A Body of Divinity, Vol. 2 (of 4) Wherein the doctrines of the Christian religion are explained and defended, being the substance of several lectures on the Assembly's Larger Catechism (part 3 of 4)

A Body of Divinity, Vol. 2 (of 4) Wherein the doctrines of the Christian religion are explained and defended, being the substance of several lectures on the Assembly's Larger Catechism (part 3 of 4)

Moreover, when Christ appeared to the apostle Paul, at his first conversion in the glory of his human nature, he fell to the earth, trembling and astonished, Acts ix. 6. as not being able to converse with him; and afterwards, when the same apostle was caught up into the third heaven, and had a view of the glory thereof, this was greater than his frail nature could bear, and therefore he says, that whether he was in the body, or out of the body, he could not tell, 2 Cor. xii. 2. And John, the beloved disciple, who conversed familiarly with him, when in his humbled state, and leaned on his breast at supper, John xxi. 20. when he appeared to him, after his ascension, in a glorious emblematical way, says, When I saw him, I fell at his feet, as dead, Rev. i. 17. compared with the foregoing verses, and the apostle Paul says, Though we have known Christ after the flesh, yet now henceforth know we him so no more, 2 Cor. v. 16. that is, whilst we are in this world, inasmuch as we are incapable of conversing with him in his glorified human nature. This is also agreeable to what the apostle says, that flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God, 1 Cor. xv. 50. that is, man, in this present state, cannot enjoy those privileges which are reserved for him in heaven, which include in them a conversing with Christ, in his human nature, as well as with others, that are inhabitants of heaven.

3dly, If we suppose that Christ will reign personally on earth, it must be farther enquired; whether they that reign with him, during this period of time, shall die, or no? If not, that seems contrary to the fixed laws of nature, and this present state, as mortal, being opposed to a state of immortality and eternal life; but if they shall die, then they must necessarily lose one great advantage, which they now enjoy, in dying, namely, being with Christ, Phil. i. 23. for when they die, in some respect, they must be said to depart from Christ, and, whatever advantage the presence of the human nature of Christ is of to the inhabitants of heaven, that they must be supposed to be deprived of, whilst he is reigning on earth. These, and other things to the same purpose, are consequences of Christ’s personal reign, in his human nature, on earth; for which reason we cannot acquiesce in their opinion, who maintain it.

Secondly, There is another thing, that we cannot approve of, in the fore-mentioned scheme, relating to Christ’s thousand years’ reign on earth, when they assert several things concerning the conversion of the Jews, which seem contrary to the analogy of faith. We have before taken it for granted that the Jews shall be converted, when this glorious reign begins, or immediately before it: but there are several things they add to this, which, we think, they have no ground, from scripture, to do; we shall mention two.

(1.) That after the Jews are converted, they shall continue a distinct body of people, governed by their own laws, as they were before Christ’s incarnation. But we rather conclude, that they shall be joined to, and become one body with the Christian church, all marks of distinction being laid aside, and shall be grafted into the same olive-tree, Rom. xi. 24. that is, into Christ; and certainly the middle wall of partition, which was taken away by Christ, shall never be set up again. This seems to be intended by our Saviour’s words, There shall be one fold, and one shepherd, John x. 16.

(2.) Besides this, there are several other things, which they assert, concerning the Jews rebuilding the temple, at Jerusalem, and that being the principal seat of Christ’s reign, where the saints shall reside and reign with him. As for the temple, that was only designed as a place of worship, during the dispensation before Christ’s incarnation, and was, in some respects, a type of his dwelling among us in our nature; and as for the temple service, as it is now abolished, it shall continue to be so, till the end of the world; and then, what occasion is there for a temple to be built?

And as for Jerusalem’s being rebuilt, or the land of Judea’s being the principal seat of Christ’s kingdom on earth, we humbly conceive it to be an ungrounded supposition, or a mistake of the sense of some scriptures in the Old Testament, which were literally fulfilled in the building of Jerusalem, after the Babylonish captivity, and have no reference to any thing now to come. And as for the land of Canaan, though it had a glory put on it some ages before our Saviour’s incarnation, as being the scene of many wonderful dispensations of providence, in favour of that people, while they remained distinct from all other nations in the world; yet we cannot conclude that it shall be a distinct place of residence for them, when, being converted, they are joined to the Christian church: and therefore the land of Canaan will be no more accounted of, than any other part of the world; and, considering also the smallness of the place, we cannot think it sufficient to contain the great number of those, who, together with the Jews, shall be the happy subjects of Christ’s kingdom.

Thirdly, There is another thing, in which we cannot agree with some who treat of Christ’s reign on earth, namely, when they suppose that the saints, who are to reign with him, are to be in a sinless state, little short of the heavenly. It is true, herein they are much divided in their sentiments: but some assert, that they shall be free from all the remainders of corruption; and, indeed, their argument leads them to it, if we consider the saints as being raised from the dead, and their souls brought back from heaven, into which, when they first entered, they were perfectly freed from sin. From hence it will necessarily follow, that there will be no room for the mortification of sin, striving against it, or resisting those temptations, which we are now liable to from it: this we cannot conclude to be a privilege that any have ground to expect, while in this world; and, indeed, those graces, whereby we subdue our corruptions, or strive against temptations, are peculiarly adapted to this present state in opposition to the heavenly.

Moreover, when they say, as some do, that this reign shall be such, as that the saints shall be free from all manner of trouble, internal or external, personal or relative, at least, so long as Satan is bound, that is, to the end of these thousand years; this seems to be more than what Christ has given his people ground to expect, who tells them, that, in the world, ye shall have, at least some degree of tribulation, John xvi. 33. and that they must wait for a perfect freedom from it till they come to heaven.

Fourthly, We cannot think, as some do, (as has been before observed), that, during this thousand years’ reign, the preaching of the word, and the administration of the sacraments, shall cease, and all other laws and ordinances, which Christ has ordained for the gathering and building up of particular churches, for the bringing in his elect, for the propagating his name and interest in the world by these methods, shall all be discontinued, as there will be no occasion for them. This is what we think altogether ungrounded; for we cannot but suppose, that as soon as the whole number of the election of grace are brought in, and thereby the end and design of the preaching the gospel is answered; or when Christ can say, Here am I, and all that thou hast given me, he will present them to the Father, and so receive his militant church into a triumphant state in heaven. And, indeed, it seems a very weak foundation, on which this part of their scheme depends, when they say, that those texts which speak of Christ’s being with his ministers to the end of the world, Matt. xxviii. 20. and elsewhere, that, in the Lord’s supper, his death is to be commemorated till he come, 1 Cor. xi. 26. relate to the coming of Christ in the Millennium, which seems a very much strained and forced sense thereof. And as for that other scripture, wherein it is said, that the New Jerusalem had no temple, and that it had no need of the sun, nor the moon, for the glory of the Lord did lighten it, and the Lamb was the light thereof, Rev. xxi. 23. this must not he brought to prove that the ordinances of divine worship, shall cease during this thousand years’ reign, unless they can first make it appear that the New Jerusalem has reference thereunto; whereas some think that the Holy Ghost is here describing the heavenly state, which agrees very well with its connexion with what is mentioned in the foregoing chapter; and if this be the sense thereof, the glory which the church shall then arrive to, is such as shall be after the final judgment, and consequently it is a description of the glorious state of Christ’s kingdom in heaven, rather than here on earth.

Thus having considered what we think to be the general design of those scriptures, which speak of Christ’s reigning in or over the earth, and of the happy state of the church at that time; and, on the other hand, endeavoured to prove, that several additional circumstances, which, some suppose, will attend it, are not sufficiently founded on scripture, and, in some respects, seem inconsistent with the spirituality of Christ’s kingdom, and, with the ground we have to expect, that the present mode of administration, and the laws and ordinances thereof, shall continue as long as the world endures: we shall now consider the sense they give of some scriptures, on which the main stress of their argument depends, together with the inconclusiveness of their way of reasoning from them, and also in what sense we apprehend those scriptures are to be understood.

