
 vi. : 
 
 We must consider, also, who will be judged. A will 
 be judged, both angels and men: we cannot doubt as to 
 evil angels, for they are said to be *reserved unto judg- 
 ment.” (2 Peter ii. 4.) Perhaps we might say that their 
 judgment has already been passed, but that they are 
 reserved for punishment, which will be inflicted after the 
 final judgment, far more grievously than that which they 
 now suffer. We cannot affirm anything concerning the 
 judgment of good angels, who are every where described 
 as attendants of Christ the Judge. But besides angels, 
 all mankind will be judged, (Rom. xiv. 10—12; 2 Cor. v. 
 10,) of every sex and condition, of all places, and of all 
 ages—not one will be exempt from judgment. And if it 
 be inquired, for what things we shall be judged, we an- 
 swer,—that all outward actions will be judged, (Jude 15; 
 Rev. xx. 12, 13,)J—and words, even vain and idle ones, 
 (Matt. xii. 36, 37,)J—the secrets of men, whether actions 
 performed, unknown to all, or inward thoughts, (Eccles. 
 xii. 14; 1 Cor. iv. 5,)J—and all omissions of duty, (Matt. 
 iii. 10; xxv. 30; Luke xii. 47; James iv. 17.) 
 
358 OF THE LAST JUDGMENT. 
 
 If it be inquired, what will be the nature or form of 
 the judgment, we reply, that it will consist in these three 
 things—the trial of the cause, the passing of the sentence, 
 and the execution of it. The trial of the cause will not 
 be difficult to an omniscient Judge. (Heb. iv. 13.) All 
 * the books will be opened,” (Dan. vii. 10; Rev. xx. 12;) 
 the book of God’s providence and omniscience—the book 
 of conscience, in which will be found written what good 
 and evil has been done by every one—and the book of 
 life. By allthese books, the scripture means, that nothing 
 will be unknown to the Judge, the metaphor or figure 
 being taken from the practice of human courts of justice. 
 The rule of judgment will be revelation; the heathen 
 will be judged by the law of nature; the Jews by the 
 written law, or legal dispensation; Christians by the 
 gospel; for “those who have sinned without law, and 
 those in the law, shall be judged without law, and by 
 the law." (Rom. ii. 12.) The passing of sentence will 
 take place after the trial of the cause; first, the sentence 
 of acquittal, then that of condemnation; the Judge will 
 begin with the former, to show that he is more willing 
 to pardon than to punish; and to the greater joy of the 
 faithful, and to the greater sorrow of the wicked. It 
 might appear strange to some, that Christ, in describing 
 the kind of judgment which he will exercise at the last 
 day, does not mention any works, except works of 
 mercy towards himself, whereas neither the performance 
 of them can be ascribed to, nor the neglect of them be 
 charged upon, vast numbers of persons who have never 
 heard of Christ; but it has been justly observed, that 
 these are only brought forward by Christ by way of 
 specimen or example, as some good works out of many. 
 There is a question also raised, as to whether the sins of 
 the righteous, as well as of the wicked, will be brought 
 forth to view? Wedo not think they will; first, because, 
 if they were, it would turn to the confusion of the right- 
 eous,-who are surely not then to be confounded: again, 
 because the free mercy of Christ will not remember the 
 offences of believers; nor is it Jikely, that Christ will 
 reproach his own members with their iniquities. Finally, 
 the execution of the sentence will follow—* The wicked 
 shall go away into everlasting punishment, but the 
 righteous into life eternal.” (Matt. xxv. 46.) None will 
 be able to escape the power of the Judge; to deceive his 
 wisdom; to move his equity; or to recall his sentence. 
 He will neither be prepossessed by favour, nor influenced 
 
OF HELL AND HEAVEN. 959 
 
 by mercy, nor corrupted by gifts, nor appeased by re- 
 pentance or satisfaction. 
 
 As to the place and time of judgment, we read of “ the 
 clouds and the air;" *behold he cometh with clouds, 
 and every eye shall see him." (Rev. i. 7; Matt. xxiv. 30; 
 1 Thess. iv. 17.) It is ridiculous to make the valley of 
 Jehoshaphat the place of judgment, from a misunder- 
 standing of Joel iii. 2; for the valley there means every 
 place, where God. will pour out judgments on the ene- 
 mies of his church. It is merely a figurative represen- 
 tation of the deliverance of the church from the hands 
 of the wicked; as God formerly granted to Jehoshaphat 
 a remarkable victory over the Moabites and Ammonites. 
 The time of judgment will be, doubtless, at the end of 
 the world. I will add nothing more than the words 
 which are attributed to Jerome—Whether I eat, or 
 whether I drink, or whatever else I do, a voice seems al- 
 ways to sound in my ears, Arise, ye dead, and come to 
 judgment. As oft as I think of the day of judgment, I 
 tremble through my whole soul and body. For if there is 
 any sweetness in the present life, it must be so enjoyed, 
 that the bitterness of the future judgment be never effaced 
 from my remembrance. 
 
 CHAPTER V. 
 OF HELL AND HEAVEN. 
 
 Tue Hebrew word 5wv, and the Greek «dns, are generally 
 taken in scripture, indeed almost always, for the grave: 
 we must here take it for tbe place of the condemned, 
 “the place of torment, prepared for the devil and his . 
 angels." The word gehenna is taken from the valley .of 
 
 the sons of Hinnom, where the wicked Israelites, in their 
 horrible worship of Moloch, in imitation of the cruel 
 superstition of the Phenicians, were accustomed to pass 
 their children through the fire, or having enclosed them 
 in the red-hot arms of the idol-statue, to burn them with 
 dreadful tortures, in the midst of the noise of drums and 
 
360 OF HELL AND HEAVEN. 
 
 other instruments. The same arguments which prove 
 that there is a final judgment, prove that there is a hell; 
 but the place of this hell it is unprofitable to investigate. 
 
 The torments of hell will consist, not in annihilation, 
 but in being deprived of all good, and banished from the 
 glorious presence of God; in the sense of divine anger, 
 and in the greatest possible pains. Whether the body 
 will be cast into the material element of fire, and whether 
 the soul itself will be tormented in flames, has been dis- 
 puted; we omit these as curious questions. Let it be 
 enough only to observe, that there will be inequalities of 
 punishment—-* Verily I say unto you, it shall be more 
 tolerable for the land of Sodom and Gomorrah in the 
 day of judgment, than for that city." (Matt. x. 15.) Nor 
 is this matter of surprise; the punishment ougnt to be 
 proportioned to the fault, and every one knows that 
 some sins are greater than others. (Matt. xxiii. 14; Luke 
 xii. 47, 48.) Observe also, that the punishment of hell 
 will be so intense, as to be neither conceived nor ex- 
 pressed; which is evident from such phrases in scripture, 
 as the gnawing “ worm,” the “ burning fire,” the * weep- 
 ing and gnashing of teeth,” the “pangs of travail.” It 
 will also be eternal; hence the scripture speaks of 
 “everlasting fire,” of “eternal death,” of “the worm that 
 dieth not," of “the fire that is not quenched.” Nor is it 
 to be wondered that it is eternal, since the damned have 
 offended infinite Majesty, and will never cease to sin 
 against Him. 
 
 We must add a word or two upon eternal life; and 
 we may Say that the felicity of believers will not be one 
 single good, but a condition made up of all kinds of 
 good. It will consist of freedom from all evil, and from 
 all sin; of the perfect knowledge of God, whom we shall 
 behold ; of familiar intercourse and intimate union with 
 him; of the possession of all those good things which 
 flow from divine communion; of the vision of Christ; 
 of supreme love to God; of unspeakable joy; in short, 
 of as great a degree of enjoyment, as can belong to the 
 creature. 
 
 This happiness no tongue can express, no pen can de- 
 scribe; hence the scripture sets it forth under emblems 
 taken from the most excellent, agreeable, and useful ob- 
 jects; which being well known, we need not enumerate. 
 But the following remarks must be attended to. We 
 must not imagine that the divine essence can be seen 
 with the bodily eyes, as some have dreamed ; for how is 
 
OF HELL AND HEAVEN. 361 
 
 it possible for a spirit to be an object of the senses? But 
 seeing God only means the perfect knowledge of him, as 
 great as the creature can attain, “seeing no longer 
 through a glass darkly ;” and also the possession of him. 
 The glorified will not, therefore, know God in every re- 
 spect, as though nothing would be hid from them; for a 
 finite being cannot comprehend the infinite, and the 
 faithful will be ignorant of far more than they will know; 
 but whatever can be known by them, will be known. 
 Their felicity also, will be eternal; they will live and 
 reign with God for ever; the very heathens acknowledg- 
 ed that complete felicity could not consist with the fear 
 of losing it. Not only will their souls be happy, but their 
 bodies will be glorious; free from all corruption and 
 sin; made like unto Christ’s glorious body ; immortal, 
 subject to no evil and pain, bright and splendid, scarcely 
 tolerable to mortaleyes ; a specimen of which splendour 
 was exhibited in the shining face of Moses, and in the 
 transfiguration of our Saviour; strong and vigorous; 
 swift and agile; spiritual, i.e. no longer standing in need 
 of food and clothing. The glorified will praise God for 
 ever, not only with the mind, but also with the mouth, 
 although we know not what language they will use. 
 Their abode will bein heaven; hence, “the inheritance” 
 is said to be “ reserved for them in heaven.” (1 Peter i. 4; 
 John xiv. 2, 3; 2 Cor. v. 1.) It is disputed, whether 
 there are degrees of glory, as well as of punishment ; it 
 is probable, and appears to be inferred from some pas- 
 sages, especially 1 Cor. iii. 14, 15; 2 Cor. ix. 6. The 
 thing, however, is not plain, although there is no diffi- 
 culty in conceiving that God can increase the sense of 
 his love, and the knowledge of himself, even to infinity. 
 
 91 
 
CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY. 
 
 BOOK THE TENTH. 
 
 OF THE CHURCH. 
 
 —9— 
 CHAPTER I. 
 OF THE WORD CHURCH, ITS MEANING AND DEFINITION. 
 
 Tuus far we have treated of the offices and benefits of 
 Christ ; the order of subjects now requires us to treat of 
 the Church, for which aione the blessings of grace are de- 
 signed, and to which they are applied: for the Saviour had 
 no other design in coming into the world, than to gather 
 to himself a people, and Jb call them to a participation 
 of grace and glory. The word ecclesia (which we trans- 
 late church), is derived from :2x«aXw, to call out ; it was 
 the term given in the republics to an assembly of people, 
 which was called together by public notice, and collect- 
 ed into a certain place. There were also the Greek 
 Words cvvaycoyn, éricwaywyn, ravgyóps, and the Hebrew word 
 bap, from which appears to be derived the word xaXw 
 among the Greeks, and also the calata comitia among 
 the Romans, which were called together by the voice 
 of the public crier. It must however be observed that 
 the word ewayoy» answers to the Hebrew mw, and gener- 
 ally in the New Testament denotes the religious assem- 
 blies of the Jews, or the place of such assemblies, (Luke 
 vii. 5.) Indeed the most learned men observe that there 
 is scarcely one passage in scripture, in which this word 
 is used to denote the assemblies of Christians. The 
 apostle does indeed admonish the Hebrews ** not to for- 
 362 
 
OF THE WORD CHURCH. 363 
 
 sake the assembling of themselves together," émowaywyiv 
 dvurav, (Heb. x. 25,) but he uses the term, in order to ac- 
 commodate himself to the modes of expression used by 
 those whom he addressed ; and after all he does not use 
 the simple word ewayoy» James only uses this term, 
 (James ii. 2,) where, however, he principally addresses 
 Jews, who he knew would be pleased by the use of so 
 familiar a term. 'The word zarnyips is used by the apos- 
 tle in Heb. xii. 23fand it was employed by the Greeks 
 to denote that convention or assembly of people, which 
 was invited to any public spectacle or exhibition, and 
 the speech which was made before this assembly was 
 called zavnyupixds Móyos, A panegyric. 
 
 But although the word éx«djoia is sometimes used for 
 any public assembly, whether confused and tumultuous, 
 or convened for some fixed purpose, (Acts xix. 32, 40; 
 Psalm xxvi. 12, Sept. ;) yet it is certain, that both in the 
 Old and New Testaments it denotes a sacred or religious 
 assembly, and it signifies either the whole company of 
 the elect, effectually called by the word and Spirit of 
 God, the mystical body, of which Christ is the head, (Eph. 
 v. 23,) or else the whole number of those who profess 
 the faith of Christ, and participate in the same means of 
 grace; as when the church is said to have “increased 
 daily ;" (Acts xvi. 5,) and every where we read of the 
 churches of Rome, Ephesus, &c.; in which number 
 there are two classes of men, those who are Christians 
 by outward profession, and those who are real believers. 
 In this respect the church is compared to a threshing- 
 Jioor, in which the chaff is mingled with the wheat; to 
 a net, in which there are good and bad fishes; to a 
 house, in which there are vessels of gold and silver, and 
 of wood and earth. The word church may also denote 
 the assembly of spiritual rulers and pastors, to whom is 
 committed the dispensation of the word and sacraments, 
 and the administration of discipline, which definition 
 Christ, according to many persons, referred to, when he 
 said, * Tell it to the church," (Matt. xviii. 17.) 
 
 Now the ground of this threefold acceptation of the 
 word is, that the church may be considered, either in re- 
 ference to its internal communion with Christ, or to its 
 external profession, or to its ecclesiastical rule or govern- 
 ment. According to these different respects it may be 
 differently defined. In the first point of view it is de- 
 fined to be, a religious society of elect persons, whom 
 God effectually calls by his word and Spirit, and who 
 
364 OF THE TRUE CHURCH. ~ 
 
 not only profess to believe in Christ, but really believe 
 in him, and prove their faith by newness of life. In the 
 second view it is defined to be a religious society of men 
 called by the preaching of the gospel. In the third it is 
 an assembly ofthe rulers and pastors of the church, who 
 are furnished with a lawful call and with lawful autho- 
 rity, to preach the word, to administer the sacraments, 
 and to maintain holy discipline. 
 
 CHAPTER II. 
 
 OF THE TRUE CHURCH. 
 
 We have said that the church is a religious society of 
 elect persons, effectually called through the ministry of 
 the word and the operation of the Spirit. Now we c 
 it a society, because we must not think that one person 
 constitutes a church, nor even that several persons, ex- 
 cept they are united together, can form a church; hence 
 the church is called a flock, &c. We callit also a reli- 
 gious society, to distinguish it from natural and civil 
 associations, such as those of families, cities, provinces, 
 commonwealths; as also those of arts, sciences, trades 
 and professions; whereas the church is a society of per- 
 sons united together by the ties of conscience or moral 
 feeling. Again, we call it a society of elect persons, to 
 distinguish it from such religious societies as are formed 
 and united together under the mere influence of nature.* 
 And also a society of elect persons, who are called by God, 
 because election only is not sufficient to constitute a 
 true member of the church. Lastly, we call it a society 
 of men effectually called, and truly believing, in order 
 to exclude from the church hypocrites and reprobate 
 persons. 
 
 Upon these grounds we may reply to several ques- 
 tions. It is inquired, first, whether hypocrites and un- 
 
 * «Solo nature motu,” says the author. Perhaps he means ied 
 hir religion, or any other religion but that founded on the word o 
 God. 
 
b 
 
 OF THE TRUE CHURCH, 365 
 
 converted men are true members of that church of which 
 Christ is the head, and whether those privileges belong 
 to them, which Christ grants to his church? We reply 
 in the negative, and maintain this opinion, first, from the 
 different titles given to the church, in its relation to 
 Christ. Thus it is called “the body of Christ,” and its 
 members * the members of Christ :” (Eph. v. 23; Col. i. 
 18); but the body of Christ is no other than that which 
 is destined to be saved, which “ grows and increases in 
 love," (Eph. iv. 15, 16,) and which is animated by the 
 Spirit of Christ ; and Christ, says Augustine, cannot have 
 any members who are in a state of condemnation. It is 
 also called “the spouse or bride of Christ,” so clearly 
 united to him, that they are not two, but one; now 
 Christ has never united unconverted persons to him- 
 self; they cleave to the world, and not to Christ. It is 
 also called “ the fold of Christ," (John x. 16); now those 
 only are the sheep of Christ who hear his voice, and fol- 
 low him, and to whom he gives eternal life, so that they 
 shall never perish. It is also called * the general assem- 
 bly and church of the first-born, which are written in 
 heaven," (Heb. xii. 23.) This opinion is also evident 
 from considering that those only are true members of 
 the church, who possess what essentially belongs to the 
 true church, viz. faith, hope, and charity, but these 
 graces are not in the unconverted; and that that only is 
 the true church, to which the promises of saving grace 
 peculiarly belong ; now no one will say that these pro- 
 mises belong to the unbelieving and ungodly. We must 
 confess, indeed, that hypocrites are in the visible com- 
 munion of the church, and that they make the same pro- 
 fession of faith, and use the same sacraments as true be- 
 lievers; but then it is not enough, to constitute a man a 
 real member of the church, that he hear the word, pro- 
 fess faith, and partake of tbe sacraments, something 
 more is necessary, viz. that he really possess faith, hope, 
 and charity ; and therefore the apostle declares, * They 
 went out from us, but they were not of us; for if they 
 had been of us, they would no doubt have continued 
 with us," (1 John ii. 19,) from which passage it is plain, 
 thatthe apostle means to say, that not all, who seem to 
 be, are in reality members of the church. Hypocrites 
 and wicked persons, says Augustine, are in the body of 
 Christ, in the same way as ill humours arein the human 
 body ; when they are got out, the body is relieved ; so the 
 church is releved, when th Ai ean &o out of it, and it is 
 
366 OF THE UNITY, HOLINESS, 
 
 enabled to say, Those humours are gone out from me, but 
 they were not of me. 
 
 Again, the question is raised, whether wahoptinas and 
 excommunicate persons belong to the church? In re- 
 gard to the former, we say that they are in the church - 
 the moment they have true faith, and profess it, although 
 they are not baptized ; and therefore that they can be 
 saved in this state, because they are in the covenant; 
 they are partakers of Christ and his benefits, as we can- 
 not doubt that innumerable martyrs, who died with- 
 out receiving baptism, obtained salvation. In respect to 
 excommunicate persons, we say, that only those are 
 really out of the church, who content with an outward 
 profession, have had no real communion of faith and love 
 with Christ and his people; but that other excommuni- 
 cate persons are not out of the church, neither those who 
 have been unjustly excommunicated, (which excommu- 
 nication being unjust, cannot in any way cut them off 
 from communion with Christ) nor those who, though 
 justly cast out from external communion, retain that 
 which is internal, and do not utterly lose the seed of 
 faith and repentance, although they may die without 
 being received again into the church, through the 
 pet of a harsh and severe discipline by the pastors 
 of it. 
 
 CHAPTER IIL 
 
 OF THE UNITY, HOLINESS, AND UNIVERSALITY OF THE 
 CHURCH. 
 
 Awounc the attributes or characters of the church, the 
 first is its unity. For since it is a sacred society, com- 
 prehending all the elect, it is necessary to have a point 
 of union by which all those elect may be connected with 
 each other; and this unity consists in those bonds which 
 join the members together. Now as the church may be 
 considered in reference to its external and internal state, 
 so the bonds are of two kinds; some are inward, others 
 outward; moreover, some of them are essential, others 
 
AND UNIVERSALITY OF THE CHURCH. 36 
 
 accidental. The inward bonds are, 1. the unity of the 
 Spirit, (Eph. iv. 3; 1 Cor. xii. 13). The Spirit is the 
 soul of the church; by this unity of the Spirit two or 
 more societies, which are animated by this same Spirit, 
 constitute one body, though they may be unknown to 
 each other ; thus we ourselves form one body with other 
 churches in distant parts of the world. 2. The unity of 
 faith, Eph. iv. 5. i. e. one and the same doctrine of sal- 
 vation, set forth in the gospel, and embraced by faith. 3. 
 Theunity of charity or love, which follows that of faith, 
 and by which the faithful, who are united to Christ, are 
 also united with each other in love, so that they may 
 * keep the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace ;" and 
 therefore charity is called *the bond of perfectness," 
 (Col. iii. 14.) 4. The unity of hope, (Eph. iv. 4,) i. e. of 
 the thing hoped for,the heavenly inheritance, to which 
 * we are all called." The outward bonds are, the unity 
 of sacraments, such as that of baptism; (Eph. iv. 5,) and 
 the unity of ministry. Now all these are also essential 
 bonds of union; there are others which are accidental ; 
 such as agreement in all doctrines, and uniformity of 
 laws, government, and discipline. 
 
 Schism is the breaking of those bonds which consti- 
 tute the unity of the church, of which schism there are 
 two sorts—universal schism, by which men renounce 
 those general truths, which constitute the foundation of 
 Christianity, and are admitted by all Christian commu- 
 nities—and particular schism, by which men renounce 
 some truths, which are indeed of great moment, but not 
 equally fundamental. All separation is not schism, al- 
 though all schism is separation; but all unlawful sepa- 
 ration is schism. E 
 
 The church is said to be holy, because God hath sepa- 
 rated it from the world to be “a peculiar people ;" (Titus 
 ii. 14;) because it follows after holiness, not that shadowy 
 holiness, which marked the Jewish nation, but real and 
 genuine;—because it has been purified and sanctified 
 by the Holy Ghost. It may also be called holy, in refe- 
 rence to the system which it teaches, which in the purity 
 of its doctrines and precepts surpasses every thing, how- 
 ever praiseworthy, which we read in all the records of 
 legislators, hierophants, and philosophers. 
 