1. As to what concerns the first resurrection, which they found on that scripture in Rev. xx. 6. Blessed and holy is he that hath a part in the first resurrection, on such the second death shall have no power, but they shall be priests of God, and of Christ, and shall reign with him a thousand years: a learned and judicious writer[201] supposes, that the first resurrection shall be only of the martyrs, and that it is to be taken in a literal sense, and that this shall open the scene of Christ’s thousand years’ reign, and that the second resurrection shall be at the close thereof, in which the whole world shall be raised from the dead, and then follows the final judgment: but he differs from many of the ancient and modern Chiliasts, in that he says, he dares not so much as imagine that Christ shall visibly converse with men on earth; for his kingdom ever hath been, and shall be, a kingdom, which is of such a nature, that his throne and kingly residence is in heaven; and though the deceased martyrs shall re-assume their bodies, and reign, yet it shall be in heaven; whereas the saints, who shall be then living, and have not worshipped the beast, nor his image, nor received his mark, these shall reign on earth; for he supposes, that scripture, that relates to this matter, to contain a vision of two distinct things, namely, one respecting those that were beheaded for the witness of Jesus, and these lived and reigned with Christ, but not on earth; the other respecting those, who, though they had not suffered, had not worshipped the beast nor his image. These also reigned during this thousand years, not in heaven, but on earth. These are considered, as in their way to heaven; the other, as received into the heavenly country, as a peculiar prerogative conferred upon them, as the reward of their martyrdom; and this first resurrection he supposes to be against no article of faith, but may be as well defended, in the literal sense thereof, as the resurrection we read of in Matt. xxvii. 52, 53. in which it is said, that the graves were opened, and many bodies of the saints, which slept, arose, and came out of their graves, after Christ’s resurrection; and, with a becoming modesty, he cites Augustin’s words to this purpose,[202] that if nothing more were intended hereby, but that the delights of this kingdom were spiritual, the opinion would be tolerable, and that that father was once of that judgment. Thus he says as much as can be said in defence of this opinion; and nothing is wanting to support his argument, but sufficient evidence, that the text must necessarily be taken in a literal sense.

But when others proceed much farther, and conclude that Christ shall appear visibly on earth, and that the design of the first resurrection is, that they, who shall be raised from the dead, should live here on earth; this we see far less reason to conclude to be the sense of those words, and accordingly shall take leave to consider what may be said in opposition to it.

Therefore, if they shall be raised, their bodies must either be corruptible and mortal, or incorruptible and immortal; to suppose that they shall be raised corruptible and mortal, and consequently liable to the other infirmities of life, is to suppose their resurrection to be of the same kind with that of Lazarus, and others that were raised by our Saviour: but this is so disagreeable to the character of saints, raised from the dead to reign with Christ, that it is not generally asserted by those who treat on this subject. Therefore they must be raised incorruptible and immortal; and, if so, it will follow from hence, that this world will not be a place fit for their abode; for they shall be raised with celestial bodies, and so fitted to inhabit the heavenly mansions; neither will those accommodations, which this earth affords, the food it produces, or those other conveniences which we enjoy therein, by the blessing of providence, be agreeable to persons who are raised up in a state of perfection, as they must be supposed to be, or, as the apostle styles it, raised in glory. And, since they are appointed to live and converse with men in this lower world, I cannot see how there can be any conversation between them and others, who continue to live in this world, not, like them raised from the dead, but retaining their present mortal frame. If their vile bodies, as the apostle speaks concerning the bodies of the saints, when raised from the dead, shall be fashioned like unto Christ’s glorious body, Phil. iii. 12. how can weak frail creatures intimately converse with them? And if it be said, that they shall not be raised with such a glory, but that this shall be deferred till they are translated to heaven, as was true with respect to our Saviour’s human nature, after his resurrection; though this be possible, yet it seems not agreeable to the account we have of the circumstances of glory, with which the saints shall be raised from the dead.

But that which seems to make this opinion more improbable, is, that it is inconsistent with that state of blessedness, into which they have been once admitted, namely, in their souls, wherein they have been in the immediate vision and fruition of God; as travellers arrived to their journey’s end, and wanting nothing to complete their blessedness but their resurrection; and, now they are supposed to be raised from the dead; yet their blessedness is diminished, by their being appointed to live in this lower world, and, as we may say to leave that better country, in which they have been, to re-assume the character and condition of pilgrims and sojourners upon earth.

To this it will be objected, that we may as reasonably suppose, that these saints shall be raised in circumstances, fit to converse with the rest of the world, as any that have been raised from the dead have formerly been. I cannot deny but that this is possible; but yet it does not seem probable, inasmuch as they shall not be raised from the dead for the same end and design that others have been, that the power of God might be illustrated, or some contested truth confirmed by this miracle; but that some special honour, or privilege, might be conferred on them, as the reward of their former sufferings: but this is disagreeable to their being raised in such a state, as that their happiness is thereby diminished.

Moreover, what valuable end is answered by this their change of condition, which might in some measure tend to justify the assertion? Must they live here, that they might perform an extraordinary ministry, to promote the edification of their mortal brethren, whom they found living upon earth? This was not absolutely necessary, for God has appointed other ways for the edification of his church; and, if he did not think fit, before, to send down ministers, to preach the gospel, from heaven, to them, but ordained the common method of preaching it by others, less qualified for this work, who are subject to like infirmities with those to whom they preach, why should we suppose such an alteration in the method of divine providence on this particular occasion?

And if we suppose that they shall continue on earth till Christ’s appearing to judgment, then it must be argued, that they were sent here not only to be helpers of the faith of others, who live therein, but to be exposed, in common with them, to a second warfare upon earth; not, indeed, with flesh and blood, but with those who are represented in the same chapter, in which the first resurrection, and thousand years’ reign, are mentioned, as compassing the camp of the saints about, and the beloved city; and therefore they are called back from a triumphant to a militant state.

If it be said, that they shall be admitted into heaven before this battle begins, that can hardly be supposed; for if God send them to be companions with his mortal saints, in their prosperous state, will he call them away when the time of their greatest danger approaches, in which their presence might be of the greatest service to their brethren, who are left to struggle with these difficulties? Therefore, upon the whole, we cannot suppose that any shall, in a literal sense, be raised from the dead, till this glorious, though spiritual reign of Christ shall be at an end, and the day of judgment draws nigh, which is agreeable to the general scope of all those scriptures, which speak of the resurrection and final judgment.

Object. But to this it will be objected, that the scripture elsewhere intimates, that there shall be two resurrections; for the apostle says, in 1 Thes. iv. 16. that the dead in Christ shall rise first; therefore why may not this resurrection be understood in the same sense with that mentioned in Rev. xx. which has been before considered?

Answ. We do not deny but that this resurrection, which the apostle speaks of, must be taken in a literal sense; but let it be observed, that he does not here mention any thing of the thousand years’ reign, but of the day of judgment, when Christ shall descend from heaven with a shout, and with the voice of the arch-angel, with which the glory of that day shall begin, and then the dead shall be raised, in which the saints and faithful shall have the pre-eminence; they shall rise first, that is, before others, mentioned in the following verse, that are alive, who shall be caught up with them in the clouds. And this shall also be done, before the wicked shall be raised, to the end that, when Christ appears, they, as it is said elsewhere, may appear with him in glory; and that they may bear a part in the solemnity of that day, and be happy in his presence; when others are raised to shame and everlasting contempt, and filled with the utmost confusion and distress.

Moreover, this first resurrection of those that died in Christ, is not particularly applied to them that suffered martyrdom for him, much less is there any account of its being a thousand years before the general resurrection; therefore it may very well be understood of a resurrection a very short time before it, and consequently gives no countenance to the opinion, which has been before considered, concerning this resurrection, as going before the reign of Christ on earth.

2. There is another scripture brought in defence of another part of their scheme, taken from the apostle’s words, in Rom. viii. 21-23. where he speaks of the creatures’ present bondage, and future deliverance, and their waiting for the adoption, to wit, the redemption of their bodies, which, they suppose, will have its accomplishment, when this reign of Christ begins: but I cannot think that the apostle, in that scripture, intends any thing else, but that the whole creation is liable at present, to the curse, consequent upon man’s fall; and that the deliverance he speaks of, shall be at the general resurrection, when the saints shall be raised immortal and incorruptible, which is what they now wait and hope for.

Thus we have considered the sense that is given of some scriptures, by those who understand the reign of Christ on earth, as attended with various circumstances, which we cannot readily allow of; and shewed, that some of those texts, which are usually brought to support that particular scheme, have reference to the return of the Jews from captivity,[203] and others, that predict their building of Jerusalem, and the temple there, Jer. xxix. 5. Isa. xliv. 28. and the setting up their civil and religious policy, had their accomplishment after their return from the Babylonish captivity; and that those, which seem to look farther, and respect some privileges which they shall enjoy in the last days, will be fulfilled, when they are converted to Christianity, and partakers of many spiritual privileges, in common with the gospel-church; therefore I need only mention two scriptures more, which we understand in a sense very different from what some do, who treat of Christ’s reign on earth. As,

1st, That in which we have an account of the general conflagration, which, as was before observed, some few, who give too great scope to their wit and fancy, beyond all the bounds of modesty, and without considering those absurdities that will follow from it, have maintained that it shall be immediately before Christ’s reign on earth begins: the scripture they bring for that purpose, is that in 2 Pet. iii. 10, 13. in which the apostle says, that the heavens shall pass away with a great noise, and the elements shall melt with fervent heat; the earth also, and the works that are therein, shall be burnt up. Nevertheless we, according to his promise, look for new heavens, and a new earth, wherein dwelleth righteousness. This scripture, it must be confessed, is hard to be understood. We are far from thinking, as some do, that it is only a metaphorical description of some remarkable providences, tending to the ruin of Christ’s enemies, and the advantage of his people; certainly the words are to be taken in a literal sense; for the apostle had been speaking, in the foregoing verses, of the old world, which, being overflown with water, perished; which is, without doubt, to be taken in a literal sense. And now he speaks, as some call it, of a second deluge, which shall be not by water, but by fire,[204] in which the heavens and the earth shall pass away, or be dissolved, that is, changed, as to the form thereof, though not annihilated. By the heavens and the earth, the learned Mede well understands that part of the frame of nature, that was subjected to the curse, or that is inhabited by Christ’s enemies, and includes in it the earth, water, and air, but not the heavenly bodies, which are not only at a vast distance from it, but it is little more than a point, if compared to them for magnitude. And he also (notwithstanding some peculiarities held by him, as before mentioned, relating to the Millennium) justly observes, that this conflagration shall not be till the end of the world, and consequently it shall be immediately before the day of judgment; and, indeed, the apostle intimates as much, when he speaks of this awful providence, as reserved to the day of judgment, and perdition of ungodly men, in ver. 7. The main difficulty to be accounted for, is, what is meant by these new heavens, and a new earth, wherein dwelleth righteousness, which are appointed as an habitation for the righteous. Concerning which, if I may be allowed to give my sense thereof, with that humility and modesty that the difficulty of the subject calls for, I cannot think that there is any absurdity, if we suppose, that, by these new heavens and new earth, the apostle means, that the form of them shall be so changed, as that they shall be an apartment of heaven, in which, together with those other parts of the frame of nature, which are designed to be the seat of the blessed, the saints shall dwell and reign with Christ for ever.

2dly, We shall now consider the sense that may be given of that scripture, in Rev. xx. and more especially what we read therein, concerning the first resurrection, in which the martyrs are said to live, when this thousand years’ reign begins, and the rest of the dead not to live, till these thousand years be finished, in ver. 4, 5. on which the stress of the whole controversy principally depends. I cannot but adhere to their opinion, who think that these words are to be taken in a metaphorical sense; and then they, who were beheaded for the witness of Jesus, viz. the martyrs, shall live when Christ’s spiritual reign begins, that is, the cause, for which they suffered martyrdom, shall be revived: this is supposed to have been in a languishing and dying condition, during the reign of Anti-christ, and towards the close thereof, to be at the lowest ebb, and, as it were, dead; I say, this shall be revived, these martyrs shall, as it were, live again, not in their own persons, but in their successors, who espouse the same cause. Before this, the enemies of Christ, and his gospel, persecuted and trampled on his cause, insulted the memory of those that had suffered for it; but afterwards, when it is said, Babylon is fallen, is fallen, then Christ’s cause revives, and that which was victorious over it dies, and shall not rise again, or be in any capacity to give disturbance to the church, till the thousand years are finished, and Satan is loosed again out of prison, to give life and spirit to it; and then we read of a new war begun, a fresh battle fought, the nations deceived, the camp of the saints compassed about; and this will continue till Christ shall come, and put an end to it at the day of judgment, when the devil shall be cast into the lake of fire and brimstone. In this sense some, not without ground, understand the account which is given of the slaying and rising of the witnesses, Rev. xi. 7, 11. as signifying that the gospel, which before had been persecuted, and the preaching thereof prohibited, shall then prevail without restraint. The witnesses’ death, denotes their being silenced; their rising and standing upon their feet, their having liberty again to preach. And therefore why may we not understand the resurrection, in the chapter we are now considering, as taken in the same sense? And this agrees very well with the sense of ver. 6. in which it is said, concerning them, who have a part in the first resurrection, that is, the saints, who live and reign with Christ, on such this second death hath no power, that is, whatever the enemies of the church may attempt against them, after this thousand years reign, shall be to no purpose; for they shall not prevail, their cause shall never die again. Or, if it be applied to their persons, the meaning is, that they shall not die eternally. Eternal death is a punishment to be inflicted on their enemies, who shall be cast into the lake of fire, which is expressly called the second death, in ver. 14. But these, as it is said, in Rev. ii. 11. shall not be hurt of it, i. e. not exposed to it; but, as they have lived with Christ, in a spiritual sense, on earth, so they shall live with him for ever in heaven.

We are, in giving this sense of the text, under a kind of necessity to recede from the literal sense thereof, because we cannot altogether reconcile that to the analogy of faith. And it will not seem strange to any, who consider the mystical or allegorical style in which this book of the Revelation is written, that this text should be understood in the same sense: However, that this sense may be farther justified, let it be considered, that it is not disagreeable to what we find in many other scriptures, that speak of the church’s deliverance from its troubles, under the metaphor of a resurrection; and of the destruction of its enemies, under the metaphor of death. Thus the Babylonish captivity, and Israel’s deliverance from it, is described, in Ezek. xxxvii. 1-12. The former by a metaphor taken from a valley full of dry bones; the latter by another taken from their being raised out of their graves, living and standing on their feet an exceeding great army. And, in Ezra ix. 9. we read of God’s extending mercy to them, who were before bond-men, and not forsaking them in their bondage, giving them an opportunity to set up the temple and worship of God; this is called, giving them a reviving; and the prophet, speaking concerning the captivity, in Lam. iii. 6. says, He has set me in dark places, as they that be dead of old; and the prophet Isaiah speaks concerning their return from captivity, as a resurrection from the dead, Thy dead men shall live, together with my dead body shall they arise; awake, and sing ye that dwell in the dust, Isa. xxvi. 19.

Many other scriptures might be cited, out of the writings of the prophets, to justify this metaphorical sense of the words, death, and resurrection and also some out of the New Testament, of which I need only refer to one, which has a particular respect to the subject under our present consideration, when the apostle says, that the receiving of them, to wit, of the church of the Jews, when converted, shall be as life from the dead, Rom. xi. 15. therefore the scripture gives countenance to its being called a resurrection.