 It is called catholic, not only because of its orthodoxy, 
 in which sense the fathers used the word catholic, call- 
 ing the emperors catholic and orthodox, (hence a decree 
 was passed by Theodosius, that only the churches of 
 
368 OF THE CHURCH, 
 
 those should be called catholic, who acknowledged and 
 worshipped the holy Trinity, and that those who were 
 of a different opinion should be called heretics,) but also 
 because it is extended throughout the whole world, in 
 contradistinction to the church under the Old Testament, 
 which was confined within the narrow limits of Judea; 
 and because it is composed without distinction of any 
 race, order, and condition of men; “for there is no dif- 
 ference between the Jew and the Greek;” (Rom. x. 12; 
 Acts x. 35,) and finally, because it will continue through 
 all ages even unto the end of the world. 
 
 CHAPTER IV. 
 
 OF THE CHURCH, AS VISIBLE AND INVISIBLE. 
 
 As the calling of the church is of two kinds, external by 
 the word, internal by the Spirit, and as the state of the 
 church is also twofold, outward and inward, so it may 
 be considered as visible and invisible. It is called visible 
 in regard to men, who constitute it, and who are visible; 
 in regard to the preaching of the word, and administra- 
 tion of the sacraments, in which view the ministry of the 
 gospel is termed a candlestick, which gives light in the 
 church; and in regard to the brightness with which it 
 sometimes shines in the world. It is called invisible in 
 regard to faith, hope, and charity, which constitute the 
 essence of the church, and which are known only to 
 God; and also in regard to the faithful, as such; for 
 although the faithful are visible’ as men, they are not 
 visible as faithful men, for many seem to be such, who 
 are not so. We must regard the church as we do a hu- 
 man being; for the same man may be said to be visible 
 and invisible; visible as to his_body, invisible as to his 
 soul. But that this subject may be rendered still plainer, 
 we may raise the four following questions. 
 
 The first question is, whether it can be certainly 
 known, that any society is a Christian society, or a true 
 church? To which we reply, that this may be known, 
 
AS VISIBLE AND INVISIBLE. 369 
 
 if we see any body of persons who profess the Christian 
 religion, and that it can be certainly known whether 
 such a body is a church of Christ; for we have only to 
 ascertain, whether its ministry is conformable to the 
 word of God; whether it takes away nothing from that 
 word, and adds nothing to it; for if this church have 
 such a ministry, and be found free from heresy, supersti- 
 tion and idolatry, opposed to domination over the con- 
 science, and to corrupt manners, it may be safely con- 
 cluded that under such a ministry and communion God 
 is preserving and bringing up his own people, and every 
 one who beholds this church may justly say, Here is a 
 .communion in which there are * such as shall be saved.” 
 The reason is, because God nowhere preserves the pub- 
 lic ministry of the word, without having there some of 
 his elect. 
 
 The second question is, whether those who are true 
 members of the church, can be distinctly known? We 
 reply, that they cannot be altogether distinctly: it may 
 indeed be said in the judgment of charity, that this or 
 that man is a believer, but this judgment is neither cer- 
 tain nor infallible ; and in this respect the church is called 
 invisible ; “he is not a (true) Jew who is one outwardly, 
 neither is that circumcision which is outward in the 
 flesh,” (Rom. ii. 28,) the things which make a man a true 
 Christian, are faith, hope, and charity—* the Lord alone 
 knoweth them that are his,” (2 Tim. ii. 19,) therefore the 
 gift of regeneration is called “the hidden man;” the 
 church is Christ’s spouse, whose beauty is inward, “all 
 glorious within.” (Psalm xlv. 13.) Neither is it abso- 
 lutely necessary to have a particular recognition in per- 
 sons; it is necessary for a man who will unite himself 
 to a church, to know where a true church is, but not to 
 know in particular what individuals are genuine mem- 
 bers of it. 
 
 The third question is, whether the true church is 
 always visible as a church, i. e. as far as relates to its 
 public assemblies, which are open to all* The reply is, 
 that sometimes the church is so persecuted, that no as- 
 sembly in it is manifest to the world: like Christ its head, 
 it has its state of humiliation and exaltation; sometimes 
 it enjoys in peace the administration of its sacred things, 
 and shines with the pure light of its ministry, and the 
 open celebration of divine worship; at other times it is 
 compelled by the rage of persecution, and the influence 
 of heresy, to lie concealed, as a dove in the clefts of a 
 
370 OF THE CHURCH, 
 
 rock; this was the case under the Old Testament in the 
 time of Elijah, who imagined himself left alone, although 
 there were 7000 men, who had not bowed the knee to 
 Baal, 1 Kings xix. Also in the times of which Azariah 
 spoke to Asa, saying, “ Now for along season Israel 
 hath been without the true God, and without a teaching 
 priest, and without law,” (2 Chron. xv. 3.) Also under 
 Ahaz, Manasseh, and Amon, and other wicked kings, 
 under whom the daily sacrifice was interrupted; the 
 doors of the temple shut; an altar built by Urijah the 
 priest after the pattern of the altar at Damascus, and 
 idolatry every where introduced. (2 Kings xvi. 10, 15; 
 2 Chron. xxxiii. 3, 4, 22, 23.) The church also lay hid 
 during the Babylonish captivity, in which the faithful 
 lamented over their “ prophets,” and their “signs,” taken 
 away from them; also during the first persecutions, 
 when the faithful were compelled to conceal themselyes 
 in dens and caves; likewise during the rage of the Arian 
 persecutors, when the orthodox were deprived of the 
 free exercise of their religion; finally, very often under 
 the domination of Antichrist. During all these periods, 
 however, God sealed his servants with his seal, Rev. vii. 
 3, and preserved his church in a wonderful manner. 
 
 The fourth question is, whether the church is always 
 so visible, as a true church, that it may at any time be 
 said, Here is the true church. The answer is, that there 
 are some periods in which the ministry is so corrupt, the 
 word of God so neglected, and the whole of Christianity 
 so shrouded in error, superstition, and false worship, 
 that, judging from outward appearances, it can hardly 
 be said, Here is the church of God. In this state was 
 the church of the Old Testament under the Judges, when 
 after the death of Joshua, the Israelites left the God of 
 their fathers, and went after other gods; (Judges ii. 12; 
 iii. 6, 7,) and thus it was also in the times of Antichrist 
 before the Reformation. Thus in the church we must 
 always distinguish its external and internal condition, 
 its times of prosperity, and of persecution, its pure, and 
 its corrupt state; for as its corruption is greater or less, 
 the more or the less is its true character visible. 
 
 Before we close the chapter, we may examine into the 
 question, whether the church is infallible? ‘To this we 
 reply by the three following assertions; that the apostles 
 acting under divine direction were infallible, that after 
 the apostles no individual believer, nor any assembly of 
 the church, has been free from error, since the churchin 
 
t x AS VISIBLE AND INVISIBLE. 371 
 
 its militant state is subject to various errors, as well as 
 sins, and that there is no particular visible communion, 
 which may not essentially err in faith and conduct, in 
 questions of doctrine and practice. The first assertion 
 needs no proof; the second is proved from the imperfec- 
 tion of our knowledge and regeneration ; for * we know 
 in part," whereas infallibility supposes the perfect know- 
 ledge of all things; the third is proved from the experi- 
 ence of all ages; thus the Jewish church erred, when 
 Aaron made the golden calf, and built an altar before it, 
 (Exod. xxxii. 2—5;) and also when, after Joshua's death, 
 it * forsook the Lord, and served Baal" (Judges ii. 13.) 
 Thus the synagogue erred in the time of Chris*. when it 
 condemned Christ; and it was even predicte that the 
 ‘ehurch should err “in the last times," (2 Thess. ii. 9— 
 11; 1 Tim. iv. 1; 2 Peter ii. 1,) and therefore the faith- 
 ful are enjoined to *try the spirits;" (1 John iv. 1; 1 
 Thess. v. 21 ;) which would not be the case, had infalli- 
 bility been given to the church. But here let it be ob- 
 served, that a distinction must be made between the 
 faithful themselves, and the visible communion ; there is 
 no visible communion which cannot err essentially, but 
 an individual believer cannot fall into such errors as de- 
 stroy the nature and essence of true faith, and hinder 
 salvation, because he cannot fall away from true faith ; 
 he may fall into errors, and sometimes very pernicious 
 errors; but he does not continue in them, not because it 
 is impossible, as far as he himself is concerned, but be- 
 cause God does not “suffer him to be tempted above 
 that he is able.” 
 
 If it also be inquired, whether the church can utterly 
 fail or be lost, we reply, that this or that particular visi- 
 ble communion may fail, since God sometimes threatens 
 that he will * remove the candlestick ;" (Rev. ii. 5,) but 
 that the whole church cannot altogether be lost, so that 
 there should be no church. This is evident from the di- 
 vine promises, by which it is engaged that “ the gates of 
 hell shall not prevail against it,” (Matt. xvi. 18,) from the 
 nature of the covenant of grace, which God hath made 
 with the church, and which is eternal. and never to be 
 abrogated, (Isaiah lix. 21; Jer. xxxi. 35, 36; xxxii. 40; 
 Psalm Ixxxix. 28, 29.) from the nature of the church it- 
 self, which is the body of Christ, and which, therefore, 
 cannot be separated from bim since the head cannot be 
 without body ; it is also the spouse of Christ, whom 
 
372 OF THE MARKS - 
 
 he hath married for ever; the kingdom of Christ, which 
 cannot be overturned or destroyed. (Dan. ii. 44.) 
 
 CHAPTER V. 
 
 * 
 
 OF THE MARKS OF THE TRUE CHURCH. 
 - " 
 We have said that we may ascertain where the true 
 church is; now, therefore, we must examine into the 
 marks, first premising, that by these marks we mean cer- 
 taia outward signs cognizable by the senses, by which 
 we arrive at the knowledge of the secret or inward 
 thing ; and that two things are required to constitute a 
 mark, viz. that it be particular, and that it be more 
 known than the thing of which it is a mark or sign. We 
 must also premise, that we are not treating of the marks 
 by which believers may be discerned from hypocrites, 
 but of the marks by which we may ascertain whether 
 there be any real communion to which we may unite 
 ourselves; neither are we speaking of the marks of the 
 Christian church at large, which is sufficiently distin- 
 guished from all other communities by its profession of 
 Christianity, but of the marks of the true church among 
 those assemblies which call themselves Christians. These 
 things being premised, we say that the true marks of 
 the church are the pure preaching of the divine word, the 
 lawful administration of the sacraments, and the exercise 
 of discipline ; but especially the first of these, for the ad- 
 ministration of the sacraments is not of equal necessity, 
 since for a time it may be wanting; as was the case in the 
 Israelitish church in the wilderness, when it was without 
 circumcision. The same may be said of the exercise of 
 discipline. Nor is it any objection to this view, that the 
 dispensation of the word and sacraments constitutes the 
 property, and the dowry as it were, of the church ; both 
 are true; as in earthly things the possession and the 
 -use of them is a mark of the transfer of the right, nor yet 
 does the advantage cease to exist. 
 
OF THE TRUE CHURCH. 373 
 
 Now we prove that the preaching of the word is a 
 mark of the true church, from various passages of scrip- 
 ture, * My sheep hear my voice, and I know them, and 
 they follow me,” “If ye continue in my word, then are 
 ye my disciples indeed,” * He that is of God, heareth 
 God's words" (John x. 27 ; viii. 31, 47.) Hence by this 
 mark false churches are distinguished from the true; 
 * whosoever transgresseth, and abideth not in the doc- 
 trine of Christ, hath not God," * He that abideth in the 
 doctrine of Christ, he hath both the Father and the Son." 
 (2John 9.) The same point is evident from this, that it 
 is a mark peculiar to the church, and belongs only to 
 the true church, for it is only the church which is the 
 “house of God. the pillar and ground of the truth ;" the 
 church alone is built upon the foundation of the apostles 
 and prophets;" it alone has the seals of the covenant. 
 Of this mark heretics do indeed boast, but falsely. It is 
 also further evident, because there is no other mark 
 surer than what is derived from that which constitutes, 
 preserves, and supports the church; but such is the 
 preaching of the word, the removal of which draws the 
 church after it. And such a mark is more known than 
 the church, (one of the things mentioned above as being 
 required to constitute a mark,) for although the church 
 is more known to us than the scripture, as it rezards a 
 confused and imperfect knowledge, because it is the 
 means of leading us to the scripture, and putting the 
 scripture into our hands, yet the scripture is more known 
 to us than the church, as it regards a distinct knowledge, 
 because the true church cannot be distinctly and clearly 
 known without the true and lawful preaching of the 
 word. Let us not hear, says Augustine, I say this, thou 
 sayest this ; but let us hear, Thus saith the Lord: Tru- 
 ly it is the Lord's book, whose authority we both ac- 
 knowledze, and to which we both defer ; in them let us seek 
 the church, by them let us examine our claims. 
 
 But here we may observe, that the church is so much 
 the purer, as it possesses these marks more plainly; also, 
 that there exists a certain latitude in these marks, so as 
 to admit different degrees of purity, some being more, 
 and others less perfect, which latitude, however, is not 
 to be extended so far, as to tolerate fundamental errors, 
 but only some trifling and unimportant errors. Further, 
 that a church does not necessarily lose the name of a 
 true church, if it is doctrinally erroneous in some point, 
 and even if it is not perfectly pure. We do not notice 
 
 ~ 
 
374 OF THE MARKS OF THE TRUE CHURCH. 
 
 any other marks, for either they do not belong to the 
 church, or else not always, or they are far more un- 
 known than the church. 
 
 The true church cannot be ascertained from any arro- 
 gant name which it may assume to itself; for many have 
 the title without the thing. Every assembly of heretics, 
 says Lactantius, boasts itself as exclusively Christian, 
 and its church to be the Catholic church. Neither can 
 it be ascertained from its antiquity ; antiquity does not 
 always apply to the church, because in the beginning it 
 was not ancient, and even the Pagans boast of this; but, 
 as it is said, antiquity or custom without truth is the an- 
 tiquity of error: besides that the knowledge of it de- 
 pends upon the accurate tradition of successive ages. 
 Neither from its duration, since this belongs to m 
 false religions. Neither from its multitude; for do we 
 not hear, says Athanasius, or rather Theodoret, the 
 Lord Jesus saying, *Many are called, but few are 
 chosen; strait is the gate, and narrow is the way, 
 which leadeth unto life, and few there be that find it?’ 
 who, therefore, had not rather be of the number of the 
 few that are saved, than of the many who rush into de- 
 struction through the wide gate? And besides, we know 
 that Paganism, and Mahomedanism, in this respect, far 
 exceed Christianity. Nor from the continual succession 
 of bishops, for who does not know that the Arian bishops 
 sometimes succeeded the orthodox, and that the Scribes 
 and Pharisees sat in the chair of Moses? Nor from the 
 unity of the members; for this belongs to many false 
 religions; besides that unity may be hypocritical, and 
 unconnected with truth of doctrine; there is such a 
 thing as evil unity, which is nothing else but a destruc- 
 tive combination. Not from miracles; for false pro- 
 phets make their boast of these, (Matt. vii. 22,) and every 
 one knows that many frauds are practised in these 
 cases. Lastly, not from temporal prosperity ; for if the 
 primitive church be tried by this mark, it will be proved 
 to have been a false church. 
 
OF THE HEAD OF THE CHURCH, &C. 375 
 
 CHAPTER VI. 
 
 OF THE HEAD OF THE CHURCH, AND OF ANTICHRIST. 
 
 Tue head of the church is Christ, as the whole scripture 
 teaches; “the Father gave him to be the head over all 
 things to the church." (Eph. i. 22; iv. 15, 16; Col. i. 18.) 
 Christ possesses all the qualifications necessary for such 
 ahead. He leads, directs, and governs, all his members ; 
 he neither slumbereth nor sleepeth. He infuses into the 
 members whatever vital motion they possess, and hence 
 he is compared to a vine; (John xv. 9,) “of his fulness 
 we receive, and grace for grace"—* he ascended up far 
 above all heavens, that he might fill all things." (John i. 
 16; Eph. iv. 10.) He exceeds all his members in dignity, 
 and between him and them there is a most intimate 
 union. Although Christ was always the head of the 
 church, yet he was especially made so by his exaltation, 
 when the Father * put all things under his feet." 
 
 Now there is no other head of the church upon earth. 
 First, because the scripture mentions no other: Paul 
 does indeed say that Christ * gave some apostles, others 
 pastors," &c. (Eph. iv. 11,) but we no where read of his 
 giving a head. Secondly, because, if this were the case, 
 the church would be called the body of some other be- 
 sides Christ. Thirdly, because it is impossible for the 
 the church, scattered through the whole world, to be 
 governed by a single mortal, who cannot be present in © 
 all places, nor act and hear of himself every thing that is 
 any where done. Nor could a man question this, who 
 is sensible of the weakness of human ability, and of the 
 narrow limits and scanty resources of human wisdom, 
 prudence, and judgment; and who at the same time 
 considers the great and arduous office of governing the 
 church. There was, indeed, under the Old Testament 
 a high priest; but then the church was confined within 
 the limits of Judea, whereas now it is spread through 
 the whole world. This high priest also was never 
 called the head and ruler of the other priests, (although 
 he held precedency of them) and was equally subject to 
 
376 OF THE HEAD OF THE CHURCH, 
 
 the jurisdiction of the Sanhedrim. He was, moreover, 
 a type of Christ our High Priest, but not of any morta. 
 man. 
 
 Peter was by no means the head of the church, and of 
 the other apostles. He was, indeed, the chief among the 
 apostles, either from his calling, as having been the first 
 called, or from his age, or his gifts; but that there was 
 any authority given him over the other apostles, by 
 which he was appointed governing priest, Christ’s substi- 
 tute, or head of the church, we utterly deny. For we 
 read of no such superiority being conferred by Christ, or 
 claimed by Peter himself, or recognised by the apostles. 
 Besides, the apostolical office is the highest, and acknow- 
 ledges no human superior. Peter himself was com- 
 manded by his colleagues to go into Samaria, Acts vii. 
 14. Paul himself testifies that he was no way inferior to 
 the “chief of the apostles,” (2 Cor. xi. 5; xii. 11,) and 
 undertook to blame Peter (Gal. ii. 11). And Peter places 
 himself in the same rank as the others, and forbids all 
 domination in the church—“ the elders among you I ex- 
 hort, who am also an elder,—feed the flock of God, not 
 by constraint, but willingly ; neither as being lords over 
 God's heritage," (I Peter v. 1—3.) The rest of the 
 apostles, says Cyprian, were what Peter was, having 
 an equal participation of honour and power. The church 
 was built, not upon the person, but upon the doctrine of 
 Peter, or upon the * rock, Christ," than whom there is no 
 other foundation, (1 Cor. iii. 11.) 
 
 The keys of the kingdom of heaven “ were given" to 
 Peter, (Matt. xvi. 19,) but they were keys, not of do- 
 minion or authority, which belong only to Christ, who 
 * hath the key of David, who openeth, and no man shut- 
 teth," (Rev. iii. 7,)—but keys of ministry and service, or 
 keys of knowledge, by which, through the preaching of 
 the word, the treasures ofheavenly mysteries are opened, 
 and it is made manifest what is loosed, i. e. permitted, 
 what is bound, i. e. forbidden; or else they were keys of 
 government and discipline, by which heaven is opened to 
 the penitent, and shut to the rebellious. But even if 
 Peter had been the head of the church, which we by no 
 means admit, it would not follow that this prerogative 
 could be extended to others, because no one could suc- 
 ceed the apostles in their apostleship, nor do we any 
 where read that Peter appointed any successor. 
 
 As to antichrist, this name is taken, sometimes for any 
 enemy to Christ, as the apostle calls those, who denied either 
 
AND OF ANTICHRIST. 377 
 
 the deity, or the incarnation of Christ, 1 John ii. 18—z, 
 and sometimes for some particular or remarkable enemy 
 to Christ, in which sense we here take it. The word 
 antichrist denotes two things—an enemy and rival of 
 Christ—and a substitute, or one who takes the place of 
 Christ—as the preposition az: (anti) may be explained, 
 which sometimes means opposition, sometimes substilu- 
 tion. The coming of this Antichrist was predicted by 
 Paul, 2 Thess. ii. and by John, Rev. xiii. 17, 18, under the 
 form of a whore and a beast ; and by the prophet Daniel 
 under the type of Antiochus Epiphanes. Now antichrist 
 is not one single person, but an order or succession of 
 persons, occupying the same station; for Paul in his de- 
 scription of Antichrist asserts that the mystery of iniquity 
 began to work in his own time, and would be completed 
 at the end of the world; which could not be said of one 
 person. 
 
 The following are the characters or marks of anti- 
 christ—first, with regard to the place, where he was to 
 sit, the general place is “the temple of God,” i. e. the 
 church, not the temple of Jerusalem, but the Christian 
 church. (2 Thess. ii.4.) It is said that he * sitteth" there, 
 because he assumes dominion and rule in the church. 
 The particular place of antichrist is Babylon, the great 
 city, with “its seven hills.” Secondly, with regard to 
 the time of antichrist being revealed, the scripture makes 
 it the time when * that which now letteth is taken away,” 
 or removed, i. e. the dismemberment of the Roman em- 
 pire,* (2 Thess. ii. 7, 8,) as the Greek scholia explain it, 
 which make the thing which hindereth (6 xazéxov) to be the 
 Roman empire. Now we may observe the chief steps 
 by which the removal of this hindrance was effected, 
 1. When the seat of empire was transferred from ancient 
 Rome to Constantinople; 2. When, by the division of 
 the empire into Eastern and Western, the emperors of 
 the West, having left Rome, placed their seat at Ra- 
 venna, or Milan, or were compelled to abdicate, A. D. 
 475, when Augustulus was conquered by Odoacer; 3. 
 When the Greek emperors lost, through the acts cf the 
 popes, whatever power they had in Italy. 
 