On the other hand, we might refer to some scriptures that speak of the ruin of the church’s enemies, under the metaphor of a state of death: thus, in Isa. xxvi. 14. They are dead, they shall not live; they are deceased, they shall not rise; therefore hast thou visited and destroyed them, and made all their memory to perish; and, in chap. xiv. he describes the utter destruction of the Chaldeans, the church’s enemies, by whom they had been carried captive, in a very beautiful manner, and carries on the metaphor, taken from persons departed out of this world, in. ver. 9, 10, 11. and says, in particular, concerning the king of Babylon, Thy pomp is brought down to the grave, the noise of thy viols; the worm is spread under thee, and the worms cover thee; which signifies the political death of that empire, and the utter inability which followed upon this, of their giving disturbance to the church of God, as they had formerly done. These, and many other scriptures of the like nature, may, in some measure, justify the sense we have given of the scripture before mentioned, relating to the death and resurrection of Christ’s cause, for which his martyrs suffered, and the death of the Anti-christian cause, which ensued thereupon.

Thus concerning Christ’s reign on earth, and what may be probably supposed to be the sense of those scriptures that are brought in defence thereof. We have not entered into the particular consideration of what is said concerning the time, or the number of years, which this glorious dispensation shall continue. We read, indeed, of Christ’s reigning a thousand years, by which we are not to understand the eternal exercise of his government; for it is said not only to be on earth, but this period is also considered, as what shall have an end: which that excellent Father, whom I before mentioned, did not duly consider, when he reckoned this as a probable sense of this thousand years, and produces that scripture to justify his sense of the words, in which it is said, that God has remembered his covenant for ever, the word which he commanded to a thousand generations, Psal. cv. 8. by which we are to understand, that God will establish his covenant with his people, and make good the promises thereof throughout all the ages of eternity. This, indeed, sufficiently proves that a thousand years might be taken for eternity, agreeably to the sense of scripture; but it is plain, from the context, that it is not to be so taken here, in Rev. xx.

As for the other sense he gives of this thousand years,[205] namely, that they might be understood as containing a great but indeterminate number of years, in the latter part of the last thousand which the world shall continue, so that, by a figurative way of speaking, a part of a thousand years may be called a thousand years;[206] this I will not pretend to argue against, nor to say that those divines are in the wrong, who suppose that a thousand years is put for a great number of years, and that it does not belong to us to say how many; I say, whether we are to acquiesce in this, or in the literal sense of the words, I will not determine; only we must conclude, as we have scripture ground for it, that they shall end a little before Christ’s coming to judgment; during which short interval it is said, Satan will be loosed a little season, and make some fresh efforts against the church, till he, and those that are spirited and excited by him, to give disturbance to it, perish in the attempt, and are cast into the lake of fire and brimstone. This is all that I shall say concerning the time appointed for this glorious reign, our principal design being to speak concerning the advantages that the church shall enjoy under it.

We have endeavoured to avoid two extremes, namely, that of those who do not put a just difference between it and the heavenly state; as also another extreme, which we have not yet mentioned, which several modern writers have given into, who suppose, that this thousand years’ reign is long since past, and that the binding of Satan therein consisted only in some degrees of restraint laid on him, and that the reign itself contained in it only some advantages, comparatively small, that the church enjoyed at that time, and that the thousand years’ reign began in Constantine’s time, when the empire became Christian, about the year of our Lord 300, and that they ended about the year 1300, when the church met with some new difficulties from the eastern parts of the world, which they suppose to be intended by Gog and Magog.[207] But we cannot see sufficient reason to adhere to this opinion, because the state of the church, when Satan is said to be bound a thousand years, is represented as attended with a greater degree of spiritual glory, holiness, purity of doctrine, and many other blessings attending the preaching the gospel, than we are given to understand by any history that it has yet enjoyed.

As to what concerns the general method, in which we have insisted on this subject, I hope we have not maintained any thing that is derogatory to the glory of Christ’s kingdom, nor what has a tendency to detract from the real advantage of the saints. Do they, on the other side of the question, speak of his reigning? so do we. They, indeed, consider him as reigning in his human nature, and conversing therein with his saints; which opinion we cannot give into, for reasons before mentioned: but it is not inconsistent with the glory of Christ to assert, as we have done, that he shall reign spiritually; and the consequence hereof shall be, not the external pomp and grandeur of his subjects, but their being adorned with purity and universal holiness, and enjoying as much peace, as they have reason to expect in any condition short of heaven. Moreover, we have not advanced any thing that has a tendency to detract from the spiritual blessings and advantages of Christ’s kingdom, which the saints shall enjoy in this happy period of time. If, notwithstanding all this, it be said, that there are some advantages which the contrary scheme of doctrine supposes that the saints shall enjoy on earth, beyond what we think they have ground to expect from scripture; nevertheless, their not enjoying them here will be fully compensated with a greater degree of glory, which they shall have when they reign with Christ in heaven; which leads us to consider,

The eternity of Christ’s mediatorial kingdom; concerning which it is said, He shall reign over the house of Jacob for ever, and of his kingdom there shall be no end, Luke i. 33. As he is described, by the apostle, as a Priest for ever, Heb. v. 6. and as ever living to make intercession for those that come unto God by him, chap. vii. 25. so he shall exercise his kingly office for ever; not according to the present method of the administration thereof, but in a way adapted to that glorified state, in which his subjects shall be, in another world.

There is, indeed, a scripture that seems to assert the contrary, which the Socinians give a very perverse sense of, as though it were inconsistent with his proper deity; and accordingly they suppose, that, as he was constituted a divine Person, or had the honour of a God, or king, conferred on him, when he ascended into heaven, as the reward of the faithful discharge of his ministry on earth; so this was designed to continue no longer than to the end of the world, when he is to be set on a level with other inhabitants of heaven, and be subject to the Father, when God shall be all in all. This they suppose to be the meaning of the Apostle’s words, in 1 Cor. xv. 24, 25, 28. Then cometh the end, when he shall have delivered up the kingdom to God, even the Father; when he shall have put down all rule, and all authority and power, for he must reign till he hath put all enemies under his feet; and when all things shall be subdued unto him, then shall the Son also himself be subject unto him, that put all things under him, that God may be all in all. It must be acknowledged, that this is one of those things, in Paul’s epistles, that are hard to be understood; but I humbly conceive that we may give a sense of it, very remote from that but now mentioned, which is subversive of his Godhead, and of the eternity of his kingdom. Therefore, for the understanding thereof, let it be considered,

(1.) That when the apostle speaks of the end coming when he shall deliver up the kingdom to the Father; by the kingdom we may, without the least strain on the sense of the text, understand his material kingdom, or the subjects of his kingdom, which is very agreeable to that sense of the word, both in scripture and in common modes of speaking; as when we call the inhabitants of a city, the city; so we call the subjects of a kingdom, the kingdom: taking the words in this sense, we must suppose, that the subjects of Christ’s kingdom are his trust and charge, and that he is to deliver them up to the Father at last, as persons whom he has governed in such a way, as that the great ends of his exercising his kingly office, have been fully answered, as to what concerns his government in this lower world. This is no improbable sense of Christ’s delivering up the kingdom to the Father.

But it may also be taken in another sense, to wit, for the form of Christ’s kingdom, or the present mode of government, exercised towards those who are in an imperfect state: this shall be delivered up, that is, he shall cease to govern his people in such a way as he now does; but it doth not follow, from hence, that he shall not continue to govern them, in a way adapted to the heavenly state.

And when it is said, that he shall put down all rule and all authority and power, the meaning is, that all civil and ecclesiastical government, as it is now exercised in the world, or the church, shall be put down, as useless, or disagreeable to the heavenly state, but it does not follow, from hence, that he shall lay aside his own authority and power.