 With respect to the person of Antichrist, his charac- 
 ters are, apostasy, 2 Thess. ii. 3; 1 Tim. iv. 1, 2; oppo- 
 sition to Christ, not open, as though he denies Christ, 
 but secret; hence his apostasy is termed * the mystery 
 
 * This seems a better version than that given in our own Bible. 
 32* 
 
378 OF ANTICHRIST. 
 
 of iniquity ;" great pride, by which he **exalteth him- 
 self above all that is called God, or that is worshipped,” 
 (2 Thess. ii. 4;) foul idolatry, whence his seat is usually 
 pointed out by the name of * harlot, and mother of har- 
 lots;" miracles and lying wonders, (2 Thess. ii. 9; Rev. 
 xiii. 135) cruelty and violence, (Rev. xiv. xviii) Lastly 
 the number and the mark of the beast is pointed out by 
 John, (Rev. xiii. 16, 17.) Now Protestants maintain that 
 all these marks and characters belong to the Roman 
 pontiff: we need not enter into the proof of this asser- 
 tion. We will only observe that it is ridiculous to un- 
 derstand by * that wicked," mentioned by Paul, 2 Thess. 
 ii. 8, Simon Magus; as from the simple reading of the 
 passage it is plain, that it means the same as the * man 
 of sin," v. 3. It is absurd also by * the man of sin" to 
 understand Caligula, since Caligula died before the time 
 when Paul declared the man of sin would be revealed; 
 and apostasy cannot be attributed to one who never 
 acknowledged the true God. Nor is it less ridiculous to 
 understand by the Antichrist, whom John mentions, 
 Barchocab, who in the reign of the emperor Adrian de- 
 clared himself the Messiah, and led away the Jews; for 
 Barchocab did not apostatize from the faith, nor did he 
 ever sit in the temple of God—not in the temple of Jeru- 
 salem, which had been then destroyed—not in the Chris- 
 tian church, for he did not recognise it as a church. It 
 is also ridiculous to say, that the second beast, which 
 John said was to come, is Apollonius Tyanzus, for he 
 lived in the reign of Domitian before the death of John. 
 
 Antichrist may be regarded in his successive stages, 
 as conceived, from the very times of the apostles, Satan 
 even then preparing the way; also in the persecutions 
 under Nero, and during the prevalence of several here- 
 sies; as being born, and “revealed” A. D. 606, under 
 Boniface IIL; as growing up to maturity from that period 
 to the reign of Benedict IX. and Gregory VIL, and from 
 thence as flourishing in vigour to the period of the Re- 
 formation. For Boniface with great eagerness aspired 
 to the title of universal bishop, which title Gregory I. had 
 so abhorred, as boldly to declare, that he who calls him- 
 self, or desires to be called, Universal Bishop, was in his 
 pride the forerunner of Antichrist; and every one knows 
 that Gregory VII, called Hildebrand, reached such a pitch 
 of audacity, as to say, that the Roman pontiff alone could 
 use the imperial insignia; that all princes must kiss the 
 *eet of the pope only ; that it was lawful for him to de- 
 
OF THE MINISTERS OF THE CHURCH. 379 
 
 pose kings; that his opinion ought not to be controverted 
 by any one; that he could absolve the subjects of bad 
 princes from their allegiance; and that the Roman pon- 
 tiff alone could justly claim the title of ‘ Universal 
 Bishop " 
 
 CHAPTER VII. 
 
 OF THE MINISTERS OF THE CHURCH. 
 
 Havine spoken of the Head, it remains that we should 
 speak of the ministers, both of the Old and of the New 
 Testament. With regard to the ministers of the Old 
 Testament, before the law the patriarchs in their re- 
 spective families presided in spiritual as well as in tem- 
 poral matters. Under the law the ordinary ministers 
 were the Levites, who were instead of the first born. Of 
 these Levites, some were priests, others Levites, specially 
 so called; both had a double office in relation to God 
 and to men, and the presbytery (if we may so speak) 
 was made up of both. Of the priests one was the chief 
 or high priest, the rest inferior, whose office was to ex- 
 pound the law; to offer victims; to intercede for and to 
 bless the people; to determine causes according to the 
 divine law, to bear the ark of the covenant, to exhort 
 soldiers, when they went out to battle, to valour, and to 
 blow the trumpets. The Levites specially so called were 
 the rest of Levi’s posterity, destined to the service of 
 God in the place of the first-born, and divided into three 
 families, of whom we have spoken in another place. 
 The extraordinary ministers were the prophets, who, 
 being immediately called by God, consulted him upon 
 the general necessities of the church, as occasion re- 
 quired; interpreted the law; restored divine worship 
 when fallen to decay; reproved the priests and princes; 
 inveighed against the sins of the people; predicted future 
 events; kept the church in expectation of the Messiah’s 
 coming, and gradually prepared his way. Various ques- 
 tions are raised concerning these prophets. I shall only 
 touch upon two—/frst, it is inquired how the prophets 
 ascertained a revelation to be divine. The reply is, they 
 
380 OF THE MINISTERS 
 
 discovered it from an unusual and unexpected bright- 
 ness which shone around them, or from the majesty of 
 the things revealed, and their accordance with the divine 
 character. Secondly, it is inquired, how they proved 
 their divine mission to others! We reply, they proved 
 it by miracles, wrought by them, or else on their behalf; 
 by strict holiness of life; by predicting events, which 
 none could foresee, and which were fulfilled; by teach- 
 ing nothing contrary to God's law, and by the truth of 
 their doctrine. We refer any one who seeks further 
 information, to the great divine, Witsius. 
 
 With respect to the ministers of the New Testament, 
 some are extraordinary, others ordinary; the former 
 were those whom Christ employed in laying the founda- 
 tions of his church, after which their office was to cease. 
 Such were the apostles, whose particular characteristics 
 were, their immediate mission or calling from Christ 
 himself; as also their immediate instruction—their being 
 eye-witnesses of Christ’s resurrection—their divine in- 
 spiration and infallibility, for they were * guided into all 
 truth"—the universality of their office, i. e. their being 
 sent to the whole world—the gift of miracles—their judi- 
 cial and legislative power in the spiritual government of 
 the church. Such were also prophets ; (1 Cor. xii. 28; 
 Eph. iv. 11,) by which title were designated certain per- 
 sons, who were peculiarly gifted to explain the ancient 
 scriptures ; to interpret the prophecies ; to clear up divine 
 mysteries, and sometimes to foretel future events, (Acts 
 xi. 27, 28; xxi. 10, 11.) To these prophets are added 
 evangelists, who assisted the apostles in the care of the 
 churches they had planted, and in confirming them in 
 obedience to the faith, and were often their substitutes ; 
 —such were Mark, Luke, Philip, &c. 
 
 The ordinary ministers of the New Testament are 
 pastors, who are called by various names, as bishops, 
 elders, overseers, &c. to whom some add teachers, (Eph. 
 iv. 11.) But whether the office of teachers was ordinary 
 or extraordinary, whether the office of pastors and 
 teachers was one and the same, or different, is a ques- 
 tion. This is certain, that the scripture does not men- 
 tion teachers, when it mentions ordinary ministers; (1 
 Tim. iii. 1, &c.,) and when it speaks of extraordinary 
 ministers, it names teachers, and not bishops, (Eph. iv. 
 11; 1 Cor. xii. 28.) The institution of an ordinary minis- 
 try is proved from the following circumstances. The 
 apostles every where appointed ordinary ministers over 
 
OF THE CHURCH. 381 
 
 each church, and commanded them to be appointed, 
 (Acts xiv. 23; Tit. i. 5.) They are represented as ap- 
 pointed by God himself to feed the church: (Acts xx. 28,) 
 and to them the apostles direct their epistles, (Phil. i. 11,) 
 and intrust the charge of the church: (Acts xx. 17.) 
 Rules are also prescribed, by which they are to be chosen 
 in every age of the church. 
 
 Now every one must perceive the great advantage of 
 the Christian ministry ; its excellence no one will doubt, 
 who considers that God is the author of it—that it 
 handles the sublime mysteries of the kingdom of heaven, 
 and is occupied about the souls of men—that it was ex- 
 ercised by Christ, the prophets, and apostles—and that 
 it was instituted for the renovation, conversion, salva- 
 tion, and happiness of mankind. For the qualifications 
 of pastors we must consult Paul, (1 Tim. iii, &c.,) as 
 also for the obedience, honour, and love, which the people 
 owe to them, (Heb. xiii. 7, 17.) Here, however, be it 
 observed, that they must not be listened to, when they 
 depart from the dcctrine of Christ ; nay, Paul pronounces 
 them “accursed,” when so departing. (Gal. i. 8, 9.) The 
 faithful must not be united with pastors, except in Christ 
 and for Christ; as often therefore as the latter are sepa- 
 rated from Christ, the former must separate from them. 
 
 To exercise the office of the ministry, a call is neces- 
 sary. “No man taketh this honour to himself, but he 
 that is called of God, as was Aaron,” (Heb. v. 4.) “ How 
 shall they preach, except they be sent?’ (Rom. x. 15.) 
 Hence the scripture severely reproves those who have 
 not been called of God, and who come in their own 
 name, not in that of Christ, (Jer. xxiii. 21, 22; John v. 
 43.) This calling is necessary, both to comply with the 
 command of God, and that the hearers, being persuaded 
 of the lawful calling of their pastors, may more readily 
 listen to their instructions; and also that the pastors, 
 being assured of their calling, may not doubt that God 
 is pleased to use their instrumentality, and may expect 
 his blessing. All Christians, indeed, are bound to teach, 
 from love, and from their general calling as Christians, 
 but none can teach publicly and authoritatively, except 
 he be called. Now this calling is internal and external. 
 By the former we mean the inclination of the mind to 
 undertake the office, the heart being stirred up by God 
 to devote itself to the work of the ministry. The latter 
 is that by which a man thus inwardly disposed is ex- 
 pressly called to exercise the office. Outward calling is 
 
382 OF THE MINISTERS 
 
 either immediate, i. e. which is given by God without the 
 interposition of man; or mediate, which takes place 
 through human agency. It is also ordinary or extraor- 
 dinary. The ordinary is that which usually takes place 
 by common means; the extraordinary is that which not 
 only proceeds immediately from God without human 
 agency, as the calling of Paul and the other apostles, 
 but also that which takes place without the regular order 
 being observed—that which takes place for the preach- 
 ing of a thing unknown before, as the calling of Moses— 
 that which has respect to an office entirely new, as the 
 calling of John the Baptist—that which is accompanied 
 by extraordinary gifts, which however is with less pro- 
 priety termed an extraordinary calling. 
 
 These distinctions being laid down, several questions 
 must be determined. The first is, whether a calling to 
 the ministry by other pastors is absolutely necessary? 
 The answer is, that in a well-ordered condition of the 
 church it is necessary; but that in a troubled and cor- 
 rupt condition it is not always necessary, since the 
 church needs reformation; for then the faithful can take 
 the place of pastors; which is evident, not merely be- 
 cause necessity makes many things lawful which other- 
 wise are not so; as in a commonwealth, when the rulers 
 and governors prove traitors, a private citizen may as- 
 sume the reins of government—but also because every 
 Christian is bound to embrace and defend the truth, to 
 reject error, and to seek the salvation of his neighbour. 
 Now this necessity becomes urgent, when the public 
 ministry, which ought to answer the above ends, is not 
 yet established, or, if established, is so corrupt, that error 
 is taught instead of truth; for in this case it is lawful for 
 any individual to provide not only for his own salvation, 
 but also with all his care for that of his neighbour. This 
 is confirmed by many examples, especially of those men- 
 tioned in Acts viii. 4, who being * scattered" by persecu- 
 tion, preached the gospel *every where;" such as also 
 were the * men of Cyprus and Cyrene," mentioned in 
 Acts xi. 20,21. Such also were the young men /Edesius 
 and Frumentius, who, having sailed to the Indies, 
 preached the gospel and established publie worship; 
 and that captive woman, who converted the Iberians to 
 Christ, having first brought the queen over to the faith, 
 and through her the king; who, seeking the conversion 
 of the whole nation, became the apostle of his country, 
 according to Ruffinus ; and also the Christians of Samo- 
 
OF THE CHURCH. 383 
 
 sata, who being deserted by their pastors, took upon 
 themselves the pastoral office. The point is further evi- 
 dent from considering that, if this were not so, it would 
 be possible for the people to remain without godly pas- 
 tors, and thus true religion would come to an end. In 
 such cases of necessity, it is no more proper to demand 
 by what right and authority such a thing is done, than 
 to demand from a citizen, what authority he has for re- 
 sisting the invasion of an enemy, if his rulers should 
 prove treacherous; in short, it would be as ridiculous, 
 as if any one were to demand of me, what right I have 
 to obey God, to resist Satan, and seek the salvation of 
 my neighbours. Noristhereany fear, lest by this means 
 a wide door should be opened to confusion, and to all 
 kinds of tumult; for that only is to be called confusion, 
 which rashly and without cause neglects a regularly 
 established order, not that which is compelled to dis- 
 pense with it by an invincible and inevitable necessity. 
 The second question raised is, to whom the right of 
 calling belongs? The reply is, the right of calling origi- 
 nally and essentially belonss to the church, to whom 
 Christ has intrusted it; but it is exercised by the rulers 
 in the name of the church, just as in a republic the pow- 
 er of creating magistrates is vested in the body of the 
 community, which forms the republic, and the appoint- 
 ment is made in the name ofthe community by him who 
 is delegated for that purpose. We observe, moreover, 
 that, as we see in the church three orders of men, pas- 
 tors, mag gistrates, and people, to the first belones the 
 right of examining those who are called, of choosing and 
 ordaining ; to the second, as being the superior mem- 
 bers of the church, the right of approving or rejecting 
 those who are chosen by the pastors ; to the third, the 
 right of assenting or not assenting, of admitting or re- 
 jecting. Now that this power of calling ministers be- 
 longs to the church, is proved by the following argu- 
 ments: First, the church possesses the same right which 
 all other societies have, of setting over them some per- 
 sons to govern them, to enact laws, and to provide for 
 their observance, to the good of the whole community. 
 Again, God having bestowed faith and piety on the 
 church, has thereby bound it, not only to persevere in 
 the exercise of these graces to the end, and to maintain 
 them against error and the wiles of Satan, but also to 
 strengthen and increase them in every possible way, 
 and to bring others within its pale. Now God could not 
 
384 OF THE MINISTERS 
 
 have obliged the church to these duties, without having 
 given it the power to constitute a ministry, which is the 
 lawful and proper means of accomplishing such ends , 
 forit is not possible that God, who never fails in what 
 is necessary, should not have given the church sufficient 
 authority to employ all the means necessary for its own 
 preservation. Finally, it is evident from the practice of 
 the apostles and the primitive church, in which there 
 was no calling to the ministry without the consent of 
 the church, (Acts i. 23; vi. 3, 6; xiv. 23.) And it is con- 
 firmed by the decrees of ancient councils, and among 
 others by those of the council of Nice. In a synodical 
 epistle found in Theodoret, we read thus: Jf any prelate 
 of the church shall die, it shall be lawful for those who 
 have been received a little before, to succeed the deceased, 
 provided they shall be found worthy, and be chosen by 
 the people. ‘To this may be added many passages from 
 the Fathers. Thus Cyprian in his epistle to the clergy : 
 T'he people themselves have the power either of choosing 
 worthy priests, or of rejecting unworthy, which power 
 seems of divine origin, that the priest should be openly 
 chosen in the presence of the people, and by public judg- 
 ment and testimony be pronounced worthy and fit for his 
 office. And in another epistle he confirms this, from the 
 example of Cornelius, a Roman bishop: He was made a 
 bishop by the judgment of God and Christ ; by the agree- 
 ment of almost the whole clergy; by the M iis yd of the 
 Fags who were present at the time; and by the assem- 
 ly of venerable priests and good men. 
 
 The third question is, whether the church, having 
 once entrusted to the presbytery its own right of calling 
 pastors, hath then entirely given up that right, so as to 
 be no longer able to use it? We answer, that the 
 church has so entrusted its right to the rulers of church- 
 es, as at the same time to reserve for itself what origi- 
 nally is its own. So far is the church from having de- 
 prived itself of its right, that on the contrary it cannot 
 possibly do so. In civil society, where the question is 
 merely concerning temporal possessions, there is no ob- 
 stacle to the people absolutely resigning their own right 
 in order to avoid anarchy ; but in the church, where the 
 question is concerning salvation, the faithful cannot, 
 without a crime, absolutely divest themselves of that 
 power which they possess over the means given them to 
 advance their salvation, such as the ministry is; which 
 power they have, in order that pastors may not abuse 
 
4 OF THE CHURCH. 385 
 
 the ministry, and instead of true doctrine, teach and 
 perpetuate error. Where, therefore, the church has no 
 pastors, or where the pastors are very corrupt, and will 
 not reform abuses, the church can then confer the min- 
 isterial call; nor does the call cease to be sufficient to 
 all essential purposes, without pastors, even although 
 there is no use made of the rites and ceremonies of call- 
 ing, which after all do not essentially belong to it; for 
 the essence of the call consists in the threefold consent 
 of God, the church, and the person called; of God, be- 
 cause the person called must speak in his name; of the 
 church, because it must be instructed and ruled; of the 
 called himself, who has to fulfil the duties of his office. 
 
 Calling is followed by ordination, by which the person 
 chosen and approved, is with due form and solemnity 
 admitted into his office, and dedicated to the service of 
 the church. The election of pastors was formerly made 
 by the lifting up of the hands of the whole people, who, 
 when they heard the name of the candidate proposed, 
 signified their consent by this action. Ordination was 
 then performed by some of the pastors with “ imposition 
 of hands," (1 Tim. iv. 14,) a form used by the Jews in 
 the creation of their doctors. Now ordination must be 
 preceded by an examination of the doctrine and life of 
 the candidates, and care must be taken that each one 
 be *apt toteach;" that he be free from those faults 
 which would disgrace so honourable an office ; and that 
 he be furnished with those virtues by which he may ex- 
 ercise his ministry with advantage. This examination 
 was carefully instituted by the ancients: the name of 
 the candidate was usually written on a tablet, and set 
 up to public view, and where this was not the custom, it 
 was publicly announced in the congregation ; so that, if 
 any fault or scandal were discovered in the candidate, it 
 might be laid before the presbytery on a day appointed ; 
 and this was the custom, not only with regard to pres- 
 byters, but also to deacons. 
 
 That Christian pastors are entitled to pecuniary sup- 
 port, is evident from the plain testimony of Paul, (1 Cor. 
 ix. 4, 5—19,) and from Christ's own declaration that 
 * the labourer is worthy of his hire," (Matt. x. 10; Luke 
 X. 7,) and also from the threats addressed to those who 
 refuse such support. (Mal. iii. 8, 9. Gal. vi. 6, 7.) It is 
 evident also from the support afforded to the ministers 
 under the Old Testament. (Num. xviii. 8—12.) They 
 were commonly allowed a amm of the sacrifices, the 
 
386 OF THE MINISTERS OF THE CHURCH. - 
 
 tenths, the first fruits, and other things of that sort, be- 
 side certain cities andlands assigned to them. Nor is it 
 less evident from natural justice and equity ; for is it not 
 just, that they whoaretaught should support their teachers 
 and impart their carnal things to those who deliver unto 
 them spiritual things? It is of little consequence from 
 what sources this pecuniary support is furnished, pro- 
 vided it be not on the one hand so unreasonably scanty, 
 as to be insufficient for the decent support of the pastor 
 and his family, nor, on the other hand, so ample, as to 
 minister to pomp and luxury. Of ecclesiastical property 
 I will not here speak; it is certain, that after the apos- 
 tolic times, every church had its treasury, into which 
 any one might throw his mite, as appears from Justin 
 and Tertullian. In the course of time the church began 
 to possess lands and estates, by the liberal grants of em- 
 perors and kings. 
 
 It is by no means required, that Christian pastors 
 should be unmarried. The same necessity is imposed 
 upon them, as upon all others who have not the gift of 
 continency. Paul has declared that a bishop may be 
 the husband of one wife, and it is said that marriage is 
 honourable in all. (Heb. xiii. 4.) In the Jewish church 
 not only the priests, but some of the most excellent of 
 the prophets, had wives, (Isaiah viii. 3.) Some of the 
 apostles, also, were married, and likewise many bishops 
 and pastors afterwards. With regard to elders and 
 deacons, we may observe, that the former are a second 
 class of church officers, who have not the right to preach, 
 but who maintain ecclesiastical discipline in conjunction 
 with the pastors; their office being to support the weak, 
 to encourage the timid, to admonish the disorderly, and 
 to cite the disobedient before the presbytery. Paul al- 
 ludes to them in 1 Tim. v. 17, as some persons have 
 thought; as for ourselves, we do not think so; pastors 
 are there meant, and it is doubtful, whether the office of 
 elder was instituted in the time of the apostles.* Deacons 
 are those who have the charge of collecting and distrib- 
 uting the relief due to the poor; we read of their ap- 
 pointment in Acts vi., and their qualifications, 1 Tim. iii. 
 8—10. 
 
 * [For the evidence in favour of the office of Ruling Elders from the 
 New Testament, see Chapter III., of Dr. Miller's * Essay on the War- 
 rant, Nature, and Duties of the office of Ruling Elders,” published by 
 the Presbyterian Board of Publication.] 
 