(2.) When it is said, in ver. 25. that he must reign till he hath put all enemies under his feet, it does not imply that he shall not reign afterwards, but that he shall not cease to reign till then, which is the sense of that parallel scripture, in which it is said, Sit thou at my right-hand, until I make thine enemies thy footstool, Psal. cx. 1. which does not denote that he shall, after his enemies are made his footstool, sit no longer at God’s right hand, as advanced there to the highest honour. It is very evident, from several scriptures, as well as our common mode of speaking, that the word Until does not always signify the cessation of what is said to be done before, but only the continuance thereof till that time, as well as afterwards: thus it is said, Our eyes wait upon the Lord our God, until that he have mercy upon us, Psal. cxxiii. 2. by which we are not to understand, that, when God extends mercy, the eyes of his people cease to wait upon him, but we will not leave off waiting upon him, until we have received the mercies we hope for; and, after that, we will continue to wait for those mercies that we shall farther stand in need of; and elsewhere Job says, Until I die, I will not remove mine integrity from me; mine heart shall not reproach me, as long as I live, Job xxvii. 5-7. This does not imply that he would retain his integrity no longer than he lived. If the word Until be frequently used in this sense, then there is no ground to suppose, that when it is said Christ shall reign until he has put all his enemies under his feet, that it denotes that he shall not reign to eternity, nor any longer than till all things be subdued unto him: but, indeed, it rather argues, that he shall reign for ever, than that he shall cease to reign; for when all enemies are removed out of the way, and his right to govern is no longer contested by them, shall he then cease to exercise that sovereign dominion which he has over all things?

(3.) Since the main difficulty, and the greatest stress of the argument brought against the eternity of Christ’s kingdom, is what the apostle farther adds, in ver. 28. of this chapter, that when all things shall be subdued unto him, then shall the Son also himself be subject unto him, that God may be all in all. It is said, indeed, that the Son shall be subject to the Father, viz. as man; but can any one suppose that the Son is not now subject to the Father? And when it is farther added, God shall be all in all, is it to be supposed that he is not now so? If this be far from being the true meaning of these words, then the sense they give thereof is not just, but we are to understand them thus, that in the end, when all the ends of Christ’s administering his mediatorial government in this lower world are answered, and the present form or method of administration shall cease, then it shall appear, that the whole plan thereof had the most direct tendency to promote the Father’s glory, or to answer those most valuable ends for which this mediatorial kingdom was erected; and, by this means, it will more eminently appear, than ever it has done before, that this work is from God, and worthy of him. If the Son’s kingdom had not been subjected, or subservient to the Father’s glory, the subjects thereof would not have been delivered up, or presented to the Father, as the Mediator’s trust and charge committed to him; and, if God had not been all in all, or the administration of Christ’s kingdom had not been the effect of divine power, in all the branches thereof, it would not have had so glorious and successful an issue, as it will appear to have in the great day. This I take to be the plain sense of this scripture, which cannot reasonably be denied, if we consider that it is very agreeable to our common mode of speaking, to say, that a thing is, when it appears to be what it is, which may be thus illustrated: Suppose a king has gained a victory over his enemies, or quelled some civil broils, or tumults, in his kingdom, he may say, upon that occasion, Now I am king; that is, I appear to be so, or my establishment in the kingdom seems less precarious. We have an instance of the like mode of speaking in scripture, when David says upon the occasion of bringing the affairs of his kingdom to a settled state, after Absalom’s rebellion, Do I not know that I am this day king over Israel? 2 Sam. xix. 22. that is, I appear to be so, since that, which tended to unhinge, or give disturbance to my government, is removed out of the way.

Moreover, that things are said to be, when they appear to be, is agreeable to that mode of speaking used by the Israelites, when, upon their receiving the fullest conviction that the Lord was God, pursuant to Elijah’s prayer, by an extraordinary display of his glory, in working a miracle to confute their idolatry, they fell on their faces, and said, The Lord he is God; that is, he now appears to be so, by those extraordinary effects of his power, which we have beheld. If therefore this be no uncommon mode of speaking, why may we not apply it to that text which we are now endeavouring to explain? and so conclude, that the sense but now given of the Son’s being subject to the Father, and God’s being all in all, contains in it nothing absurd, or contrary to the scripture way of speaking, and consequently the eternity of Christ’s kingdom is not overthrown thereby; and therefore we must conclude, that as his kingly government is now exercised in a way agreeable to the present condition of his church, so it shall be exercised in a glorious manner, suited to the heavenly state, when all his saints and subjects shall be brought there.

Thus we have considered Christ, as executing his offices of Prophet, Priest, and King; we now proceed to speak concerning the twofold state in which they have been, are, or shall be executed by him; and first concerning his state of humiliation.

Footnote 191:

See Quest. LXII, LXIII.

Footnote 192:

See Quest. LXXVIII.

Footnote 193:

See Page 257.

Footnote 194:

Vid. Burnet. Tellur. Theor. Lib. iv.

Footnote 195:

Justin Martyr seems to speak of it not only as his own opinion, but as that which was generally held by the orthodox in his day, joins the belief hereof with that of the resurrection of the dead, and supposes it to be founded on the writings of some of the prophets. Vid. Justin Martyr Dialog. cum. Tryph. Jud. page 307. Εγω δε, και ει τινες εισιν ορθογνουμονες κατα παντα Χρισιανοι, και σαρκος ανας ασιν γενησεθαι επισαμεθα, και χιλια ελη εν Ιερουσαλημ οικοδομηθειση και κοσμηθειση και πλατυνθειση, οι προθηται Ιεζεχιηλ, και Ησαιας, και οι αλλοι ομολογουσιν. And Irenæus [Vid. advers. Hær. Lib. V. cap. 33.] not only gives into this opinion, but intimates, that it was brought into the church before his time, by one Papias, cotemporary with Polycarp, and that he recieved it from those who had it imparted to them by the apostle John: But Eusebius, [Vid. Euseb. Hist. Eccles. Lib. III. cap. 33.] though he speaks concerning this Papias, as one who was intimate with Polycarp, notwithstanding represents him as a very weak man; and therefore there is little credit to be given to his account of this matter, as agreeable to the apostle’s sentiments or writings; and Irenæus himself, in the place before mentioned, cites a passage out of the same author, which, he pretends, he received from those that had it from the apostle John, concerning a certain time, in which there shall be vines, which shall produce ten thousand branches, and each of these as many smaller branches; and each of these smaller branches have ten thousand twigs, and every twig shall bear ten thousand clusters of grapes, and every cluster ten thousand grapes; which shews that the man was ready to swallow any fable he heard; and, if it was told him so, to father it upon the apostle, which discovers how little credit was to be given to what he says concerning this opinion, especially as he explains it, as transmitted to the church by the apostle John. And Tertullian is also mentioned, as giving some occasional hints, which shew that he was of this opinion. And Lactantius, who, in his Ciceronian style, describes the happy condition that the church shall be in, (without having much regard to those spiritual privileges that it shall enjoy, in which sense the predictions of the prophets, concerning it, are principally to be understood) takes his plan more especially from some things that are said concerning it, in the Sybilline oracles. Vid. Lanctant. de vita beat. Lib. VII. cap. 24. & Epitom. cap. 11.

Footnote 196:

Vid. Aug. de Civ. Dei. Lib. XX. cap. 7.

Footnote 197:

Vid. Mede Commet. min. in Apocal. cap. xix. and Dr. More, and others, who are of the same opinion as to this matter.

Footnote 198:

See Mede’s Works, Book IV. Epist. 17. Page 938-940.

Footnote 199:

As for the story that Mede relates, to give countenance to this opinion, concerning Christ’s appearing, in a glorious manner, upon the Jews demanding such an extraordinary event, (after a public disputation, held three days, between Gregentius, an Arabian Bishop, and Herbanus, a Jew, a multitude of spectators being present, both Jews and Christians) and signifying that he was the same Person that their fathers had crucified; and their being first struck blind, as Paul was, and then, like him, converted and baptized, there are several things, in this account, that seem fabulous and incredible; though it is not improbable that there was a disputation held between Gregentius and the Jews, about the truth of the Christian religion, about the year of our Lord 470; or, as others suppose, 570: yet it is much to be questioned, whether the account we have of it be not spurious, written, by one who calls himself by that name, in Greek, about three or four hundred years since; and especially, because so extraordinary a miracle, wrought in an age when miracles had, for so considerable a time, ceased, is not taken notice of by other writers, of more reputation in the age in which it is said to be wrought, especially since it would have been one of the most extraordinary proofs of the Christian religion that have been given since our Saviour’s time. And it is very strange, that, as the result hereof, five millions and a half of the Jews should be converted at once, by this miracle, and yet this thing be passed over in silence by other writers; and it is very much to be questioned, whether there were such a multitude of Jews gathered together in one kingdom, and, indeed, whether that kingdom consisted of such a number of people; and, if there were so many Jews, we must suppose that there was an equal number of Christians present; but that so many should be present at one disputation, seems incredible to a very great degree. Vid. Gregen. disputat. cum Herban. fol. 192, & 200. & Cave. Hist. lit. Tom. I. page 363.

Footnote 200:

Moriar ut videam.

Footnote 201:

Vid. Mede de Resurrec. prim. Lib. III. Page 710, 749, 750.

Footnote 202:

Vid. Aug. de civ. Dei, Lib. xx. cap. 7.

Footnote 203:

See Ezek. xxxvii. 21. and Jer. xxxvii. 7-13. & alibi passim.

Footnote 204:

So Irenæus styles it, Adv. Hær. Lib. V. cap. 29. Diluvium superveniet Ignis.

Footnote 205:

Vid. Aug. de Civ. Dei. Lib. XX. cap. 7.

Footnote 206:

This is very agreeable to the scripture-mode of speaking; nothing is more common than for the cardinal number to be put for the ordinal; and so the meaning is, that this reign shall continue to the thousandth year, or till the last 1000 years of the world shall have an end, what part soever of his 1000 years it began in. Thus God tells Abraham, in Gen. xv. 13. that his seed shall be a stranger in a land that is not theirs, to wit, Egypt, and shall serve them, and they shall afflict them 400 years; whereas it is certain that his seed were not above 215 years in Egypt, and they were not slaves, or afflicted there 100 years; therefore the meaning is, q. d. that they shall afflict them till 400 years are expired, from this time.

Footnote 207:

See Napier on the Revelation, prop. 33, 34. page 61, 62.

Quest. XLVI., XLVII., XLVIII.

QUEST. XLVI. What was the estate of Christ’s humiliation?

ANSW. The estate of Christ’s humiliation was that low condition, wherein he, for our sakes, emptying himself of his glory, took upon him the form of a servant, in his conception and birth, life, death, and, after his death, until his resurrection.

QUEST. XLVII. How did Christ humble himself in his conception and birth?

ANSW. Christ humbleth himself in his conception, in that, being from all eternity, the Son of God, in the bosom of the Father, he was pleased, in the fulness of time, to become the Son of man, made of a woman of low estate, and to be born of her; with divers circumstances of more than ordinary abasement.

QUEST. XLVIII. How did Christ humble himself in his life?

ANSW. Christ humbled himself in his life by subjecting himself to the law, which he perfectly fulfilled, and by conflicting with the indignities of the world, temptations of Satan, and infirmities in his flesh; whether common to the nature of man, or particularly accompanying that his low condition.

In considering Christ’s low and humble state, while he was in this world, we may observe, that this is styled his emptying himself of his glory, when he took on him the form of a servant: thus the apostle expresses it, in Phil. ii. 7. for the words,[208] which we render, he made himself of no reputation, are to be so understood. Now, since his incarnation is so expressed, we must, before we proceed any farther on this subject, enquire, how this was inconsistent with his Godhead? and, whether he might be said, in taking our nature, to empty or humble himself? and also, whether his incarnation may, properly speaking, be called a part of his humiliation?

There is a sense in which he may be said to humble himself in his divine nature; as, when we read of God’s humbling himself, to behold the things that are in heaven and in the earth, Psal. cxiii. 6. This is so far from being a dishonour to him, that it is expressive of his glory, as it argues, that there is an infinite distance between him and the creature. In this sense, the second Person of the Godhead might be said to humble himself, in assuming the human nature, and thereby, as it were, casting a veil over his glory. This is such a sense of Christ’s humiliation, as denotes infinite condescension, but no diminution, or loss of divine glory; neither can this be styled his emptying himself of glory, or humbling himself, in that sense in which the apostle expresses it, as above mentioned. It cannot be denied, but that Christ’s incarnation was the highest instance of condescension; and, if nothing more be intended than this, when persons speak of Christ’s humbling himself in his incarnation, or taking our nature into union with his divine, we are far from denying it.

But we are not now speaking of Christ’s humbling himself in a relative sense, as God, but his being in a state of humiliation, as God-man Mediator; in which sense, the act of incarnation, or taking the human nature into union with his divine Person, cannot, properly speaking, be styled a branch of his mediatorial humiliation; for that which tends to constitute the Person of the Mediator, cannot be said to belong antecedently to him as Mediator. For the understanding of which, we may observe,

1. That the Person of Christ is to be considered in two different respects, viz. as God, or as Mediator; in the former sense, he was, from eternity, a divine Person, and would have been so, if he had not been Mediator: but when we speak of his Person, as Mediator, we always consider him as God-man.[209]

2. Every mediatorial act,[210] according to the most proper and literal sense thereof, supposes the constitution of his Person, as God-man Mediator, and consequently it supposes him to be incarnate. This is evident, because what he did here on earth was performed by him, in obedience to, and as having received a commission from, the Father; which could not be performed any otherwise than in his human nature.

3. Christ could not be said to assume the human nature into union with his divine Person, as God-man, for that implies a contradiction in terms; nor could it be said, that, before this, he performed any act of obedience to the law, for that supposes the human nature to be assumed, and therefore is consequent to his incarnation.

4. For our farther understanding this matter, we may distinguish between the act of incarnation, or taking the human nature into union with his divine Person; and the state in which he was, after this. The former was an instance of divine condescension; the latter, in the most proper sense, was a branch of his mediatorial humiliation. And this leads us to consider the various instances in which Christ is said to have humbled himself, in some following answers, namely, in his birth, life, death, and after his death.

I. Christ humbled himself in his birth; and that,

1. In that he submitted to be in a state of infancy, in common with all, who come into the world. This is the most unactive state of life, in which we are under a natural incapacity of enjoying, or conversing with God, or being of any other use, than objectively, to men, inasmuch as the new-born infant is destitute, at least, of the regular exercise of thought; and is also exposed to various evils, that attend its infantile state; sensible of a great deal of pain and uneasiness, which renders it the object of compassion; and knows not what is the secret cause thereof, nor how to seek redress. This stage of life our Saviour passed through, and thereby discovered a great degree of humiliation.

We have no reason to think, with the Papists[211], that, during his infancy, he had the perfect exercise of his reasoning powers, as though he had been in a state of manhood, as supposing that the contrary would have been a dishonour to him. For, if it were in no wise unbecoming the divine nature to continue its union with his body, when separate from his soul, and therefore in a state of the greatest inactivity, it could be no dishonour for it to be united to his human nature, though we suppose it to have been, during his infancy, in that state, in which other infants are, as having the powers and faculties of the soul not deduced into act, as they afterwards are; therefore we can reckon this no other than a groundless and unnecessary conjecture, and cannot but admire this instance of his humiliation, while he was an infant. And, indeed, since he came to redeem infants, as well as others, it was becoming the wisdom and goodness of God, that he should be like them, in most other respects, except in their being born guilty of Adam’s sin. If his passing through the other ages of life was designed for our advantage, as he was therein like unto us, and as the apostle says, able to sympathize with us, in the various miseries that attend them; so this affords the like argument for that peculiar compassion, which he has for infants, under those evils that they are liable to.