OF THE POWER OF THE CHURCH. 387 
 
 CHAPTER VIII. 
 
 OF THE POWER OF THE CHURCH. 
 
 Tuat there is some power and authority given to the 
 church, is evident, first, because “ the keys of the king- 
 dom of heaven are given to it," which keys are the en- 
 sign of authority, either supreme, or subordinate. For 
 the grant of the keys not only refers to the preaching of 
 the word, but also to the exercise of discipline, since by : 
 these keys pastors have the power of forgiving or retain- 
 ing sins. Secondly, because that authority cannot be 
 denied to the church, which is granted to all other com- 
 munities; now no community can be held together and 
 continue without some government, and government 
 cannot exist without some power. Thirdly, the point is 
 evident from the titles given to pastors, (1 Thess. v. 12, 
 1 Tim. v. 17. Heb. xiii 17.) But this ecclesiastical is 
 very different from political power. Political power may 
 be in the hands of heathens, and may be exercised by 
 women ; but not so ecclesiastical; political power is au- 
 tocratical, as that of lords or rulers; ecclesiastical power 
 is ministerial, as that of stewards; the one is principally 
 concerned with civil the other with spiritual matters ; 
 the former is exercised in a political manner, by the in- 
 fliction of bodily punishments, the latter in a spiritual 
 manner, by the sword of the Spirit; the one reaches only 
 to the outward man, the other to the conscience. This 
 power is vested in the pastors, not in the magistrate, nor 
 is it derived from the latter to the former, as is evident, 
 because otherwise “the keys" would have been given to 
 the magistrate ;—because the magistrate himself is sub- 
 ject to ecclesiastical power ; and because otherwise the 
 ministers would be the ministers of the magistrate, and 
 not the ** ministers of Christ." 
 
 Now this power is exercised, first, in regard to doc- 
 trines or matters of faith, not as though the church 
 stamped authority upon the divine word, and made any 
 new doctrines, or interpreted the scripture according to 
 its own pleasure, but inasmuch as it guards the scrip- 
 ture, as a sacred deposit, and vindicates it against all 
 
388 OF THE POWER OF THE CHURCH. 
 
 attacks, but especially as it frames creeds and confes- 
 sions for the preservation of sound doctrine and eccle- 
 siastical union. There is great authority belonging to 
 such confessions, although far inferior to the authority of 
 scripture, because men may be mistaken in them; and 
 therefore they are of force or obligation only as far as 
 they are discovered to agree with the word of God. 
 Again, the power of the church consists in its having the 
 right of making laws and constitutions for the mainte- 
 nance of order. The pastors indeed have not the right 
 of framing laws properly so called, which bind the con- 
 science; for there is one lawgiver, namely God, who 
 alone has power over the conscience ; nor is it lawful to 
 add any thing to the divine law, nor to take any thing 
 from it; but they have the right of making rules and 
 constitutions for the maintenance of good order, in 
 things which are indifferent; as those which regard the 
 time, place, and form of public prayers, preaching, and 
 administration of the sacraments ; because, though God 
 hath given a general injunction, that * all things be done 
 decently and in order," (1 Cor. xiv. 40,) yet he has not 
 laid down any particulars, but has left them to the wis- 
 dom and discretion of his ministers. These laws and 
 constitutions are to be observed for the preservation of 
 order, yet they do not bind beyond a case of scandal 
 and contempt ; but pastors ought to take care that they 
 do not go beyond things indifferent, nor burden the 
 church with too great a number of canons. Once more, 
 the power of the church is employed about the exercise 
 of discipline, by which openly notorious sinners are ad- 
 monished and reproved for their errors of doctrine or 
 conduct ; and, after the public and private admonitions 
 of the church have been despised and rejected, are by 
 the authority and order of the ministers assembled, ex- 
 cluded from religious ordinances, and if they persist in 
 the contumacy, are at length, in the name of God, pro- 
 nounced excluded from the communion of the church, 
 until by true repentance they be reconciled to God, and 
 the church. 
 
 There are, therefore, two parts of discipline, correc- 
 tion and excommunication ; which latter is also of two 
 kinds, the lesser, and the greater. The lesser excom- 
 munication is that, whereby offenders are for a time ex- 
 cluded from the Lord's supper, until the publie scandal 
 given be removed. "These were called by the ancients 
 abstenti (kept back.) The greater excommunication is 
 
OF THE POWER OF THE CHURCH. 388 
 
 £hat, whereby an obstinate sinner is cast out of the 
 church, and is cut off as it were with the spiritual sword, 
 as a corrupt member from the body, that might other- 
 wise injure the unaffected parts. Now the exercise of 
 discipline is necessary ; for no society can subsist with- 
 out it, and the design of it is, that the gospel be not ex- 
 posed to reproach; that the good be not corrupted by 
 intercourse with the bad; that sinners may be ashamed, 
 and stirred up to amendment. That the church has this 
 power of excommunication, is proved from the following 
 arguments. All well-ordered societies have a right to 
 separate from their company troublesome and danger- 
 ous persons. Under the Old Testament, circumcised 
 persons who had become ceremonially unclean, and 
 those also who were guilty of any crime, were excluded 
 from the holy assemblies; hence so frequent mention is 
 made of those who were * put out of the synagogue” for 
 following Christ, (John ix. 22.) It was also the practice 
 of the apostles, and of Paul, (1 Cor. v. 3—6,) not to men- 
 tion those passages in which we are commanded to 
 “reject an heretic,” to * avoid those who cause divisions 
 and offences," to have * no company with them." (Titus 
 iii. 10. Rom. xvi. 17. 1 Cor. v. 11. 2 Thess. iii. 14) to which 
 may be added, Matt. vii. 6, where our Saviour for- 
 bids *that which is holy to be given to dogs." Nor 
 should any one be a partaker of the eucharist, who is 
 unworthy, lest he fall into condemnation. The practice 
 also of the early church proves the same things; many 
 things relating to this practice may be read in Cyprian. 
 
 Here it will be necessary to observe a few things: 
 fpe the objects of excommunication must be men, not 
 easts ; the living, not the dead; the professors of Chris- 
 tianity, not heathens or aliens. Secondly, in the exercise 
 of discipline, the extremes of severity and indulgence 
 should be avoided, nor should extremities be resorted 
 to, except by degrees. Thirdly, regard should be had 
 to persons, to age, and to the offences themselves ; to 
 persons, for some are of an obstinate temper, others 
 more readily acknowledge their faults ; those of a ser- 
 vile disposition are to be treated severely, those of a 
 more ingenuous temper, mildly ;—to age, for the aged 
 must be dealt with in one way, the young in another ; 
 (1 Tim. v. 1,)—to the offences themselves, some of which 
 are committed privately, and must be reproved privately ; 
 others publicly, and must be reproved * before all." 
 (1 Tim. v. 12.) i^ excommunication does not 
 
 9 * 
 
390 OF CHURCH 8YNODS 
 
 break those naturaland moral ties which join men to- 
 gether, nor does it extend to the taking away of property 
 or life; it does not depose princes, and, therefore, Theo. 
 dosius was never deprived of his kingdom; it does not 
 release children from the obedience due to their parents, 
 nor married persons from their conjugal duties; nor 
 does it deprive the rich of their possessions. Lastly, ex- 
 communication is not an expulsion from the mystical 
 body of Christ, from which no man can be cut off; nor 
 does it last any longer than the impenitence of the 
 offending subject. 
 
 CHAPTER IX. 
 OF CHURCH SYNODS AND COUNCILS. 
 
 AttTHoucu every church is free and independent by di- 
 vine right, yet it is profitable for several churches to be 
 united by mutual agreement, to avoid the common 
 danger, and that the whole body may assist any part 
 which is in need, to cultivate spiritual communion, and 
 to destroy heresies. For this union a precedent has been 
 established by the apostles themselves, who assembled 
 together, (Acts xv); and this example was followed by 
 the church in the establishment of synods and councils ; 
 for, notwithstanding the observation of Gregory Nazian- 
 zen, that he shunned all conventions of bishops; because 
 he had never witnessed a good and successful termina- 
 tion of any synod, itis certain, that councils may be 
 of very great service. 
 
 Now the right of proclaiming councils belongs to the 
 church, which has authority to order every thing that 
 tends to its own preservation; but, since synods and 
 councils cannot be convened except by authority, the 
 authority must more particularly belong to those who 
 are the chief members of the church, and whom God ap- 
 points as guardians over the church; such as kings and 
 magistrates, to whom belongs the power of appointing 
 the place and time of these assemblies, giving safe con- 
 duct to strangers, furnishing the expenses, preventing 
 violence, confirming by their authority decrees lawfully 
 
AND COUNCILS. 391 
 
 made, and inflicting penalties on the disobedient.* Such 
 was the practice under the Old Testament, as appears 
 from the examples of David, Solomon, Jehoshaphat, 
 Hezekiah, and Josiah, and under the New Testament, 
 from the examples of Constantine the Great, Theodosius 
 I. Theodosius II. Marcian, and Justinian, who called to- 
 gether, respectively, the councils of Nice, Constantinople, 
 Ephesus, Chalcedon, and the second of Constantinople. 
 If it be inquired, what authority these councils have, we 
 reply, an authority far beneath that of scripture; nor 
 can their decisions bind the conscience any further, than 
 they appear to be consistent with the word of God. To 
 elucidate this more fully, it must be observed, that coun- 
 ceils are concerned with three things—doctrines or mat- 
 ters of faith, canons or constitutions of government, and 
 exercise of discipline. With respect to the first, the de- 
 crees of councils may be regarded in the same light as 
 the maxims of wise men, who are able to discuss any 
 thing maturely and deliberately. With respect to the 
 second, they are directions, possessing the power of en- 
 acting or establishing what is expedient. With respect 
 to the third, they are judges appointed by the church to 
 punish offenders. 
 
 But although the authority of councils is of great 
 weight, since there is no appeal from them; yet it must 
 be considered, that those only are lawful councils, which 
 are convened by those who have the power to do so; 
 and in which godly men, assembled in the name of 
 Christ, determine nothing concerning the matters in 
 dispute without honest and thorough deliberation, free 
 from all evil affections and motives, in strict accordance 
 with the word of God. Hence Constantine thus ad- 
 dressed the Nicene fathers: The evangelical and apos- 
 tolical men, and the oracles of the ancient prophets, clear- 
 ly instruct us what we ought to seek from God. Having, 
 therefore, laid aside contention, which is the cause of dis- 
 agreement and war, we will receive from the divinely in- 
 spired word the solution of those questions which are be- 
 fore us. We may also observe, that there has never 
 been a universal council, although many were called 
 such, as being convened from all parts of the Roman 
 empire; because those councils were convened by the 
 Roman emperors, who sent their imperial letters only to 
 the bishops who were under their government, furnish- 
 
 * This is very doubtful.—[Ed. Pres. Board.] 
 
392 OF MAGISTRATES. 
 
 ing them with the expenses of their journey, &c. For 
 it is not credible, that the emperors wrote to any bish- 
 ops who lived under a foreign government, And after 
 the fall of the western, and in the decline of the eastern 
 empire, councils continued to be convehed, which were 
 called universal, although they were not attended by 
 delegates from Gaul, Spain, or Britain. Lastly, be it 
 observed, that no councils ever possessed infallibility ; 
 and that several have grievously erred, 
 
 " CHAPTER X. 
 OF MAGISTRATES. 
 
 Havine spoken of ecclesiastical, we must offer a few re- 
 marks on political government, and upon the magistra- 
 cy, concerning which the first inquiry is, whether this 
 government is of divineinstitution? Now this is proved 
 from Prov. viii. 15, * By me kings reign, and princes de- 
 cree justice," * He removeth kings, and setteth up 
 kings." (Dan. ii. 21.) “Let every soul be subject unto 
 the higher powers. For there is no power but of God; 
 the powers that be are ordained of God." (Rom. xiii. 
 1.) The heathens were of the same opinion, who said, 
 "Ex de Aws Bacdnss, kings are from Jupiter. This institu- 
 tion has not been abolished by the Christian religion, 
 and therefore we never read of any magistrates, after 
 they believed in Christ, having given up their office. 
 Another inquiry is, what are the duties of the magistra- 
 cy? we reply, to enact just and equitable laws, and to 
 guard them with penalties proportioned to the offence ; 
 to administer justice according to the laws, by rewarding 
 the good, and by punishing the bad; taking care, how- 
 ever, not to judge under the influence of any passion, 
 such as anger or hatred, or without an accurate know- 
 ledge of each case; to exact oaths for the purpose of 
 eliciting the truth ; to carry on war, not with the design 
 of extending their territories, but for the just defence of 
 themselves and their subjects, for the avenging of the 
 
OF MAGISTRATES. 393 
 
 public wrongs, and also for the recovery of that which 
 has been forcibly taken away ; and, finally, to form alli- 
 ances with foreign nations, even with unbelievers. 
 
 Now the office of the magistrate has to do not only 
 with civil, but also with spiritual things ; hence the keep- 
 ing of the divine law is intrusted to them, (Deut. xvii. 
 18,) and they are called “ nursing fathers” of the church, 
 “shepherds, fathers ;” (Isaiah xlix. 23; xliv. 28; 1 Sam: 
 xxiv. 11,) and not without reason, for they are bound to 
 provide for all things that relate to the happiness of their 
 subjects, which has been always done by godly princes, 
 such as David, Solomon, Jehoshaphat, Hezekiah, Josiah. 
 And in later times, Constantine, in an epistle to the 
 church after the council of Nice, thus declared: I have 
 considered it my duty to endeavour, before all things, that 
 one faith be observed in the church, sincere charity among 
 the people, and unvarying piety towards God, the author 
 of all things. The same prince, according to Eusebius, 
 also said, that the pastors were appointed overseers of 
 the internal, but that he was appointed overseer of the 
 external things of the church. Honorius declared, that 
 among the vast cases of his government, regard for the 
 Christian religion was the chief, and almost the only one. 
 And Theodosius is commended by Ambrose, because, 
 towards the close of his life, he took better care of the 
 church than of the empire. 
 
 But the authority of the magistrate in religious mat- 
 ters is not absolute, but limited, and is very different 
 from that of pastors. For, first, he cannot make new 
 articles of faith. Secondly, he cannot force the conscience. 
 Maximilianus Cesar said, that to wish to bear rule over 
 consciences, was to invade the citadel of heaven; and 
 justly, for God alone has authority over the conscience. 
 Paul does indeed say, that we must submit to the magis- 
 trate “for conscience’ sake," (Rom. xiii. 5;) but his 
 meaning is, that we must obey governors, not merely 
 from fear of punishment, but also that we may act 
 agreeably to the dictates of conscience, which commands 
 us to submit to the powers that be according to the or- 
 dinance of God. Thirdly, the magistrates cannot preach 
 the word, nor administer the sacraments. Fourthly, he 
 cannot exercise church discipline. Lastly, he cannot 
 enjoin the ministers to do any thing inconsistent with 
 the rules of the ministry. But on the contrary, the civil 
 magistrate is bound to set up the pure doctrine and 
 worship of God; to preserve them when set up, and to 
 
394 OF MAGISTRATES. 
 
 restore them when fallen to decay; to place suitable 
 teachers over schools and academies; to defend the 
 church to the utmost of his power; to allow pecuniary 
 support to ministers of religion; to take care that each 
 minister discharges his duty ; to restrain the disturbers 
 of the church’s peace; to build places of worship; to 
 convene synods and assemblies; to sanction, by his 
 authority, ecclesiastical laws, and to prevent the profa- 
 nation of the holy Sabbath. 
 
 It is the duty of the people to respect and obey the 
 magistrate, in all things which do not infringe on their 
 consciences; to pay him tribute; and to pray for him. 
 Such was the practice of the early Christians. Looking 
 up to heaven, says Tertullian, with hands stretched out, 
 because they are innocent, with head bare, because we 
 are not ashamed, in short, without any adviser, because 
 34 is from our own breasts, we all continually pray, at 
 all times, in behalf of all our governors, that God would 
 grant them a long life, a secure government, a safe home, 
 powerful armies, a faithful senate, a good people, and a 
 peaceable world around them. Noone is exempt from 
 this obedience to magistrates, not even the clergy; 
 which is evident from Rom. xiii. 1, already quoted, “ Let 
 every soul be subject,” &c. It is evident also from the 
 example of the priests under the Old Testament, and 
 from the testimony of the Roman pontiff, Gregory L, 
 calling the Emperor his Lord, and himself his unworthy 
 servant; also from the constitutions and edicts of the 
 Emperors, as appears from various documents, by which 
 the clergy were subjected to the laws of the state. But 
 although they are thus subject in civil and criminal mat- 
 ters, yet it is fit that princes and magistrates should 
 grant them certain privileges, such as exemption from 
 those personal burdens, which cannot be imposed with- 
 out hindering the exercise of their sacred office, and de- 
 tracting somewhat from its dignity, as, for instance, to 
 serve as soldiers, and also exemption from certain taxes ; 
 thus the Egyptian priests were exempted by Joseph, 
 (Gen. xlvii. 22,) and the Jewish priests by Artaxerxes, 
 (Ezra vii. 24.) Thus far as to the Magistracy. 
 
OF MARRIAGE. 395 
 
 CHAPTER XI. 
 
 OF MARRIAGE. 
 
 Since marriage was instituted for the purpose of propa- 
 gating the church, we must say a little about it. This 
 relation was established by God soon after the creation, 
 during the state of innocence in the earthly paradise, 
 (Gen. ii.;) it was sanctioned by laws, and consecrated 
 by a blessing; and Christ, the restorer of corrupt nature, 
 adorned the nuptial rites with his presence and first 
 miracle, (John ii.) Matrimony, therefore, is the lawful 
 union of one man and one woman, capable of forming 
 such union, into one flesh, by full, proper, and mutual 
 consent. The design of it is threefold—the procreation of 
 children, as the nursery of the church and common- 
 wealth—mutual help and assistance—and a remedy for 
 concupiscence. Without marriage the human race could 
 not be propagated; the church increased; fornication 
 be avoided; nor the number of the elect be completed. 
 For lawful matrimony these things are required—that 
 they who wish to contract, be able to do so, being of 
 suitable age—that there be mutual consent—that that 
 consent be not contrary to God’s word, the law of na- 
 ture, and the wise constitutions of the state; not extorted 
 by violence or fear, nor declared in deceitful words; nor 
 given by one mad or intoxicated; nor clandestine, or 
 against the wishes of parents. For if a promise or a 
 vow made to God does not stand good, if disallowed by 
 a parent, (Num. xxx. 3, 5,) how much less an agreement 
 made between a youth and a damsel? Unless it be per- 
 ceived, that the parents, being of unsound mind, wish to 
 prevent what is lawful; in which case, the matter must 
 be decided by the ecclesiastical assembly. 
 
 Marriage must not be contracted between those who 
 are “too near of kin” to each other. (Lev. xviii. 6.) There 
 must be no connexion between a daughter and her 
 father, or between a son and his mother. (Lev. xviii. 7.) 
 Natural shame, common to all men, forbids a conjunction 
 of this nature. There must be none also between a step- 
 son and his step-mother, or a step-daughter and her step- 
 
396 OF MARRIAGE. 
 
 father, (ver. 8,) because the step-mother is one flesh with 
 the father. Paul tells us that even the heathen abhorred 
 such marriages, as incestuous, (1 Cor. v. 1.) Hence 
 Antonius Caracalla was marked with infamy by the 
 Romans, for having first dared to marry his step-mother, 
 according to Spartian. There must be none between 
 brothers and sisters, whether born of both parents, or 
 brothers or sisters by one parent only. But here 
 a question arises—whether a marriage between bro- 
 thers and sisters is forbidden by the law of nature? 
 This does not seem to be the case, since at the beginning 
 of the world, of necessity, and by the ordinance of God, 
 marriages must have been contracted between the chil- 
 dren of our first parents; but the question is solved, if 
 we duly consider, with Heidegger, and other divines, 
 that a distinction must be made between what absolutely 
 belongs to natural law, and what belongs to it under a 
 certain state of things. A union between brothers 
 and sisters, is not contrary to natural law absolutely ; 
 for, were this the case, God would not have sanctioned 
 it, but it is contrary to it under a certain state of things, 
 i e. after the increase and multiplication of mankind. 
 There can be also no marriage with the daughter of 
 one's own son, or the daughter of one's daughter; (v. 
 10;) none with the daughter of a father's wife, begotten 
 of that father; none with one's aunt or uncle, whether 
 by the father or the mother's side; (v. 11—14;) none 
 also with a daughter-in-law, or son's wife, (v. 15.) There 
 must also be none with a brother's wife, or sister's hus- 
 band, (v. 16;) nor must we oppose to this the law men- 
 tioned in Deut. xxv. 5, for if these words be understood 
 of the real brother of the deceased, as the Jews under- 
 stood it, which is plain from Matt. xxii. 24—26; and if 
 this custom was observed after the law was given, as 
 it is certain it was observed before Moses, from the in- 
 stance of Judah marrying the widow of his first-born 
 deceased to Onan, (Gen. xxxviii. 8,) then there is no 
 doubt, that God made this exception to the law for cer- 
 tain reasons, which were to be of force only before the 
 Messiah's coming. Other prohibited degrees the scrip- 
 ture does not mention, but we think it free to the su- 
 preme civil authorities to forbid other degrees, besides 
 those divinely forbidden. Thus the emperors Theodosius 
 and Arcadius prohibited the marriage of cousins. Though 
 it must be remarked, that these prohibitions are not to 
 be placed on the same footing as divine laws, as if they 
 
OF MARRIAGE. 397 
 
 were additions to them; but they are only the free safe- 
 guards of civil society, which do not of themselves bind 
 the conscience, and may be easily rescinded. Care also 
 must be taken, that interdicts of this nature be not car- 
 ried to too great an extent. 
 