What we have here asserted, against those who think it a dishonour to him, to suppose, that he was liable to any imperfection, as to knowledge, during his infancy, is not to be reckoned a groundless conjecture, without sufficient reason to support it; since it is expressly said, in scripture, in Luke ii. 52. that he increased in wisdom as well as stature; therefore we suppose, that Christ’s humiliation began in those natural infirmities, which he was liable to, that are inseparable from a state of infancy.

2. Another branch of Christ’s humiliation, respecting his birth, was, that he should be born of a woman of very low degree in the world, rather than of one, whose circumstances and character therein were superior to those of all others, and called for an equal degree of respect from them. The blessed virgin was, indeed in a spiritual sense, honoured and respected above all women, as the salutation given her, by the angel, imports, Hail thou that art highly favoured, the Lord is with thee; Blessed art thou among women, Luke i. 28. notwithstanding, it is plain she was far from being honourable in the opinion of the world. It is true, she was, of the seed of David, which was a princely line: But the sceptre was now departed from it; therefore, when our Saviour is said to have the throne of his father David, chap. i. 32. given him by God, it is certain he had it not from his parents, in a political sense. It is called, indeed, the throne of David, as referring to that promise made to David, 2 Sam. vii. 12-16. that one should descend from him whom God would set on his throne, whose kingdom he would establish for ever. What relates to the establishment of David’s kingdom, and the eternity of it, certainly looks farther than the reign of Solomon, or the succession of kings, who were of that line; so that David’s kingdom continuing for ever, denotes the perpetuity thereof, in Christ’s being set, in a spiritual sense, on his throne, which seems to be the meaning of the angel’s words, He shall sit on the throne of his father David. He had not, indeed, a right to David’s crown by natural descent from him, for that seems contrary to what was foretold of him; for though it is said, that a rod shall come of the stem of Jesse, and a branch shall grow out of his roots; Isa. xi. 1. which plainly refers to our Saviour, as being of the seed of David; yet it is as plainly intimated, that he was not to inherit the crown of David, in a political sense, by right of natural descent from him, inasmuch as it is said, He shall grow up before him as a tender plant, and as a root out of a dry ground, chap. liii. 2.

To this we may add; that his mother’s condition in the world appears to have been very low, in that she was treated with an uncommon degree of neglect, as it is particularly remarked, Luke ii. 7. designing to set forth our Saviour’s humiliation in his birth, that she brought forth her first-born Son, and wrapt him in swaddling clothes, and laid him in a manger, because there was no room for them in the inn. No room, because his mother was poor, and therefore was treated in such a manner; better accommodations were reserved for others, who, at that time, in which there was great resort to Bethlehem, were better able to satisfy the mercenary demands of those, at whose house they lodged.

As for Joseph his reputed father, he was not one of the great men of this world, but lived by his industry, his occupation being that of a carpenter, Mat. xiii. 55. This was sometimes objected against our Saviour by his enemies, who did not consider, that the mean condition of his parents was a part of that state of humiliation, which he was to pass through, in discharging the work for which he came into the world, and plainly discovered, that he cast the utmost contempt on all the external pomp and grandeur thereof, and thought no honours worthy of his receiving, but such as were of a spiritual nature.

3. There is another circumstance of humiliation, taken from the places of our Saviour’s birth and residence. He was born in Bethlehem, a city, which though once esteemed honourable when David dwelt there: yet, at this time, it was reckoned, by the Jews, not as one of the principal cities of Judah. The prophet Micah styles it, Little among the thousands of Judah, Micah v. 2. But as for the place of his abode, Nazareth, that was despised, even to a proverb; so that the Jews reckoned, that nothing good or great could come from thence. Thus Nathaniel speaks their common sense, when he says, Can there any good thing come out of Nazareth? John i. 46. And this was afterwards improved against him, as an argument that he was no prophet; when the Jews say, not concerning this place alone, but the whole country, in which it was, to wit, Galilee, Out of it ariseth no prophet, chap. vii. 51. And this, is expressly intimated, as a design of providence, that it should be a part of his humiliation, as it is said, He dwelt in a city called Nazareth, that it might be fulfilled, which was spoken by the prophets, He shall be called a Nazarene, Matt. ii. 23. by which we are not to understand, that any of the prophets foretold this in express words, as having particular reference to the place where he lived: But the meaning is, that as the prophets, with one consent, spake of him, as being in a most low and humble state, so this was a particular instance hereof; and, in that respect, what was spoken by them, concerning his state of humiliation, in various instances, as fulfilled in this[212].

II. Christ’s state of humiliation appeared throughout his whole life, and that in several instances.

1. In his subjecting himself to the law; and accordingly he was under an obligation to yield obedience to God in every thing that was required of him, during the whole course of his life. This, indeed, was the necessary result of his incarnation; so that he no sooner became man, but he was under a law, which no creature is, or can be, exempted from. Nevertheless, it was so far founded on his own consent, as he consented to be incarnate, which was certainly an instance of infinite condescension; and his being, in pursuance thereof, actually made under the law, was a branch of his mediatorial humiliation.

1st, He was made under the law, that is, he was obliged to obey the precepts thereof; and that not only of the moral law, which, as to some of its precepts, the best of creatures are under a natural obligation to yield obedience to; but, besides this, there were several positive laws, which he submitted to yield obedience to, in common with these he came to redeem, which obligation he perfectly fulfilled, as it is observed in what he says to John the Baptist, Thus it becometh us to fulfil all righteousness, Mat. iii. 15. q. d. it becometh me, in common with all mankind, to yield perfect obedience to the law; and elsewhere he speaks of himself, as coming into the world to fulfil the law, chap. v. 17. And we may observe, that it was not one single act, but a course of obedience, that he performed, during his whole life, as it is said, in this answer, he perfectly fulfilled the law, which is agreeable to that sinless perfection, which is ascribed to him in scripture.

2dly, He was made under the law, that is, he was subject to the curse thereof, that was due to us for sin; which is called, by divines, the maledictory part of it; as it is said, Christ hath redeemed us from the curse of the law, being made a curse for us, Gal. iii. 13. As he obeyed what the law enjoined, so he suffered what it threatened, as a punishment due to us for sin.

2. Our Saviour conflicted with the indignities of the world. When he was an infant, Herod sought his life; and, had not his parents been warned by God, to flee into another country, he had been slain, as well as the children that were barbarously murdered in Bethlehem, Mat. ii. 13. But he was most persecuted, and met with the greatest indignities, after he appeared publickly in the world; for before that time, till he was about thirty years of age, it might be reckoned a part of his humiliation, that he was not much known therein, and was, at least, a considerable part of that time dependent on, and subject to his parents. It is true, he did not then meet with much opposition from the Jews, while they were in expectation that he would appear as an earthly monarch, and deliver them from the Roman yoke: But when their expectation hereof was frustrated, and they saw nothing in him but what was agreeable to his state of humiliation, they were offended; and, from that time, the greatest injuries and indignities were offered to him, as will appear, if we consider,

(1.) That they did not own his glory as the Son of God, nor see and adore his deity, that was united to the human nature, when, being made flesh, he dwelt among us; and therefore it is observed, that though the world was made by him, the world knew him not, John i. 10. or, as the apostle says, concerning him, (for so the words may be rendered) Whom none of the princes of this world knew, 1 Cor. ii. 8. they knew, or owned him not to be the Lord of glory; and, as they knew him not, so they desired not to know him; therefore the prophet says, We hid, as it were our faces from him, Isa. liii. 3.