 Now matrimony is an indissoluble bond, which cannot 
 be broken, except by the adultery of one of the parties. 
 Thus Christ says, * Whosoever shall put away his wife, 
 except it be for fornication, and shall marry another, 
 committeth adultery: and whoso marrieth her that is 
 put away, doth commit adultery," (Matt. xix. 9[) Our 
 Saviour thus reproves the Jews, who divorced their 
 wives for the most trifling causes, such as over-boiling 
 their food, according to Hillel; or when a more beautiful 
 wife could be obtained, according to Akibah. Most 
 divines think that the marriage-bond is broken by wilful 
 desertion, from Paul's words—“ If the unbelieving depart, 
 let him depart; a brother or a sister is not under bond- 
 age in such cases," (1 Cor. vii. 15.) This passage, how- 
 ever, is differently explained by others: we give no 
 decision. Other causes of divorce, although sanctioned 
 by the authority of emperors, and defended by lawyers 
 and advocates, we cannot admit,—such as, if a man be 
 a sorcerer, a traitor, a murderer, if he be convicted of 
 perjury, if he be a robber of sepulchres or churches, a 
 thief, or receiver of thieves, &c. The causes also of di- 
 vorce, which we read in ecclesiastical constitutions, we 
 are equally slow to admit. It belongs not to man to 
 relax a law which God has been pleased to make strict. 
 Nor must it be said that marriage is merely a human 
 contract; it is a mixed contract, having some things of 
 human, some things of divine, authority: the authority 
 of the magistrate may take from the former, not from 
 the latter. 
 
 Every one may contract matrimony, who is of suitable 
 age, and none ought to bind themselves with a snare, 
 by vowing perpetual continence, since many examples 
 prove that not even old age is beyond the danger of con- 
 cupiscence, and “it is better to marry than to burn.” (1 
 Cor. vii. 9.) And we doubt not, that those who have 
 rashly and foolishly made such a vow, may, when they 
 seriously repent of it, consider themselves free from its 
 obligation, and are even bound so to consider them- 
 selves, if they feel that they “burn.” It is more tolerable, 
 says the Council of Toledo, to break the vow that was 
 foolishly made, than, by B id a, useless vow, to fill up 
 
398 OF MARRIAGE. 
 
 the measure of dreadful crimes. Marriage is not a sacras 
 ment, for it has not the requisites of a sacrament, as will 
 hereafter be shown. It is indeed surprising, that matri- 
 mony should be accounted a sacrament by those who 
 believe it to be incompatible with that ordination, which 
 they also account a sacrament. For if marriage con- 
 tains a remedy for concupiscence, there appears no rea- 
 son why it should be incompatible with this other sacra- 
 ment, since the clergy need this remedy no less than 
 other men. It is also strange that marriage should be a 
 sacrament with those, who have so furiously inveighed 
 against it; as Pope Siricius, praised by Innocent IIL, for 
 applying to married people the words of Paul, “ They 
 that are in the flesh cannot please God.” And thus we 
 have spoken enough of matrimony. 
 
CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY. 
 
 BOOK THE ELEVENTH. 
 
 OF THE SACRAMENTS. 
 —— 
 CHAPTER I. 
 
 OF THE SACRAMENTS IN GENERAL. 
 
 Sucn is the goodness of God towards the church, that, 
 not content with entering into a covenant of grace with 
 it, he has condescended to confirm that covenant by the 
 sacraments, as seals, for the greater faith of the church. 
 Now the word sacrament, among writers in the ancient 
 tongue, signifies, 1. A pledge, which those who had any 
 litigation, deposited with the priest, on this condition, 
 that the victor should bear away his money, while the 
 vanquished left his with the priest. 2. An oath, which 
 was not taken without invoking the holy name of God ; 
 but it is particularly employed to denote a military oath, 
 by which the soldiers, after a certain form, and in pre- 
 scribed words, pledged themselves to the common wealth 
 and to the magistrates that they would strenuously per- 
 form all that the general should command, and that they 
 would not desert the standards. The word being trans- 
 ferred from military to sacred rites, is again used by 
 ecclesiastical writers in different senses. The vulgate 
 translation employs this term wherever the word pvornpiw 
 (mystery) occurs. (Eph. iii. 9; v. 32. Col. i. 27. 1 Tim. iii. 
 16. Rev. i. 20; xvii. 7.) The term is also applied to any 
 kind of signs which confirm a temporal promise, as to the 
 rainbow. In the time of Tertullian all figures and alle- 
 gories were called sacraments. At length it Ad "- 
 
400 OF THE SACRAMENTS IN GENERAL. 
 
 ployed to designate the seals of the covenant of grace; 
 and very justly, because those who partake of the sacra- 
 ments, thereby pledge and bind themselves by oath to 
 God, and are called to a holy warfare; as Tertullian 
 stated to the martyrs, We were called to the service 
 (warfare) of the living God, when we replied to the words 
 of the sacrament; or rather because those seals are in 
 reality holy and secret things, signifying spiritual grace. 
 But we must observe, that the word sacrament is some- 
 times taken for external rites and signs, at other times for 
 the things signified; sometimes it comprehends both. 
 With this word corresponds the Greek pverípov though it is 
 never in scripture used to express a sacrament. Thesa- 
 craments therefore may be defined—* The seals and signs 
 of God's grace in Christ,” or a little more plainly—* Sa- 
 cred, visible, and divinely appointed signs and seals, to sig- 
 nify and to seal to our consciences the promises of grace 
 in Christ, and to attest in return our own obedience to- 
 wards God." 
 
 It appears then, that the first thing required to consti- 
 tute a sacrament, is divine institution. God alone can 
 ordain sacraments, for he only, who is the author of the 
 covenant and promises of grace, can be the author of 
 the seals of the covenant. Secondly, it is required that 
 there should be signs, by which we understand not only 
 outward rites or ceremonial actions on the part of the 
 minister who is in the place of God, and on the part of 
 believers, who receive these sacraments; but more par- 
 ticularly external elements. Observe, they are not natu- 
 ral signs, having of themselves the power of signifying 
 what they do signify, as smoke is a sign of fire, but 
 divinely appointed signs; having however some analogy 
 or resemblance to what they signify. For, as Augus- 
 tine says, if they did not possess some analogy of this 
 kind, they would not be sacraments. They are signs 
 which are consecrated to sacred uses by the word, and 
 by prayer. Again, they are visible signs, not audible ; 
 otherwise they would be the same as the word. Further, 
 they are not merely accidents but substances ; because 
 the analogy of the sign with the thing signified is de- 
 rived from the nature of the sign and its properties. 
 Moreover they are such signs as have the word accom- 
 panying them; hence Augustine says, Let the word be 
 added to the element, and it will become a sacrament. 
 The word determines the element, as in baptism the ele- 
 ment is water, and these words, I baptize thee, deter- 
 
OF THE SACRAMENTS IN GENERAL, 401 
 
 mine the element of water to signify spiritual cleansing. 
 Now of that which may be called the sacramental word 
 there are two parts, the command, and the promise: by 
 the former God commands the sacraments to be duly 
 administered, and prescribes the form and proper use of 
 them ; by the latter is shown the thing signified, and the 
 whole efficacy of the sacrament. Now the word ought 
 to be uttered with a loud voice; otherwise, it would 
 signify nothing, not being heard; besides, it was openly 
 pronounced by Christ himself, and being the “ word of 
 faith,” it must be proclaimed. Once more, they are 
 signs of God's covenant: see Gen. xvii. 10, 11. 
 
 Thirdly, it is required that these signs should not only 
 be signs commemorative of past events, but also signs 
 sealing and setting forth present grace, and signifying 
 future. This is evident from Paul's calling circumcision 
 the sign and seal of faith, which must be applied, not 
 only to Abraham, but also to all believers, whose father 
 he was, since the promises of grace and of the righteous- 
 ness of faith, of which circumcision was the seal, are 
 common to all the faithful. It is evident also, from this 
 consideration, that the sacraments stand related to the 
 covenant of grace in the same way as other signs and 
 seals which were added to a promise for the confirma- 
 tion of it. Such was the relation of therainbow to the 
 promise which God made, that he would no more send 
 
 : a flood upon the earth; for the rainbow was not given 
 merely to put us in remembrance of the deluge that was 
 past, but to coffirm our faith in the promise that there 
 should be no deluge to come. 
 
 Fourthly, there must be in the sacraments the thing 
 signified, and that is Christ, with all those blessings 
 which faith applies; now the thing differs from the sign, 
 in that the former is spiritual, the latter earthly, that the 
 sign is presented to the senses, the thing to the soul; 
 they differ also in the mode of communication, which is 
 in the sign, corporeal, in the thing signified, spiritual. 
 
 Fifthly, there must be an analogy between the sign 
 and the thing signified, in which analogy consists the 
 proper union of the former with the latter; which union 
 consists of three things—the signification, which depends 
 on the resemblance there is between the sign and the 
 thing signified—the sealing, by which, according to God’s 
 appointment, the outward symbols produce a greater 
 faith in the thing promised, while however it is our faith, 
 not God’s word, which is 7r ue by these symbols— 
 
402 OF THE SACRAMENTS IN GENERAL. 
 
 the exhibition, because God in the sacraments sets be 
 fore the faithful what he promises. Now from this ana 
 logy arise those forms of expression, by which the names 
 of the signs and of the things signified are often ex- 
 changed for each other ; as when Christ is called the pass- 
 over, circumcision the covenant, the body of Christ bread. 
 
 From all that has been said it is plain, that the end of 
 the sacraments is, the confirmation of the covenant of 
 grace, and the sealing on God’s part of our union with 
 Christ, promised in that covenant, and of all his benefits ; 
 and at the same time on our part a solemn expression 
 of our gratitude to God. This does not, however, pre- 
 vent us from saying, that the sacraments were also in- 
 stituted to be the badges of our public profession of reli- 
 gion and of divine worship, by which those who belong 
 to the visible church are distinguished from other socie- 
 ties. To all these requisites of a sacrament, we must 
 add this last, viz. that the use of it in the church must be 
 stated and ordinary, so as to distinguish it from other 
 things which have been used only for a time. 
 
 The necessity of the sacraments is not simple and ab- 
 solute on the part of God, but hypothetical on our part; 
 not that the word has any need of confirmation, but to 
 assist our infirmity. God has therefore instituted the 
 sacraments, 1. That he might provide for our weakness; 
 because we are ignorant, and much influenced by sen- 
 sible objects. 2. That our faith might be more and more 
 strengthened; for although the faith, which is produced 
 by the word, can be sustained by the*word, yet it is 
 hereby still more confirmed, because the word addresses 
 men in general, but the sacraments are administered to 
 individuals. Now though whatever is set forth to men 
 in general ought to influence all, because no man is ex- 
 cluded, yet many are more powerfully influenced by 
 whatever is presented to them individually ; because 
 thereby not only is no one excluded, but each one in 
 particular is reminded that the thing presented belongs 
 tohim. And we know how true it is— 
 
 Segnius irritant animos demissa per aurem, 
 Quam que sunt oculis subjecta fidelibus.—Hon. 
 Things heard, do not before the mind arise 
 
 So vivid, as when pictured to the eyes. 
 
 The word affects only the hearing, the sacraments affect 
 several of the senses together. 3. God has instituted 
 
OF THE EFFICACY OF THE SACRAMENTS. 403 
 
 the sacraments, because he was pleased to do the same 
 in his own covenant, as is daily done in the covenants 
 of men, who, in their contracts with each other, usually 
 attach their seals, on both sides, to the instruments con- 
 taining their contracts. 
 
 From what has been said, we may easily infer the 
 various relations which are between the word and the 
 sacraments, and also the differences between them. 
 Both have God for their Author, Christ for their founda- 
 tion, and salvation for their end; but they differ as fol- 
 lows: the word is absolutely necessary, the sacraments 
 only hypothetically ; the word is heard, the sacraments 
 are seen; the word produces faith, the sacraments con- 
 firm it; the word is promiscuously extended to all, the 
 sacraments to believers only; the word profits without 
 the sacraments, the sacraments do not without the word. 
 
 CHAPTER II. 
 
 OF THE EFFICACY OF THE SACRAMENTS. 
 
 Wir regard to the efficacy of the sacraments, we think 
 that they do not produce grace, nor have any inherent 
 power of conferring or bestowing it, but are only signs 
 and seals, which, lawfully used, seal grace, and exhibit 
 it to the faithful ;—God by his Holy Spirit really working 
 the power, and fulfilling in the faithful, whatsoever he 
 promises and signifies by the signs; hence they have no 
 efficacy except towards believers, for whose benefit 
 they were appointed. Now we prove that the sacra- 
 ments do not bestow grace, first, because grace is the 
 effect of the Spirit only, Remission of sins, says Cyprian, 
 whether bestowed through baptism, or through the other 
 sacraments, is peculiarly the work of the Holy Spirit, 
 and with him alone abides the prerogative of bestowing 
 such grace. Secondly, because the sacraments would 
 thus physically contain grace in them, or grace would 
 be tied to the sacraments; which is absurd, for as many 
 are saved without, so many are condemned with, the 
 sacraments,—Simon Magus, for instance. Thirdly, be- 
 
404 OF THE EFFICACY - 
 
 cause nothing that is corporea; has power to penetrate 
 to the soul. Fourthly, because, if there were such inhe- 
 rent power, then the * washing away of the filth of the 
 flesh" in baptism would *save" the baptized, contrary 
 to the testimony of Peter, who declares that this does 
 not save, but “the answer of a good conscience towards, 
 God,” (1 Peter iii. 21.) 
 
 That this subject may be properly understood, we 
 Observe in general, that the sacraments are signs, which 
 set before our eyes the mysteries of our salvation—seals, 
 which confirm to us God's promises—pledges, which 
 assure us of God’s grace, and fellowship with us—earn- 
 ests, which confirm to usa title to eternal life—marks, 
 which distinguish us from unbelievers. We therefore 
 affirm, that the sacraments do not merely signify grace 
 to us; for were this the case, the expressions used in 
 Scripture would be frigid; nay, if God had only insti- 
 tuted them for this end, he would have selected more 
 lively and expressive signs than he has, and the symbols 
 of the Old would far excel those of the New Testament, 
 because they were more distinctive; the sacraments, 
 therefore, are something more than significative. They 
 are badges of our profession and signs of our warfare; 
 baptism, for instance, being our entrance into the church, 
 aceremony by which we enlist under the banner of 
 Christ, and bind ourselves to God ; while he binds him- 
 self to us, promising us salvation, and we promising him 
 obedience. They are also badges by which we recog- 
 nize ourselves and our brethren, as children of the same 
 family, members of the same body, soldiers of the same 
 army. They are also seals, which confirm to us the 
 promises of God, and this they do by making the thing 
 present, as it were, to the mind, as far as a sign can do 
 this; and by introducing it, (if such an expression may 
 be allowed,) through a new door, i. e. the eyes, into the 
 mind. This sealing also is effected by the application 
 of God's promises to every particular believer. The 
 promises of the gospel are general, and therefore less 
 striking; but in the participation of the sacraments, God 
 says to all those who rightly receive them, Thy sins are 
 forgiven thee; this, therefore, is the seal and confirma- 
 tion which renders the promises more certain. More- 
 over, they are exhibitory signs, setting before the faith- 
 ful what is promised: now they do this in the same way, 
 as a man is put into possession of a house by having the 
 keys delivered to him; and as formerly bishops obtained 
 
OF THE SACRAMENTS. 405 
 
 their investiture by the staff and ring given to them. 
 The moment we receive the sacramental symbols in 
 faith, the Holy Spirit, operating in an indescribable man- 
 ner, strengthens faith: diffuses joy over the soul; gives 
 the sense of sin forgiven, communion with God, adop- 
 tion, and title to eternal life; increases hope, and adds a 
 new degree of holiness. The sacraments, therefore, do 
 not increase and confirm faith, by merely setting before 
 us the objects which we are bound to believe; nor love, 
 by merely showing how great is God’s love towards us; 
 but because the Holy Spirit accompanies them by his 
 grace in all who rightly use them; hence the sacraments 
 are said to save us; and hence baptism is called * the 
 washing of regeneration.” 
 
 But here it must be observed, that the sacraments 
 confer no benefit upon unbelievers and hypocrites; nor 
 even upon believers themselves, if they carelessly par- 
 take of them; that God often grants justifying grace 
 before the participation of a sacrament, as is proved 
 from the example of Abraham—that grace is attributed 
 to the sacraments, either because God sometimes grants 
 grace in the use of them, or because, as Vossius says, 
 faith sees grace in the sacraments more clearly, lays 
 hold of it more firmly, and retains it more surely. Ob- 
 serve also, that the word is to be preferred to the sacra- 
 ments, both because the word generates faith, and also 
 nourishes it, in adult persons, whereas the sacraments 
 do not generate, but only nourish faith ; and because we 
 cannot be saved without the word, since he who believes 
 not is condemned, and faith cometh by hearing; but we 
 may be saved without the sacraments. Lastly, the sa- 
 craments cannot be despised without criminality, since, 
 in so doing. we despise him who instituted them, and 
 the grace which he offers in them. 
 
 With regard to those whose office it is to administer 
 the sacraments, under the Old Testament they were 
 allowed to be private or lay persons, by whom circum- 
 cision was administered; but the ministers of the New 
 Testament are those only, to whom the right of teaching 
 and preaching belongs, as we shall see hereafter. Now, 
 although these ministers ought to be intent upon what 
 is to be done, lest they should do what they ought not ; 
 yet we believe that the intention of ministers is not at 
 all necessary to the essence of a sacrament. First, be- 
 cause the case is the same with a sacrament as with the 
 preached word; now the efficacy of the latter does not 
 
406 OF THE SACRAMENTS 
 
 depend on the intention of the preacher. (Phil. i. 15—19.) 
 Secondly, because in this way the operation of the sacra- 
 ment would depend upon man. Thirdly, because then 
 there would be no assurance given of the saving effect 
 of the sacraments, and all true comfort would be taken 
 away. Fourthly, because ministers are mere instru- 
 ments, and we know that the letters patent of a sove- 
 reign are not of the less force, because his ministers, 
 who affix their seals, have no intention of favouring those 
 to whom such letters are granted. Jt makes no diffe- 
 rence, says Augustine, £o the efficacy of what is sown or 
 
 lanted, whether it be done with clean or with dirty 
 
 ands ; proses the seed be good, and the soil fertile, 
 and the heat of the sun, and rain from heaven, be not 
 withheld. 
 
 CHAPTER III. 
 OF THE SACRAMENTS OF THE OLD TESTAMENT. 
 
 Tuere were two ordinary sacraments in the Old Testa- 
 ment church, viz. circumcision and the passover. Of the 
 former, which consisted in the cutting off of the foreskin, 
 as a token of God’s covenant; there were two periods, 
 one from Abraham to Moses, the other from Moses to 
 Christ. Abraham first received circumcision in his 
 ninety-ninth year, Gen. xvii. Afterwards, in the time 
 of Moses, it became the public sacrament of the whole 
 church, * Moses gave you circumcision, not because it 
 is of Moses, but of the fathers;" (John vii. 22.) This 
 circumcision was a sign of the covenant made by God 
 with Abraham and his seed. (Gen. xvii. 7.) It sealed the 
 remission of sins; it was a sign that Christ should be 
 born of his seed, in whom he would become * the father 
 of many nations,” (Gen. xvii. 4; xxii 18; Rom. iv. 11, 
 13, 16, 17; Gal. iii. 29.) It also reminded them of their 
 duty, according to Jer. iv. 4, * circumcise your hearts.” 
 
 The minister of circumcision was every father of a 
 family, or any other qualified person; thus Abraham 
 
OF THE OLD TESTAMEN'". 407 
 
 circumcised his son ;—(Gen. xvii. 23.) but not a woman, 
 (for the example of Zipporah was contrary to order ;) 
 others think that it was a priest, from 1 Macc. ii. 46. 
 The ceremony was performed with a sharp knife of 
 stone, or glass, or iron; and all the males were thus cir- 
 cumcised, both the Israelites and those that were born 
 to them of slaves and handmaids; it was performed on 
 the eighth day, nor was it lawful to perform it before, in 
 order that in this way consideration may be had for the 
 tender age of children, and that the Israelites might not 
 imagine the grace of God to depend on the outward 
 sign. The modern Jews act ridiculously in circumcis- 
 ing their children, who have died before the eighth day, 
 in the burying ground, in order that, as they think, God 
 may acknowledge them as the seed of Israel, and not 
 pass them by in the future resurrection as profane per- 
 sons. The form of prayer used by the Jews in the cir- 
 cumcision of their infants, is as follows. As thou hast 
 admitted this child into the covenant of Abraham our 
 father, so admit him into the law of Moses, into thy pro- 
 tection, and safety; into matrimony and good works. 
 To neglect this rite was a crime, Gen. xvii. 14; and not 
 merely infants but adult proselytes were circumcised. 
 The ceremony was accompanied with the giving of a 
 name to the child, Gen. xxi. 5, 4; Luke i. 59; ii. 21, and 
 witnesses were present, (Isaiah viii. 2; Luke i. 58, 59.) 
 Now circumcision testified the corruption of human 
 nature; for a new-born child could not be admitted into 
 the covenant of God without first having his blood shed, 
 and being, as it were, purified thereby. It was also *a 
 seal of the righteousness of faith," as Paul calls it; and 
 the sign of the covenant between God and men. (Gen. 
 xvii.) It sealed “ the promise solemnly made to Abraham, 
 concerning the birth of the Messiah; for the blood shed in 
 circumcision represented the blood of Christ, and also 
 the sanctification of man, which is called “the circum- 
 cision made without hands,” (Col. ii. 11.) This rite was 
 to be abrogated at Christ’s coming, but still by degrees; 
 by the death of Christ it was abrogated de jure, yet on 
 account of those Jews who were weak in faith, Paul 
 chose to circumcise Timothy, (Acts xvi. 1—3.) And yet 
 subsequently he would not have Titus vircumcised. 
 (Gal. ii. 3—5.) After the destruction of the temple it was 
 abolished along with other ceremonies. He, therefore, 
 who submits to circumcision as a necessary part of di- 
 vine worship, or as the means of justification, “is fallen 
 
408 OF THE SACRAMENTS 
 
 from grace,” and rejects Christ, since in this way he tes- 
 tifies that all things have not been completed by Christ 
 and also binds himself to the observance of the whole 
 law, Gal. v. 3. 
 
 The second sacrament of the Old Testament is the 
 passover, a name derived from “the passing over” of 
 the angel, (Exod. xii. 13,) and the word in scripture sig- 
 nifies the passing over of the angel—the paschal lamb, 
 (Exod. xii. 11, 21. 2 Chron. xxxv. 11. Luke xxii. 7,)— 
 the feast of the passover, (2 Kings xxiii. 21, 22. Luke 
 xxii. l,)—the sacrifices usually offered at that feast, 
 (Deut. xvi. 2. John xviii. 28,)—and the sacrament, which 
 consisted in the slaying of the paschal lamb, and in the 
 feasting upon it, in which latter sense we here take the 
 word. Although it was a sacrament, as far as the ban- 
 quet or feast was concerned, it was also a sacrifice, as 
 it regards the slaughter of the lamb, the shedding of its 
 blood, and the offering of it in sacrifice. It was first in- 
 stituted in Egypt, and celebrated on the last night, be- 
 fore the Israelites took their departure. (Exod. xii. 1.) 
 It was to be celebrated at its first institution with cer- 
 tain ceremonies. A lamb or a kid of the male kind, not 
 exceeding a year old, was to be used for this service; 
 which was to be taken out of the fold in the tenth day 
 of the month Abib, or Nisan, and to be kept in the house. 
 On the fourteenth day it was slaughtered between the 
 beginning of the evening sacrifice, and the setting of the 
 sun, from the third to the fifth hour, according to Jose- 
 phus. The blood was to be sprinkled on the door-posts. 
 It was eaten on the fifteenth day, after sun-set, only by 
 circumcised persons, and it was eaten roast, by those at 
 table, who were not less than ten, nor more than twenty 
 in number. It was eaten with unleavened bread, and 
 bitter herbs; and.every morsel of leaven in the house 
 was carefully collected, and consumed in the flames. 
 They also ate it in the dress or habit of persons going 
 on a journey in haste: not a bone of it was to be broken, 
 and whatever was left of it was to be burned, it being 
 unlawful for the sacred flesh to be spoiled or corrupted. 
 In Egypt, the place where the lamb was slain, was a 
 private house, (Exod. xii. 7,) afterwards it was the cus- 
 tom to kill it in the tabernacle, or in the court of the 
 temple, (Deut. xvi. 5,6. 2 Chron. xxxv. 6,) but it was 
 always eaten in private dwellings. In Egypt those who 
 administered the passover were the heads of families, 
 with the priests and Levites, (2 Chron. xxx. 15—17; 
 
OF THE OLD TESTAMENT. 409 
 
 xxxv. 5, 6, 10, 11.) There was also a second passover, 
 to be celebrated on the fourteenth day of the second 
 month by those, who, in the first month, had been ab- 
 sent, or unclean, (Num. ix. 6, 10, 11,) and then there was 
 one feast day. 
 
 Now the Jewish passover commemorated the passing 
 by of the angel, and the Exodus of the Israelites, (Exod. 
 xii. 12;) there were indeed three sorts of passing, which 
 were thus commemorated, viz. that of severity and 
 death, with regard to the first-born of the Egyptians— 
 that of grace and favour with regard to the first-born of 
 the Israelites—and the passing out of slavery into liberty 
 and the inheritance of Canaan. But this ceremony 
 principally prefigured the sacrifice of Christ, the true 
 * Lamb of God, that taketh away the sins of the world," 
 (John i. 29, who was “ without blemish,” (1 Pet. i. 19,) 
 and who is called *our Passover." (1 Cor. v. 7.) The 
 fulfilment therefore of it we find in the cross and death 
 of Christ; on which we may advert to what many have 
 maintained, that the paschal lamb was roasted, having 
 been formed into a figure resembling: that of a cross— 
 also in the life of a believer through the preaching of the 
 gospel—and in our own death and resurrection. Such, 
 then, were the ordinary sacraments; those which were 
 extraordinary were, the miraculous cloud, the passage 
 through the Red Sea, the manna, the water out of the 
 rock, and the brazen serpent; these, however, were 
 rather types: of Christ, and of his blessings, than sacra- 
 ments. 
 
 Now these sacraments of the Old are different from 
 the sacraments of the New Testament in many things; 
 while in many things they agree. They differ from each 
 other, in the outward signs and ceremonies, in the fa- 
 cility of using the signs, in the mode of signification, the 
 old sacraments signifying Christ to come, the new, Christ 
 already come. The former were obligatory only upon 
 the posterity of Abraham, the latter belong to all 
 nations. They differ also in their duration ; the old con- 
 tinued to the time of Christ's advent, the new will con- 
 tinue to the end of the world ; in their clearness or 
 plainness, not as it regards the matter of the signs, in 
 which respect the old appear more significant, but as it 
 regards the plainness of the word which is added to the 
 new; and also in their efficacy, not that the new sacra- 
 ments effect and produce more grace than the old, but 
 that they have a more nenne power. But they all agree 
 
410 OF BAPTISM. 
 
 in the following particulars--both have God for their 
 Author; both signify the same thing, namely, Christ 
 with his benefits, hence the ancients are said to have 
 “eaten the same meat, and drunk the same drink ;" (1 
 Cor. x. 3, 4;) both were to be received in the same way, 
 namely, by faith; both have the same word of command 
 and promise, though not the same expressions; and, 
 lastly, both had the same effect; hence there is an ex- 
 change of names between the old and new sacraments, 
 which are promiscuously ascribed to believers under the 
 Old and New Testaments. Thus circumcision and pass- 
 over are attributed to us, (1 Cor. v. 7 ; Col. ii. 11,) and 
 baptism to the ancient saints, (1 Cor. x. 2.) 
 
 The sacraments of the Old Testament were indeed 
 shadows and types of future things, yet did they set forth 
 and apply “the body itself, which is Christ.” And al- 
 though they are said “to be nothing,” and to “avail 
 nothing,” (1 Cor. vii. 19; Gal. vi. 15,) and to be “ weak 
 and beggarly elements,” yet they are so deseribed, 
 merely when considered in themselves, in respect only 
 to the signs, opposed to the thing signified, in which 
 sense the same may be said of the New Testament sym- 
 bols, or when they are considered as abrogated since 
 Christ’s coming, or simply in regard to the abuse of 
 them by men, who tied the grace of God to them. 
 
 CHAPTER IV. 
 OF BAPTISM. 
 
 Tue sacraments of the New Testament are two, viz., 
 Baptism and the Lord's supper ; we read of no others, 
 instituted by Christ; to these two only, belong what is 
 required in a sacrament; Paul mentions no others ; and 
 therefore no more are required to generate and strength- 
 en the spiritual life in believers. Now in these two sac- 
 raments Christ preserved an allusion to the Jewish cus- 
 toms. In the first place, it was the custom of the Jews, 
 to wash with water those who renounced the worship 
 of false gods, and embraced that of the true God ; hence 
 
OF BAPTISM. All 
 
 the practice of consecrating the proselytes by circumci- 
 sion, sacrifice, and baptism, from which arose a common 
 saying among them, A man is not a proselyte till he be 
 circumcised and baptized. This was their manner of 
 proceeding in baptism. They questioned the proselyte, 
 whether he wished sincerely to embrace the Jewish reli- 
 gion. They instructed him in the different articles of 
 faith, especially the unity of God, and the sin of idolatry ; 
 they circumcised him; and when the wound was heal- 
 ed, they brought him to baptism in the presence of 
 three persons; during which rite they taught him the 
 precepts of the law. This baptism it was lawful to per- 
 form in rivers, lakes, fountains, or in other receptacles 
 of water, but nowhere else. And they immersed the 
 whole body, in order that the baptized might be ac- 
 counted a child of the covenant, and might be reckoned, 
 as it were, born again; for they pretended that some 
 new soul was sent into the body of the proselyte instead 
 of his former heathen soul; hence they compared him to 
 a new-born child, to which Christ perhaps alludes in his 
 words to Nicodemus: (John iii. 5:) but whoever wishes 
 further information on this subject, may consult Selden, 
 Buxtorf, Lightfoot, and Altingius. Now John the Bap- 
 tist administered this rite among the Jews in the manner 
 above described, in order that he might show that they, 
 seeing that they were very corrupt, needed amendment 
 of life not less than the Gentiles; and for this end also 
 the same rite was used by Christ. 
 
 Another custom among the Jews was, to invite their 
 relations on feast-days; and at the close of the repast 
 some bread of better quality was brought; the host 
 broke it, and distributed portions to the guests: then 
 was brought a cup also, out of which all drank after the 
 master of the feast; there was also giving of thanks, and 
 a grateful commemoration of the history corresponding 
 to the day's solemnity, together with a hymn to the 
 praise of God ; which hymn was sung at the passover to 
 celebrate the deliverance from Egypt, at the feast of 
 Pentecost, the giving of the law, at the feast of taberna- 
 cles, their conduct and support through the wilderness. 
 Now the Lord Jesus in instituting the holy supper, ob- 
 served these rites, adding thereto the commemoration 
 of his sufferings and death. 
 
 But we must treat now of baptism, the first sacrament, 
 the sacrament of initiation, and, as it were, the threshold 
 of grace; in doing which we shall examine into the fol- 
 
412 OF BAPTISM. 
 
 lowing particulars, what is the meaning of the term, how 
 many kinds of baptism there are, how it should be de- 
 fined, what are the signs, the thing signified, and the 
 analogy between these. We shall also inquire into the 
 subjects of baptism, its necessity, the mode of its admin- 
 istration, its ministers, and its efficacy. 
 
 First, the word baptism, is derived from @arrew, to dip 
 or steep; and because the Hebrew word 53» which the 
 Septuagint renders Garréev, (2 Kings v. 14,) is taken for 
 sm» which signifies to wash, hence the word fasríew is 
 simply used for to wash, (Mark vii. 4) whence the 
 * divers washings," mentioned Heb. ix. 10. 
 
 Secondly, there are various kinds of baptism distin- 
 guished by the ancients, but particularly four, viz., the 
 baptism of fire, that of blood, that of light, and that of 
 water. The baptism of fire they called the pouring out 
 of the Spirit, either in an ordinary or extraordinary 
 manner; the baptism of blood was the martyrdom of 
 those, who being not yet baptized with water, were bap- 
 tized as it were in their own blood, as Basil speaks in 
 his Homily concerning the Martyrs; and to this Christ 
 also alludes, Matt. xx. 22; Mark x. 38, where he speaks 
 of being “baptized with the baptism that he was to be 
 baptized with." The baptism of light was the doctrine 
 preached by any one; and that of water, baptism pro- 
 perly so called. Now the scriptures represent baptism 
 as external and internal; the former is visible, and is 
 performed by man; the latter is invisible, and is effected 
 by the Spirit. Both these were alluded to by John the 
 Baptist, when he said, “I indeed baptize you with water 
 but he shall baptize you with the Holy Ghost, and wits 
 fire," (Matt. iii. 11 ;) and Peter distinguishes the paptism 
 in which * the filth of the flesh is put away,” from that 
 which consists in “ the answer of a good conscience,” (1 
 Peter iii. 21,) in which passage, already quoted by us, 
 the apostle shows, that baptism is a kind of solemn and 
 mutual covenant, in which God, as it were, asks the 
 baptized whether he is willing to devote himself to a 
 sincere obedience? And the baptized also asks the 
 Lord, whether he will be pleased to be his God? In the 
 primitive church, the bishop asked the catechumen, 
 whether he renounced Satan, to which the latter replied, 
 J do renounce; the bishop then asked, Dost thou believe 
 in Christ? The catechumen replied, J do believe. This 
 is what Cyprian calls the interrogation of baptism. 
 
 Thirdly, as to the definition of baptism, we may say, 
 
OF BAPTISM. 413 
 
 it is the first divinely-instituted sacrament of the New 
 Testament, in which, by the sprinkling of water in the 
 name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost, both 
 remission of sins through Christ's blood, and sanctifica- 
 tion by his Spirit, are set forth and sealed to believers. 
 The author of this baptism is Christ, who instituted it, 
 when he said, * Go, teach all nations, baptizing them," 
 &c. (Matt. xxviii. 19.) Hence the apostles, as we read, 
 baptized with water all those whom they had converted 
 to the faith of Christ. (Acts ii. 41; viii. 12, 13, 38; x. 47; 
 xvi 15; xviii 8; xxii. 16.) The sign of baptism is water, 
 the real and natural element, not spittle, nor oil, nor 
 honey; no single trace of such things can be found in 
 Scripture, and Christian simplicity at once repudiates 
 them. Christ chose water, both on account of the facil- 
 ity of finding it, and of its agreement with the thing sig- 
 nified; and the apostles used nothing else. The Seleu- 
 cians and Hermians acted ridiculously in not admitting 
 the baptism of water, as Augustine observes, from mis- 
 applying the passage in Matt. iii. 11. As also the Pauli- 
 cians, who made the performance of baptism to consist 
 in the mere uttering of words. The thing signified in 
 baptism is, either the blood, or the Spirit, of Christ, or 
 rather both; our justification being by the former, and 
 our sanctification by the latter; hence we are said to be 
 baptized *into the remission of sins," and baptism is 
 called *the washing of regeneration." (Titus iii. 5.) 
 'The analogy between the sign and the thing signified is 
 plain; for, first, as the filth of the body is washed away 
 by water, so the blood and Spirit of Christ wash away 
 the filth of the soul. (1 Cor. vi. 11; 1 Johni. 7. Again, 
 immersion in the water, and emerging from it, as prac- 
 tised by the ancients, signify the death of the old man, 
 and the resurrection of the new. (Rom. vi. 3, 4; Col. ii. 
 19.) In the water, says Chrysostom, as in a kind of 
 grave, the old man is buried, since, being wholly immers- 
 ed, he is concealed under the water ; then, when we emerge 
 from it, the new man rises up. And again, the sprink- 
 ling of water, denotes that we are sprinkled with the 
 blood of Christ, for the remission of sins. 
 
 Fourthly, the subjects of baptism are all that are in the 
 covenant, whether they be really such, or are reckoned 
 as likely to become such, either on account of their out- 
 ward profession and communion with the faithful, or on 
 account of their being born of Christian parents; with- 
 out any distinction of sex, S or nation; although we 
 
 5* 
 
414 OF BAPTISM. " 
 
 must confess that baptism belongs to the elect only. 
 Hence we infer, that beasts and inanimate things, such 
 as ships, standards, bells, &c. ought not to be baptized ; 
 such baptisms are an intolerable mockery of so sacred 
 an ordinance. We infer, also, that the children of hea- 
 thens, &c. are not to be baptized, except they are grown 
 up, and have been instructed in Christianity; therefore 
 Gregory I. very much blamed Chilpericus for compelling 
 the Jews to be baptized. Now that infants may and 
 ought to be baptized, is proved from Matt. xxviii. 17, 
 where Christ commands all to be baptized, and there- 
 fore infants; nor does it matter, that in this passage in- 
 struction is made to precede baptism, for instruction ap- 
 plies only to adults, who were the persons our Lord had 
 in view, since the first churches were to be composed of 
 adults. The parents were, therefore, first to be taught, 
 but when they had been baptized, their children were to 
 be baptized also. Besides, the covenant of God, and the 
 seals thereof, belong to infants, (Gen. xvii. 7,) and “the 
 promise” is made unto them. (Acts ii. 39.) To infants 
 also belong remission of sins, and regeneration; in short, 
 “the kingdom of heaven;” therefore the signs of these 
 blessings may be bestowed upon them. Moreover, the 
 necessity of baptism is the same as that of circumcision, 
 for the former succeeded into the place of the latter, and 
 both are sacraments of initiation; now the Jews were 
 in the habit of baptizing proselytes together with their 
 children. This the ancient church believed, and it acted 
 accordingly, whatever Ludovicus Vives and Walafridus 
 Strabo have said, the former in his notes on Augustine’s 
 City of God, and the latter in his Ecclesiastical Records. 
 For it is clearly proved, from the testimonies of Irenzus, 
 Origen, Cyprian, Ambrose, Cyril, and many other wri- 
 ters; and in the council held at Carthage, a. p. 418, an 
 anathema is pronounced on him who denies that new- 
 born infants ought to be baptized. The same doctrine 
 is laid down by other councils. : 
 
 Fifthly, as to the necessity of baptism, it is not a mere 
 temporary rite, to distinguish Christians from heathens; 
 it is not indeed so far necessary, as that we cannot be . 
 saved without it; for many have been saved without it; 
 and, therefore, although Christ declares that “he who 
 believeth, and is baptized, shall be saved,” he does not 
 declare that he who is not baptized shall be damned, 
 but only “he that believeth not:” yet baptism is so far 
 necessary, that it cannot be neglected and despised with- 
 
. OF BAPTISM. 415 
 
 out sin. Now this necessity is evident from the follow- 
 ing arguments—baptism succeeded circumcision, there- 
 fore as the latter was always in force until Christ’s first 
 coming, so the former must be in force until his second 
 coming ;—for baptism stands on the same footing as the 
 supper, which is to last till Christ comes, (1 Cor. xi. 26;) 
 —lastly, the effects of baptism not only extend to those 
 who are converted from unbelief, but to those who are 
 born of believers ;—which effects are communion with 
 Christ, (Rom. vi. 3, 4; Gal. iii, 27,) remission of sins, 
 (Acts xxii. 16,) renewing of the Spirit, (Titus iii. 5,) and 
 eternal life. (Mark xvi. 16.) Therefore baptism is neces- 
 sary. 
 
 Sizxthly, as to the mode of administration: the baptized 
 had usually their whole body immersed in the water, 
 (Matt. iii. 6, 16; John iii. 23; Acts viii. 38;) this form 
 could be well used in hot climates, and it must be allow- 
 ed, that such a mode best figured that grace, by which 
 our sins are as it were sunk, and we rise from the 
 depths of sin. But in the present age we make use of 
 sprinkling ; because we believe that this mode was also 
 practised, even in the times of the apostle; since it is 
 hardly credible, that when three thousand were baptized 
 in one day, all were immersed; and because baptism 
 was then administered from house to house; besides 
 which, the word baptism denotes sprinkling, as well as 
 immersion. We also maintain this form, because the 
 thing signified in baptism is designated by the same 
 word, “sprinkling.” (1 Peter i. 2; Heb. x. 22.) And 
 moreover, it is quite enough for the analogy, since bap- 
 tism depends not on the quantity of water used ; and, 
 finally, because sprinkling is more convenient for the 
 purpose of consulting both the health of the baptized, 
 especially in the case of very young children in these 
 cold regions, and also the modesty of adult persons. 
 The Muscovites err in teaching that immersion is essen- 
 tial to baptism; and those Greek Christians were infatu- 
 ated, who, in the council of Florence, called the Latins 
 aBanricrovs, (unbaptized.) It is a matter of indifference 
 whether sprinkling be used thrice or once: the ancients 
 appear to have sprinkled three times, in order to repre- 
 sent the Persons in the Trinity. Not once, says Tertul- 
 lian, but three times we dip, in the separate names of the 
 three Persons, the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost. 
 As for ourselves, we sprinkle once only, to denote the 
 unity of the essence; it is of no moment, nor need we 
 
416 OF BAPTISM. 
 
 dispute with any man about it. It is better to follow the 
 form of baptism prescribed by Christ, in the name of the 
 three Persons; nor is it lawful to change this form. It 
 is not, indeed, expressly said, that the apostles used it, 
 but it does not follow that they omitted it, since they 
 baptized according to Christ's command. Now this 
 form teaches us several things; for while the minister 
 baptizes in the name of the Father, the Son, and the 
 Holy Ghost, he declares that the water with which he 
 sprinkles the child, is the sign of his admission into God's 
 covenant, and into the church—that the Father receives 
 him as his child, the Son as a member of his body, the 
 Holy Ghost as a temple in which he is pleased to dwell: 
 and on the part of the baptized, it is a sign of his engage- 
 ment with the Triune Jehovah, to worship and obey the 
 Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, and consecrate himself for 
 evertothem. This form also denotes that the ordinance 
 is not administered by the authority, and at the pleasure 
 of man, but by the appointment of God. There have 
 been various other ceremonies added, such as being 
 clothed in white, the tasting of honey and milk, the sign 
 of the cross on the forehead and the breast, exorcism, 
 &c. which were not instituted by Christ, nor used by 
 the apostles. 
 
 Seventhly, the ministers of the sacraments being those 
 to whom Christ has given authority to preach the gospel, 
 and Christ having joined these two together as parts of 
 the public ministry, (Matt. xxviii. 19,)—we therefore ac- 
 knowledge no baptism which is administered by a lay- 
 man, (notwithstanding what has been said by Tertullian, 
 the Apostolical Constitutions, the council of Illiberis, 
 Jerome, Gelasius, and Augustine, though Basil and some 
 others maintain the contrary,) or by a woman, or by a 
 child; much less do we imagine that baptism is valid, 
 which is administered by a heathen or Jewish adven- 
 turer, merely baptizing in the name of Christ, as was 
 the opinion of Pope Nicholas L, and of the council of 
 Florence. Under this head may be introduced two in- 
 quiries which are frequently made. 1. Whether the 
 baptism of John was essentially the same as the baptism 
 of Christ? The reply is, that they agree in the essen- 
 tials, since both had God for their author—both had the 
 same sign, viz. water, and both the same signification, 
 viz. remission and regeneration, (Luke iii. 22; John i. 
 33; Matt. iii. 7, 8; Luke iii. 3; Acts xix. 4,) and both the 
 same end. Hence Tertullian was accustomed to say, 
 
OF BAPTISM. 417 
 
 that there was no difference between those whom John 
 baptized in Jordan, and those whom Peter baptized in 
 the Tiber. Yet the two baptisms differ in a few non- 
 essential circumstances—that of John exhibited Christ 
 as coming and about to die, ours exhibits him as dead 
 and risen again. Whether those who had been baptized 
 by John, were rebaptized by Paul, is disputed among the 
 learned. It is indifferent to us what is said upon this, 
 for since the ministry of John was a connecting link be- 
 tween the old and new dispensations, those who were 
 baptized with John’s baptism, might usually have been 
 baptized with that of Christ, even as those could be bap- 
 tized, who had been circumcised. 2. Another question 
 is, whether that baptism is lawful, which is administered 
 by hereties. We reply, that a distinction must be made 
 between those heretics who corrupt the substance of 
 baptism, and omit or alter the form of the institution, 
 and those who retain the essentials, and maintain the 
 true doctrine of the Trinity, though they err in other 
 points of doctrine, as did formerly the Novatians and 
 Donatists, and in the present age, the papists.* With 
 respect to the former class of heretics, we say that bap- 
 tism administered by them is not lawful: for this reason 
 the baptism of those Arians was rejected, who baptized 
 in the name of the Father, as the true God, of Jesus 
 Christ, as the Saviour, and. a creature, and in the Holy 
 Ghost, as the servant of both; though indeed learned 
 men doubt whether the Arians did baptize in this form or 
 not. The baptism ofthe Eunomians was equally to be dis- 
 allowed, which was performed, according to Epiphanius, 
 in the name of the uncreated God, of the created Son, and 
 the sanctifying Spirit, created by the Son. The council of 
 Nice also required the disciples of Paul of Samosata to be 
 rebaptized. But here we must remark, that the question is 
 not concerning baptism administered by a pastor, who is 
 neretical indeed, butsecretly, in an orthodox church; forin 
 this case baptism islawful. With respect to the other class 
 of heretics, who retain the essentials of baptism, not 
 changing or corrupting the form, we maintain that bap- 
 tism administered by these, is valid and lawful: for, al- 
 though they are not true members of the church, this 
 
 * [The General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church, at their 
 Session in May, 1845, decided the question “Is Baptism in the Church 
 of Rome valid?" in the negative, by a vote of 173 to 8.—JVote by the 
 Editor of the Board of Publication.) 
 
418 OF BAPTISM. 
 
 does not prevent them from lawfully baptizing, provided 
 they retain the essentials of the ordinance; since in the 
 performance of the rite, they merely lend their hand and 
 tongue to the Lord, who himself baptizes, and works 
 through their instrumentality. 
 
 Eighthly, it remains that we speak of the efficacy of 
 baptism: few observations will be necessary, after what 
 we have said before of the efficacy of the sacraments 
 generally. We need only see what graces are repre- 
 sented and sealed to us in baptism, viz. communion 
 with Christ, and a title to his benefits—remission of 
 original sin—and a new birth. The Lord’s supper is the 
 sacrament of nutrition, since it nourishes the divine life; 
 but baptism is the sacrament of regeneration. There is 
 also adoption, for weare received into the number of God’s 
 children: God regenerates none without adopting them, 
 as he adopts none whom he does not regenerate. Ob- 
 serve also that we must distinguish between the bap- 
 tized, as adults, or infants: with regard to the former, 
 we have nothing new to say, but must refer to our 
 former remarks on the efficacy of the sacraments. 
 
 With respect to baptized infants, we must divide them 
 into four classes. The first contains those who grow 
 up, but are never converted, and who God saw would 
 die impenitent; with respect to these, baptism sets forth 
 nothing, and seals nothing, since it is absurd to say that 
 God pardons their original sin: for either God regards 
 these as in communion with Christ, or he does not; if 
 the former, how could it be possible that they should not 
 continue in such communion? if the latter, how can he 
 have pardoned their original sin, since there is no remis- 
 sion of sin but in Christ, through the imputation of his 
 righteousness? Again, either God, forgiving the original 
 sin, has received them into his covenant, or he has not : 
 if he has not, how can he have pardoned them, since he 
 pardons only those whom he adopts? if he has, how is 
 it that he leaves them in their corruption, and does not 
 convert them? The second class of infants includes 
 those, who live long after baptism, but are not actually 
 converted till the thirtieth or fortieth year of their age, 
 or till the close of their lives. With regard to these, bap- 
 tism does not disclose or put forth its efficacy before they 
 are actually converted ; for as long as they continue im- 
 penitent and unbelieving, it cannot be said that God has 
 justified, adopted, admitted them into his covenant, or 
 granted them any measure of his Holy Spirit. But bap- 
 
OF BAPTISM. / 419 
 
 tism becomes efficacious in such persons, inasmuch as 
 the remembrance of their having been baptized does the 
 same thing for them, as their baptism itself would have 
 done (had it been then efficacious) ; for God displays his 
 grace to them the moment they remember their bap- 
 tism; nor is this a bare theoretical remembrance, but 
 that which is joined with repentance for the sins com- 
 mitted since baptism. The third class is composed of 
 those infants who live after baptism, but in whom, while 
 reason unfolds itself, piety and faith are discovered, cor- 
 responding with the good instruction of their parents; 
 in regard to these we may say, that baptism has been 
 efficacious, that God has forgiven their original sin, and 
 given them such a measure of the Spirit, as renders them 
 capable of embracing the offers of the gospel, when 
 reason begins to dawn upon their minds. But it may be 
 asked, whether original sin is forgiven them only at the 
 period of their baptism, or before it. We reply that they 
 may obtain all spiritual blessings from the very moment 
 of their birth, but that these may be confirmed in bap- 
 tism, which is the seal, pledge, or earnest of them; the 
 infant, indeed, knows not what is taking place, but 
 when he arrives at years of discretion, then he recog- 
 nizes it, and from the knowledge of it, possesses every 
 motive to holiness. Some infants are regenerated in the 
 womb, and before baptism, others in baptism, others 
 after: we assign no particular period. 
 
 But should any one say, he cannot comprehend the 
 operations of the Holy Ghost in these cases; we reply 
 that the thing ought not to be denied, merely because 
 we do not comprehend it. It is not more difficult to 
 conceive the idea of the Holy Spirit restoring the facul- 
 ties of the infant, and rendering them capable of receiving 
 evangelical objects, as soon as reason shall dawn, than 
 it is to conceive the idea of original sin, which is nothing 
 else but the depravation of those faculties, inclining them 
 to objects of sense. If we can conceive of the principle 
 of evil before any act of it, why not the principle of good 
 before any act of the same? If Adam had not sinned, 
 his descendants would have been naturally innocent; 
 and why cannot it be conceived, that the Holy Spirit 
 places infants, who are born sinful, in some state of 
 regeneration? The cause of our corruption is the prone- 
 ness of the soul to follow the motions of the body: why 
 then should we not conceive, that the Holy Spirit pre- 
 vents the soul from following those motions, and gives it 
 
420 OF THE LORD'S SUPPER. 
 
 the power of directing them aright? The fourth class 
 of infants remains to be mentioned ; viz. those who are 
 baptized, but die before they grow up: with regard to 
 these we.say, that, since we cannot doubt that infants 
 are saved, we must not therefore doubt but that baptism, 
 in the case of these, is a public and authoritative decla- 
 ration on the part of God, that he has forgiven them ori- 
 ginal sin, and granted them a title to life; since infants 
 cannot be saved without forgiveness of sins and sancti- 
 fication. 
 
 Two observations shall conclude this chapter. First, 
 we must not imagine that the sacrament of baptism im- 
 presses on the subject any mark or character, on ac- 
 count of which the rite cannot be repeated; for the 
 scripture nowhere mentions any thing about such a 
 mark, and all the efficacy of the sacraments depends not 
 on this, but on the grace of the Holy Spirit; but still we 
 maintain that baptism is not to be repeated, for as we 
 are not twice born, so there is no need to be twice bap- 
 tized. The Ethiopian Christians are therefore very fool- 
 ish, who every year, on the day of Epiphany, repeat 
 their baptism in honour of Christ, who they believe was 
 baptized on that day: as also are those heretics, who 
 both rebaptize their children when grown up, and also 
 those who leave one sect for another. Secondly, we 
 must not imagine that infants dying unbaptized are con- 
 demned. For, if a child were condemned for want of 
 baptism, which was omitted without any fault of his, he 
 would * bear the iniquity" of his parent, or of the person 
 by whose fault he was deprived of the ordinance. And, 
 if this were the case, the certainty of an infant's salvation 
 would depend on the will of a midwife, a Jew, or a pagan 
 priest. 
 
 CHAPTER V. 
 OF THE LORD'S SUPPER. 
 
 Tue other sacrament ofthe New Testament is the Lord's 
 Supper,in which, by the distribution and reception of 
 bread and wine, broken and poured out, is set forth and 
 
OP THE LORD's SUPPER. 491 
 
 sealed to believers the communion of Christ's body 
 broken for them on the cross, and of his blood shed for 
 them, unto eternallife. Various names are given to this 
 sacrament, both by the sacred and by ecclgsiastical 
 writers. It is called by the former “the Lord's Supper,” 
 because it was first instituted and celebrated in the 
 evening; it is called “ blessing,” and “ giving of thanks;” 
 because in this rite thanks are given to God, and the 
 symbols are blessed; (1 Cor. x. 16,) the allusion being 
 to the cup at the passover, with which the feast was 
 closed, and which was called 55a »»5, the cup of praise. 
 The term blessing was applied, partly to the pieces of 
 consecrated bread which were distributed to the com- 
 municants, partly to those pieces which at the time of 
 Easter were sent to other neighbouring Christian com- 
 munities, as a testimony of love, and agreement in the 
 faith (which custom was forbidden by the Council of 
 Laodicea); also to those pieces of bread which were 
 sent to the absent, and distributed to the catechumens. 
 It is also called *the Lord's Table," (1 Cor. x. 21;) and 
 also the * Communion,” (1 Cor. x. 16,) on account of the 
 union which the faithful have with Christ and each other, 
 and which is sealed in this sacrament; and because we 
 hereby partake of Christ's death and benefits; and also 
 because all the faithful receive it together in their assem- 
 blies. It is further called the “ breaking of bread," (Acts 
 ii. 42,) hence the Syriac version renders these words 
 “the breaking of the Eucharist.” The ecclesiastical 
 writers express it by a great variety of names, such as, 
 the feast—the sacrament of bread—the service—the gift 
 —the viaticum—the passover—the sacrifice—the love- 
 feast, &c. &c. 
 
 It is no wonder that God instituted this second sacra- 
 ment; for, after having received us into his family, he 
 engaged to nourish us as his children, and continually 
 to preserve and strengthen the life once bestowed; of 
 which kindness and love he has been pleased to assure 
 us by giving a certain pledge: as therefore he was 
 pleased to shadow forth our regeneration by baptism, 
 the sacrament of our initiation and entrance into the 
 church, so by the sacred Supper he is pleased to signify 
 our nourishment and support by Christ. This holy 
 rite was instituted to commemorate the death of Christ, 
 (Luke xxii. 19; 1 Cor. xi. 24, 25;) to represent and seal 
 our union with Christ, and participation of his benefits, 
 and to assure us of rerission of sins, and of salvation 
 
422 OF THE LORD'S SUPPER. 
 
 obtained for us by the death of Christ. Hence the can- 
 ticle used in the Roman church—O sacred feast, in 
 which Christ is taken, his passion remembered, the soul 
 filled with grace, and the pledge of future glory given to 
 us! An account of the institution is given us by the 
 Evangelists, and by Paul, (Matt. xxvi. 26—30; Luke 
 xxii. 14—21; 1 Cor. xi. 23--27.) - 
 
 Now the symbols which were adopted in this Supper 
 were bread and wine; a double sign, in order more 
 clearly to set forth our Saviour's death, and the separa- 
 tion of his body and blood in it; and to give the idea of 
 complete nourishment, for which drink, no less than 
 food, is required. Bread and wine were used in the Old 
 Testament sacrifices in an especial manner, (Num. xv. 
 4—11,) and our Lord employed the symbols that were 
 most common, familiar and obvious because, as the 
 sacrament was to continue in all countries, and for the 
 use of all believers, to the end of the world, it was neces- 
 sary that it should not consist of difficult signs, and bur- 
 densome ceremonies, lest the want of these should be 
 experienced in any place. It was more agreeable to the 
 Spiritual dispensation of the New Testament, that some 
 common symbols should be employed, such as would 
 not too deeply engage either the eyes or the imagina- 
 tion, and thus divert us from the contemplation of the 
 thing signified. Nor is it without signification, that the 
 Saviour would not place upon this table the blood-stained 
 flesh of animals, as in the sacred festivals of the Old 
 Testament, but simply bread and wine; for after the 
 blood-shedding of Christ, no more blood was to be poured 
 out in sacrifice. 
 
 Now the bread used by Christ was wnleavened, but 
 this by accident, it being the feast of the Passover, in 
 which it was not lawful to use, or even to have, any 
 other, (Exod. xii. 19;) but on other occasions the Jews 
 used leavened bread. The matter is quite indifferent, 
 though it is more suitable to use leavened, both because 
 it.is more consistent with the design of Christ, which 
 was to use common bread, which can every where be met 
 with, and because the necessity of using unleavened 
 bread belongs only to the Jewish ceremony. It appears 
 that the sacramental symbols were formerly taken 
 from the offerings of bread and wine made by the 
 faithful, which were undoubtedly of common and ]lea- 
 vened bread. The other symbol is wine, or the 
 “fruit of the vine," (Matt. xxvi. 29.) It is indifferent 
 
OF THE LORD'S SUPPER. 423 
 
 in what way it be received, whether mixed with 
 water, as was the custom of the ancients, and as per- — 
 haps it was done by Christ, or pure. Now the ancients 
 mixed it with water, to designate three mysteries, viz. 
 the blood and water which came out of the Saviour's 
 pierced side; the union of Christ’s two natures; and his 
 union with the faithful. This we neither blame nor 
 commend; we may merely remark, that in places where 
 there is a scarcity of wine, that which is there used asa 
 substitute for the juice of the grape, may be lawfully 
 used in the sacrament; the same may be said in regard 
 to the bread. Pope Innocent, A. D. 1490, granted a dis- 
 pensation to the Norwegians, to perform the sacrament 
 without wine, because it could not be kept, on account 
 of the intensity of the cold. 
 
 It remains for us to examine the ceremonies which 
 Christ used in the institution and celebration of the Sup- 
 per. First, he “took and blessed,” (Matt. xxvi. 26; Luke 
 xxii. 19;) in this way he consecrated the bread and 
 wine, i. e. set them apart for sacred uses by prayer and 
 thanksgiving; following in this the custom of the Jews, 
 among whom the master of the family, holding in his 
 hand the bread yet unbroken, pronounced over it a 
 solemn benediction. Thus in the eating of the Passover, 
 there was this particular form of blessing used at the 
 consecration of the unleavened bread— Blessed be the 
 Lord our God, King of the world, who brought us and our 
 fathers out of Egypt, and commanded us to eat unlea- 
 vened bread ; and in the consecration of the cup—Blessed 
 be the Lord our God, King of the world, who created ihe 
 fruit of the vine. It is probable that Christ used a particu- 
 lar form of consecration. By this benediction the symbols 
 were consecrated, seeing it contained a thanksgiving to 
 God for benefits received, and a prayer that the symbols 
 might be rendered effectual to the spiritual benefit of the 
 receivers. And in this way the ancients were accus- 
 tomed to consecrate the symbols by prayer, as appears 
 from their liturgies and writings; and this was not done 
 in a whisper, but with a loud voice, so that the people 
 might say, Amen. Nor is there any fear of the sacra- 
 ment being degraded in this manner; for otherwise the 
 gospel ought not to be preached with aloud voice. Thus 
 it is plain, that by this benediction the symbols are conse- 
 crated, since they are blessed for no other end, than to 
 be put to a holy use. This consecration cannot be 
 effected without prayer; it rather consists of prayer, by 
 
424 OF THE LORD'S SUPPER. 
 
 which the grace of God is implored upon the symbols, to 
  sanctify them. Thus Solomon consecrated the temple 
 by aremarkable prayer, and thus Christ blessed and 
 consecrated the bread in the miracle of the loaves. By 
 this form the bread and wine are not changed, but only 
 the use and intent of them. 
 
 The second ceremony was * the breaking of the bread,” 
 which custom was also derived from the Jews; among 
 whom the head of the family, having blessed the bread, 
 brake it, and distributed it to the guests; and he brake 
 the bread for this reason, that the loaves of the Jews, 
 which resembled small cakes, being broad, not thick, 
 were usually broken, not cut; nay, according to Baro- 
 nius, the Jews baked their loaves with incisions, to mark 
 off the various portions; hence they did not cut, but 
 break them. But not only was this ceremony used by 
 Christ, after the example of the Jews, but also to repre- 
 sent bis body that was to be broken on the cross; and 
 therefore we do not think that such a ceremony ought 
 to be neglected; first, because Christ commanded us to 
 do as he did, saying, Do this; nor can it be objected, 
 that many circumstances, observed by Christ, are not to 
 be imitated by us, as that he celebrated the supper in the 
 evening, reclining according to the ancient custom; for 
 the breaking of the bread belongs to the supper essenti- 
 ally ; the celebration of the supper in the evening or 
 morning is accidental. Again, because Paul expressly - 
 intimates this ceremony, saying, “The bread which we 
 break," &c. (1 Cor. x. 16.) Further, because it excel- 
 lently sets forth the mangling of Christ on the cross; thus 
 the apostle, relating the form of the institution, says that 
 it is the body of Christ * broken for you,” (1 Cor. xi. 24.) 
 Lastly, because the church, in the apostles’ time, always 
 used this ceremony, (Acts ii. 42,) and it continued to the 
 twelfth century, if we may credit Erasmus; hence the 
 pieces of bread were called crumbs, gems, holy fragments: 
 and in the Roman ritual framed upwards of eight hun- 
 dred years ago, we find that the deacons broke the host 
 before they distributed it. 
 
 After the distribution (which was according to the 
 custom of the Jews, among whom the head of the family, 
 after he had himself eaten, gave the bread to the rest,) 
 we have the injunction of the Saviour, * Take, eat, .... 
 this do in remembrance of me,” whence it is inferred, 
 that Christ held out the bread, to be taken hold of by the 
 hand. There was an express rule among the Jews, 
 
OF THE LORD'S SUPPER. 425 
 
 cited by Maimonides, which ran thus—He who breaks 
 must give the portion to each, and he to whom it is given, 
 receives it in his hand, &c. In the ancient church there 
 were various forms used. In Justin's time the deacons 
 distributed the bread to every one present. In the time 
 of Clement of Alexandria each took his part out of the 
 plate. In the time of Tertullian it was ordained, that 
 the bread should be received at the hands of the officiat- 
 ing ministers; some time afterwards they used vessels 
 of gold or precious stones (to receive it in,) which were 
 forbidden by a certain council, and it was decreed that 
 the communion should be received by the hands formed 
 into the shape of a cross: a. p. 490, it was ordered that 
 women should not receive the eucharist with their hands 
 bare, like the men, but in clean linen cloth; and after 
 this, the touching of it by the hands was prohibited to 
 all. Our Saviour did the same in regard to the cup, as 
 he did to the bread, commanding his disciples to drink, 
 as he had commanded them to eat. 
 
 It is inquired, whether Christ himself partook of the 
 Supper? The reply is, that it was customary among 
 the Jews, for the head of the family to eat first of the 
 consecrated bread, and we know that Christ kept the 
 Jewish customs in view; he also used the same phrase 
 in reference to the cup of the Eucharist, (Matt. xxvi.29.) 
 which he used in reference to the passover, (Luke xxii. 
 18.) besides, no reason can be alleged why Christ should 
 not bave partaken of this sacrament, as well as of bap- 
 tism. The fathers were of opinion that Christ did thus 
 partake of it. 
 
 The thing signified in the supper was shown by Christ 
 himself, when he declared of the bread, *this is my 
 body,” just as the Jews called the paschal lamb the body 
 of the passover ; and of the wine, *this is my blood ;" 
 the breaking of the one, and the pouring out of the other, 
 represent the breaking of Christ's body, and the shed- 
 ding of his blood: the eating and the drinking of these 
 signify our intimate union with the Saviour. The anal- 
 ogy between the signs and the thing signified is plain ; for, 
 1. as bread and wine support and preserve natural life, so 
 Christ's body and blood are the means of nourishing and 
 maintaining spiritual life: as bread and wine are sepa- 
 rated in the holy supper, so the body and blood of Christ 
 were separated on the cross—as the one is broken, and 
 the other poured out, so the body of Christ was mangled, 
 and his blood poured er the former do not nourish, 
 
426 OF VARIOUS QUESTIONS IN DISPUTE 
 
 except received in the mouth, so the latter do not nourish 
 the soul, unless received and applied by faith—as the 
 communicants are “all partakers of one bread,” so the 
 faithful are partakers of one Christ, and are united with 
 each other in one body. (1 Cor. x. 17.) Now the con- 
 nexion of the bread with the body of Christ is merely 
 relative, as that between a king and his image, between 
 a ring and the dignity expressed by it, between a docu- 
 ment or title-deed, and the possession. 
 
 The Lord's Supper ought to be administered only to 
 adults, not to infants, as many of the ancients imagined ; 
 for there is a very great difference between the two sac- 
 raments. For baptism is the sacrament of initiation in- 
 to the church; the holy supper was ordained for the 
 nourishment of the soul, and the strengthening of our 
 faith, by commemorating the benefits of Christ; of the 
 former infants are capable, of the latter only aduits. 
 This is further confirmed from Paul's injunction to those 
 who receive the supper, to * examine themselves," which 
 infants cannot do ; nor is it more strange, that baptized 
 infants are not admitted to the supper, than that cireum- 
 cised infants formerly did not eat the passover. This 
 holy rite, also, must not be administered to persons de- 
 ranged, except when they enjoy lucid intervals, during 
 which they cease their insanity, and are capable of right- 
 ly receiving the communion. Neither should it be ad- 
 ministered to unbaptized persons, for before baptism 
 men are not reckoned to be in the church: therefore it 
 was the custom to exclude catechumens, and also per- 
 sons in a state of penitence. With regard to dumb per- 
 sons, they may communicate, provided they show their 
 faith by particular and undoubted signs. 
 
 CHAPTER VI. 
 
 OF VARIOUS QUESTIONS IN DISPUTE ABOUT THE LORD'S 
 SUPPER. 
 
 Tue words of Christ were, * T'his is my body ;" now the 
 question is, whether these words are to be understood 
 
ABOUT THE LORD’S SUPPER. 427 
 
 literally or figuratively: we maintain the latter. And 
 Jirst, in proof of this, be it observed, that the figurative 
 style was used by eastern writers; (Gen. xlix. Deut. 
 xxxii; 2 Sam. xxiii; 1 Kings ii. 5.) Again, the same 
 style is often used by Christ, as when he calls himself a 
 vine, or the way. It is also the style very much used in 
 common conversation; we say of a picture, This is the 
 King. Moreover, the verb £o be, among the Hebrews is 
 often used for to signify or represent ; thus “the seven 
 kine are seven years”—the ** bones are the house of Is- 
 rael"—-* that rock was Christ"—*the good seed are the 
 children of the kingdom.” At the celebration of the 
 passover, the head of the house was accustomed to say, 
 “ This is the bread of affliction, which our fathers ate,” 
 and, as before remarked, the roast lamb was called “the 
 body ofthe passover." Finally, Christ uses this figura- 
 tive mode of expression, when he says, This cup is the 
 New Testament, and the body of Christ is said to be 
 broken, though on that occasion it could not be broken, 
 except in a figure. 
 
 Secondly, we maintain that these words must be taken 
 in a figurative sense, from the four following rules, dic- 
 tated by common sense :— When any passage expresses 
 something absurd, if taken literally, it ought to be taken 
 in a figurative sense—also, when a proposition, if re- 
 ceived literally, is impossible, and contains contradic- 
 tions—when the text would appear to enjoin a sin, if 
 taken in its proper sense—when, if so taken, things un- 
 worthy are attributed to God. Now all these conse- 
 quences would follow, if the words of Christ were under- 
 stood literally, as we shall see hereafter. The point is 
 further evident from considering the very nature of 
 sacraments, which are signs and figures. Thus God says 
 of circumcision— This is my covenant ; and the paschal 
 lamb is termed the Lord's passover. Consider also that 
 we ought to understand the words as the apostles did ; 
 now it is plain, that they understood them to be figura- 
 tive, because they start no objection on a subject so 
 strange and wonderful, and yet they were astonished at 
 most things, as when Christ said unto them, * Beware 
 of the leaven of the Pharisees.” In short the words can- 
 not be understood otherwise than figuratively; for the 
 body of Christ can in no way whatever be predicated 
 of bread; and it is certain, that expressions are and 
 must be figurative, wherever the predicate cannot be 
 identified with the subject, as in the present case; for 
 
428 OF VARIOUS QUESTIONS IN DISPUTE 
 
 neither is the bread the body of Christ, nor the body of 
 Christ the bread. 
 
 In this sense, too, the fathers of the church understood 
 the words. Thus Tertullian speaks—He made the bread, 
 which he took and distributed to his disciples, his body, 
 saying, this is my body, i. e. the figure of my body: so 
 Augustine,—the Lord did not hesitate to say this is my 
 body, when he gave the sign of his body. And Facundus, 
 Bishop of Hermia, thus speaks— The sacrament of — 
 tion may be called adoption, (itself,) just as we call the 
 sacrament of Christ's body and blood, which is in the con- 
 secrated bread and wine, his body and blood; not that 
 the bread is really and properly his body, nor the wine 
 his blood, but because they contain in them the mystery 
 of his body and blood. 
 
 Another question is, concerning the presence of Christ, 
 in the Eucharist: now we admit that he is present in 
 various ways, viz. as God, who fills every place—as 
 being united to us by his Spirit, and displaying his power 
 in us, just as the sun is said to be present in any place 
 into which he darts his beams—as being present by the 
 symbols which represent him — and inasmuch as his 
 body and blood are present to the eyes of our faith. 
 But we deny that Christs body is actually and really 
 present in this sacrament; for in this way it would fol- 
 low that it was not a real body, since it would be neither 
 visible nor impenetrable, nor confined within space— 
 and in this way the body would become a spirit; would: 
 occupy innumerable places, would be one and yet not 
 one; little and great, at the same time; its bulk could 
 be included within a small point, nay, it could be every 
 where present; who does not perceive the absurdity of 
 these consequences? In this way also we should con- 
 found the divinity and humanity of Christ; whereas the 
 former only is infinite; we should also confound his body 
 with his soul. This corporeal presence is, moreover, 
 contrary to scripture, which plainly teaches us that 
 Christ, as man, is “like to us in all things ;” that his body 
 was formed of the blessed Virgin, and not of bread— 
 that it is visible and palpable—that Christ left the earth, 
 and ascended into heaven—that he was not “always to. 
 be with his disciples, like the poor"—that he is to remain 
 in heaven till the restitution of all things—that we are 
 not to believe those who say, “ Lo, he is in the desert ;— 
 he is in the secret chambers.” Indeed, it is contrary to. 
 Christ's own words, when he said, * Do this in remem- 
 
ABOUT THE LORD’S SUPPER. 429 
 
 brance of me,” which are to be joined with those of Paul, 
 ** As oft as ye do this, ye do shew the Lord's death until 
 he come.” Besides, such a presence as this would be 
 useless, for the presence of Christ’s Spirit alone is useful; 
 nor is his body less present to faith, though it is in heaven, 
 than if it were invisible on earth. 
 
 From all this we conclude, that the bread and wine 
 cannot be said to be changed into Christ’s body and 
 blood, which is the doctrine of transubstantiation. This 
 is contrary to the evidence of our senses, not one merely, 
 but many; for we see, taste, smell, and touch nothing 
 but bread. Nor is the testimony of our senses to be 
 rejected ; for we must distinguish those mysteries, which 
 are clearly separated from bodily things, and are not at 
 all objects of sense, (such as the mystery of the Trinity,) 
 from those mysteries which are contained in bodily 
 things, as the sacraments are, in which, therefore, the 
 senses are to be regarded; hence Christ appealed to 
 them in proof of his resurrection. It is also contrary to 
 reason, which suggests to us, that a body cannot occupy 
 several places at once; that it possesses quantity or ex- 
 tension; that the accidents cannot exist without the sub- 
 ject (in which they are and must be.) It is no less con- 
 trary to scripture, as appears from what is there said of 
 the corporeal presence; which may be confirmed from 
 this circumstance, that the symbols retain the same name 
 after their consecration, as they had before it, as is plain 
 from examining Matt. xxvi. 29; Mark xiv. 25; 1 Cor. 
 xi. 23, 26—28. This doctrine, moreover, destroys the 
 nature of a sacrament, for it destroys the sign, by doing 
 away with the bread, and the thing signified, by taking 
 away from Christ’s body its quantity or extension; and 
 thus it destroys the analogy between both, by removing 
 the basis of the sacramental] relation. It also destroys 
 the nature of real conversion or change, which requires 
 that the thing, into which another is changed, should be 
 produced anew. Besides, there is no need of a transub- 
 stantiation in the supper, any more than in baptism, in 
 which the water is not changed into Christ’s blood. 
 Finally, transubstantiation takes place, either by the 
 annihilation of the bread, or by the transformation of it 
 into Christ’s body; if the former, it is not transubstan- 
 tiation, but merely the substitution of Christ’s body 
 in the place of the bread; if the latter, then the body 
 must be formed out of the bread. Again, the body of 
 Christ is either produced in the Eucharist, or it is brought 
 
430 OF VARIOUS QUESTIONS IN DISPUTE 
 
 down from heaven; it cannot be said to be produced; 
 for if it were produced, either from nothing, or from 
 bread, or from any other substance, it would not be the 
 same as the body of Christ which is in heaven: neither 
 can it be said to be brought down from thence, because, 
 as just hinted, it would not then be a real transubstan- 
 tiation. 
 
 Another question to be examined is, in what sense we 
 “eat the flesh of Christ" in the sacrament. (John vi. 53.) 
 Now that this is not a carnal eating, is evident; because 
 in this way the most sacred and glorious body of Christ, 
 being received into the stomach, would be subjected to 
 a great variety of filth and impurities. Not to mention 
 what some have added, that it would be impious, as 
 being cannibalism; hence Augustine proves that the 
 term £o eat is figurative, because otherwise Christ would 
 command us to do what is a crime. Besides, this carnal 
 eating is impossible, the body of Christ being in heaven; 
 and it is also useless, since the spiritual eating alone is 
 sufficient for salvation; whereas the former can be done 
 by the wicked, who are not saved; nor does such a 
 mode of eating contribute to any real union of Christ's 
 flesh with ours; our communion with him being of a 
 spiritual nature, through faith and the Holy Spirit; nor 
 to union with God, for the same reason; nor to our 
 resurrection, which is ascribed to the Spirit of Christ; 
 nor to the demonstration of Christ’s love towards his 
 church, which he sufficiently displayed by his death, 
 and by his betrothing the church. 
 
 We need not be surprised that Christ used this meta- 
 phor ; he did so, following the custom of the scriptures, 
 in shadowing forth spiritual by carnal objects; because 
 also this metaphor is very suitable to denote our com- 
 munion with Christ; and Christ adapted his expressions 
 to the comprehension of his disciples, borrowing them 
 from objects which were before their eyes; thus he had 
 performed the miracle of the loaves, and had been, pre- 
 viously to these expressions, speaking of the manna. 
 Lastly, he was thus pleased to oppose ‘his flesh to the 
 legal sacrifices, offered for sin, which it was not lawful 
 to eat, neither flesh, nor blood; thereby denoting the 
 insufficiency of such sacrifices, which were consumed 
 by the fire of divine justice, so that nothing was left of 
 them for the nourishment of the people. Christ might, 
 indeed, have alluded to the permission which the priests 
 had, to eat of the flesh of the victims, after the sacrifice 
 
ABOUT THE LORD'S SUPPER. 431 
 
 was over; or to the fact that it was given to the people 
 to eat of their thank-offerings. Now the flesh of Christ is 
 thus spiritually eaten, by constant meditation on his pas- 
 sion, and by application of his merits to ourselves. 
 Augustine, therefore, rightly says, Why dost thou pre- 
 pare thy teeth, and thy stomach? Believe! thou hast eat- 
 en! This is to eat of that food, and drink of that potion, 
 viz. to abide in Christ, and to have him abiding in you. 
 
 With respect to the communion in both kinds, we main- 
 tain, that we ought to do the same as Christ did, and not 
 to violate his institution and commandment. Now, 
 Christ said, *drink ye all of it," (the cup,) as well as 
 * take, eat ;" he instituted the eucharist under both sym- 
 bols, saying, * Do this in remembrance of me." Paul 
 also, giving an account of this institution, enforces on 
 the Corinthian church the duty oftaking both kinds. (1 
 Cor. x. 16; xi. 26, 28.) Besides, the mutilation of the 
 sacrament by withholding the cup, violates the two-fold 
 purpose of its institution, viz. to be a commemoration of 
 Christ's death, which is excellently set forth under two 
 separate signs, denoting the separation of his blood 
 from his body ; and also to be a symbol of our complete 
 nourishment by Christ. 
 
 The communion in both kinds was always celebrated 
 by the ancient church till the council of Constance, held 
 A. D. 1415, as appears from the testimony of Justin, Ire- 
 naus, Tertullian, Origen, Cyprian, Chrysostom, Jerome, 
 Ausustine, and a host of others. To which we may 
 subjoin, as worthy of notice, the testimonies of Popes 
 Leo and Gelasius. 'The words of the former are these: 
 When they (the Manichees) dare to be present at our mys- 
 teries, in order to conceal their infidelity, they so manage 
 themselves in the communion, that sometimes in order 
 to conceal themselves more securely, they receive with 
 their unworthy mouths the body of Christ ; but they alto- 
 gether refuse to drink the blood of our redemption. Gel- 
 asius issued the following order, which is found in Gra- 
 tian, and recorded by the old canonists, We find that 
 some persons receive only a. portion of the sacred body, 
 and abstain from the cup of the sacred blood. Let such, 
 restrained as they are by some superstition or other, 
 either receive the sacrament entire, or be excluded. from 
 it altogether ; for the division of one and the same mys- 
 tery cannot take place without the greatest sacrilege. At 
 the Synod of Clermont also, a. p., 1095, Pope Urban en- 
 
432 OF VARIOUS QUESTIONS IN DISPUTE 
 
 acted a law, that the body of the Lord, and the blood of 
 the Lord, should be taken separately. 
 
 Two questions yet remain to be considered; the one 
 is, whether in the eucharist there be offered to God an 
 outward sacrifice, properly so called, which is really pro- 
 pitiatory for the sins of the quick and the dead. We 
 maintain that there is no such sacrifice in the church of 
 Christ, but only the sacrifice of Christ once offered on 
 the cross, which we maintain cannot and ought not to 
 be repeated. This we prove, 1. Because the scripture 
 no where teaches it; which yet it would not have pass- 
 ed by, if there were such a sacrifice, since there were 
 numberless motives for propounding such a doctrine, 
 considering the importance of so great a mystery, and 
 the difficulty of believing it. 2. Because the institution 
 of the eucharist has no resemblance to a sacrifice. Christ 
 in the Supper did not stand at an altar to sacrifice him- 
 self, but consecrated bread and wine, and distributed 
 them to his disciples, commanding them to do the same 
 thing. 3. Because Christ is the only priest of the New 
 Testament, the “ priest after the order of Melchizedek,” 
 without any successor, (Heb. vii. 17.) 4. The scripture 
 mentions only one sacrifice, that of Christ, who offered 
 himself *not often," but * once," (Heb. vii. 26; ix. 25, 
 27, 28; x. 10.) 5. To a propitiatory sacrifice is re- 
 quired the shedding of biood, and the death of a vic- 
 tim, * without which there is no remission," (Heb. ix. 
 22;)but in the sacrament there is no such blood-shed- 
 ding. 6. What is perfect in all its parts, cannot and 
 ought not to be repeated; but such is the priesthood of 
 Christ, who *by one offering hath perfected for ever 
 them that are sanctified,” (Heb. x. 14.) Since Christ by 
 offering himself on the cross hath obtained for us re- 
 mission of sins, why should we seek any other sacrifice! 
 * for where. remission of these is, there is no more offer- 
 ing for sin," (Heb. x. 18.) 
 
 ‘We do not indeed deny that mention is made of an 
 “altar” in Heb. xiii. 10, but that altar is Christ; who is 
 called our altar, in reference to his cross, on which his 
 body was offered, and which answers to the altar of 
 burnt-offering (under the law); not that the cross should 
 properly be called an altar, for the altar sanctifies the 
 victim, whereas the cross by no means sanctified Christ. 
 Christ is also so called, as being in heaven, interceding 
 for us, and this corresponds with the altar of incense; 
 he is an altar also at the holy supper, or in reference to 
 
ABOUT THE LORD'S SUPPER. 433 
 
 his own table, because he is there presented for our 
 nourishment, as was the flesh of the victims formerly 
 sacrificed on the altar. We also admit that the fathers 
 use the words sacrifice and oblation, in reference to the 
 sacrament. But this was done to meet the objections 
 of the Jews and heathens, and to show that the church 
 of Christ was not destitute of sacrifice; because the sac- 
 rament is a commemoration of the sacrifice of Christ ; 
 because of the prayers and hymns which were offered 
 and sung at this holy rite, and which do come under the 
 denomination of sacrifice; and because it was composd 
 of gifts and oblations of bread and wine, both for the 
 celebration of the sacred feast, and for the relief of the 
 poor. 
 
 It only remains for us to add a word or two concern- 
 ing the adoration of the eucharist. It is indeed allowed 
 that reverence is due to the bread and wine; both on ac- 
 count of the majesty of him who appointed their use, and 
 the excellency of the blessings which they seal, and the 
 religious use which is made of them. But we deny that 
 the sacrament is to be worshipped, which we prove by 
 the following arguments. First, this adoration is no- 
 where enjoined; we are commanded to take the bread, 
 to drink the wine, to do all in remembrance of Christ, 
 but nowhere are we commanded to worship the sym- 
 bols. Again, we do not read of the apostles doing so; 
 on the contrary, they were sitting or reclining, when 
 Christ celebrated the supper; nor is it any where said 
 that they fell down upon their knees before the bread, 
 when Christ presented it to them. Besides, the body of 
 Christ (which is supposed to be worshipped) is not in the 
 eucharist, as we have already proved. Moreover, the 
 ancient church never maintained such an opinion. Jus- 
 tin Martyr, who gives a description of the entire cere- 
 mony, makes no mention of any adoration. Ireneus, 
 Clement of Alexandria, Tertullian, Cyprian, Origen, are 
 silent concerning it. There is nothing of the kind in the 
 liturgies, which came forth under the names of Peter, 
 James, and Mark, nor in that which is extant in the 
 book of Apostolical Constitutions, nor in the writings of 
 the Pseudo-Dionysius the Areopagite, who expressly 
 treats of the celebration of the eucharist. It is further 
 proved, from the circumstance of the fathers generally 
 calling the sacrament, even in the very act of commu- 
 nion, by the names bread and wine, bread, the fruit of 
 the vine, the fruit of the harvest, which they would not 
 
 v 
 7 
 
434 DISPUTES ABOUT THE LORD'S SUPPER. 7 
 
 have done, had they wished to teach the doctri its 
 adoration. Also from their sending sacred ols 
 to the absent without any ceremony; also its being 
 allowed among the ancients, to anoint the b ] 
 sick with the elements, to use the sacred wine for writ- 
 ing, in the place of ink, to bury the sacred portions (of 
 bread) with the bodies of the faithful, and after the com- 
 munion was over, to burn, or to throw down a well, 
 whatever was left. Also from the silence of the heathens 
 and Jews on this subject; who without doubt would 
 have taxed the Christians with this adoration, as the 
 Mahometans, Jews, and philosophers, actually did after 
 the eleventh century. And the fathers not only un 
 those who worship things that require human aid, anc 
 need the protection of walls, bolts, and bars, but : 
 maintain it to be the height of insanity to worship that 
 which is eaten; as Theodoret, and others, which Aver- 
 roes himself acknowledged, who said, as Cardinal Per- 
 ronius relates, *that he found no sect more silly or worse 
 than the Christian sect, (i. e. the Roman Catholic.) the 
 followers of which tear and devour with their teeth the 
 god that they worship. Finally, we prove that the 
 eucharist is not to be worshipped, because, even if the 
 body of Christ were really present, it would not follow 
 that it ought to be worshipped, since the deity of Christ 
 alone is the object of adoration. Now that this deity 
 should not be adored in the sacrament, is plain from 
 this, that it would otherwise follow that it was to be 
 adored in baptism, where Christ is equally present, as in 
 the supper. But it is certain that we are not obliged to 
 worship God, at least with an external worship, in what- 
 ever place he is present, but only where he is present 
 with the rays of his glorious majesty, and where he is 
 pleased to be worshipped; otherwise he would have to 
 be worshipped in trees and animals. He is to be wor- 
 shipped as being in heaven, where he reveals his glory. 
 as he was formerly worshipped at the ark in the taber- 
 nacle, because he there revealed himself. Christ, there- 
 fore, is to be adored, not the sacrament of the eucharist. 
 To this adorable Saviour, with the Father, and the Holy 
 Spirit, be praise and glory for ever and ever. Amen. 
 
 THE END. 
 
 Btereotyped by S. DOUGLAS WYETH, No. 7 Pear St. Philadelphia. 
 
 Printed by W. S. MARTIEN. 
 
ion 
 
 A 
 
 Div.S. 230 P611C 
 Pictet 
 
 Christian Theology 
 
 ISSUED TO 
 
c6v86867008 
 
 ALL 
 
 S'r 3340 
 
 [