(2.) They questioned his mission, denied him to be the Christ, though this truth had been confirmed by so many incontestable miracles: This is that unbelief which the Jews are so often charged with. Thus when they come to him, and tell him, How long dost thou make us to doubt? tell us plainly, whether thou be the Christ or no? To which he replies, I told you, and ye believed not, and appeals to the works which he did in his Father’s name, John x. 24-26. which one would think were a sufficient evidence hereof: But yet they were obstinate and hardened in unbelief; and not only so, but,

(3.) They reproached him, as though he wrought miracles by the power of the devil, which was the most malicious and groundless slander that could be invented, as though Satan’s kingdom had been divided against itself, or he would empower a person to work miracles, as a means to promote the interest of God, and thereby to weaken his own, as our Saviour justly replies to that charge, Mat. xii. 24-26. And, indeed, they knew, in their own consciences, that this was a false accusation, and hereby sinned against the greatest light, and fullest conviction; which occasioned him to denounce that terrible and awful threatning against them, that this sin should never be forgiven them, neither in this world, nor in the world to come.

(4.) They reproached him as to his moral character, for no other reason, but because he conversed, in a free and friendly manner, with his people, and went about doing them good. If he, at any time, accepted of the least common instances of kindness, or conversed with sinful men, with a design to promote their spiritual advantage, they revile him for it: Thus he says, The Son of man came eating and drinking, and they say, Behold a man gluttonous, and a wine-bibber, a friend of publicans, and sinners, chap. xi. 19.

(5.) It was a matter of common discourse amongst them, that he was a deceiver of the people, though the evidence of truth shone like a sun-beam in every thing that he said and did; Thus it is said There were much murmuring among the people concerning him; for some said, He is a good man, others said, Nay; but he deceiveth the people, John vii. 12.

(6.) Sometimes they were uneasy at his presence, and desirous to be rid of him, and his ministry. Thus the Gergesenes, because they had suffered a little damage in the loss of their swine, unanimously besought him to depart out of their coasts, Matt. viii. 34. Thus they knew not their own privilege, but were weary of him, who was a public and universal blessing to the world.

(7.) Many refused to give him entertainment in their houses, or to treat him with that civility, which a common traveller expects; which occasioned him to complain, that the foxes have holes, and the birds of the air have nests; but the Son of man hath not where to lay his head, chap. viii. 20.

(8.) At some times, even before his last sufferings and crucifixion, they attempted to take away his life, and thereby expressed the greatest degree of ingratitude and hatred of him. Their attempts, indeed were to no purpose, because his hour was not yet come: Thus, when he had asserted his divine glory, they not only charged him with blasphemy, but took up stones to stone him, John viii. 59. and even his fellow-citizens, among whom he had been brought up, and to whom he had usually read and expounded the scripture, on the sabbath-days; these not only thrust him out of the city, but led him to the brow of an hill, designing to put him to death, by casting him down from it, but he passed through the midst of them, and for the present, escaped their bloody design: This was a more aggravated crime, as it was committed by those who were under peculiar obligations to him, Luke iv. 16. compared with 29, 30. Thus he endured, not only, as the apostle says, the contradiction of sinners against himself, Heb. xii. 3. but the most ungrateful and injurious treatment from those, to whom he had been so great a friend, which was a great addition to his sufferings, so that during his whole life, he might be said to have been, as the prophet styles him, A man of sorrows, and acquainted with grief, Isa. liii. 3.

3. Our Saviour conflicted with the temptations of Satan: Thus it is said, He was in all points, tempted, like as we are, yet without sin, Heb. iv. 15. or, He suffered being tempted, chap. ii. 18. though we are not to understand by his being, in all points, tempted, like as we are, that he had any temptations arising in his own soul, as we have, from the corruption of our nature; for this would have been inconsistent with his perfect holiness; and therefore what the apostle says concerning us, that every man is tempted, when he is drawn away of his own lust, and enticed, James i. 14. is, by no means applicable to him; but that he was tempted by Satan, is very evident from scripture. Some think, that Satan, was let loose upon him, and suffered to express his utmost malice against him, and to practise all those usual methods whereby he endeavours to ensnare mankind, in those remarkable seasons of his life, namely, in his first entrance on his public ministry, and immediately before his last sufferings; the former of these none deny; the latter some think we have ground to conclude from his own words, in which he says, The Prince of this world cometh, and hath nothing in me, John xiv. 30. where it seems, that by the prince of this world, he means the devil, inasmuch as he is so called elsewhere, chap. xii. 31. as well as the god of this world, 2 Cor. iv. 4. and the prince of the power of the air, Eph. ii. 2. If this be the sense of our Saviour’s words, The prince of this world cometh, it is as if he should say, I expect that, together with my other sufferings, I shall be exposed to the last and most violent efforts that Satan will make. As he assaulted me when I first entered on my public ministry, so he will do it now I am about to close my work on earth: Then he endeavoured to ensnare me with his wiles; now he will endeavour to make me uneasy with his fiery darts. This was, as it were, the hour of the powers of darkness: and we may suppose, that if they were suffered, they would attempt to discourage our Saviour, by representing to him the formidableness of the death of the cross, the insupportableness of the wrath of God due to sin, and how much it was his interest to take some method to save himself from those evils that were impending: Thus we may suppose, that our Saviour apprehends the tempter as coming: but we may observe he says, he hath nothing in me, that is, no corrupt nature, that shall make me receptive of any impressions, arising from his temptations. His fiery darts, though pointed and directed against me, shall be as darts shot against a rock, into which they cannot enter, but are immediately repelled.

But some think, that by the prince of this world, our Saviour does not mean the devil, any otherwise than as he instigated his persecutors to accuse, condemn, and crucify him; and that this is most agreeable to the words immediately foregoing, Hereafter I will not talk much with you, q. d. I have not much time to converse with you; for he who will betray me, and those that are sent to apprehend me, are ready to come; I must in a very little time, be accused and tried, and, as the consequence hereof, condemned, though they will find nothing in me worthy of death; I say, since it is questioned, whether this be not as probable a sense of this text, as that above mentioned, and therefore that this cannot be reckoned an instance of Christ’s temptation, which was more immediately from Satan, we shall pass it over, and proceed to consider that conflict, which, without doubt, he underwent with the devil, in his first entrance on his public ministry.

This we read of in Matt. iv. 1-11. and Luke iv. 1-13. And, because there is a small difference between these two evangelists, in the account they give of this matter, from whence the enemies of divine revelation take occasion to reproach it, as though it were inconsistent with itself, we shall briefly consider and vindicate it from calumny. We may observe, that Matthew says, When he had fasted forty days, the tempter came to him; whereas Luke says, He was forty days tempted of the devil; and Mark speaks to the same purpose, Mark i. 13. Matthew seems to speak of his temptations as at the end of the forty days; the other two evangelists intimate, that he was tempted more or less, all the forty days. There is no contradiction in these two accounts; Luke only adds a circumstance which Matthew omits, to wit, that Satan assaulted him with various temptations, all the time he was in the wilderness; whereas these, which are recorded by both the evangelists, were towards the end of the forty days.

Again, Matthew, speaking concerning the first of these temptations, introduces the devil, as saying to our Saviour, If thou be the Son of God command that these stones be made bread; whereas Luke speaks but of one stone; Command that this stone be made bread. This seeming contradiction may easily be reconciled, by considering, that by these stones in Matthew, may be meant one of these stones, which is a very common hebraism; as when it is said, that Jonah was gone down to the sides of the ship, Jonah i. 5. that is, one of the sides; and elsewhere it is said, that, when Christ was upon the cross, the thieves, which were crucified with him, reviled him, Matt. xxvii. 44. which hebraism Luke explains, when he says, One of the malefactors railed on him, Luke xxiii. 59. So in this temptation, Satan pointing at some large stone, tempted him to turn it into bread; and Matthew intends no more, when he says, Command that these stones, that is, one of them, be made bread.

Again, we observe another difference in the account given by Matthew, from that given by Luke, respecting the order of the temptations. Matthew speaks of Satan’s tempting him to fall down and worship him, as the third and last temptation, which, as it is more than probable, it was; but Luke, inverting the order, lays down this temptation in the second place. However, there is no contradiction between these two; for the credit of an historian is not weakened, provided he relate matters of fact, though he does not, in every circumstance, observe the order in which things were done, especially when nothing material depends upon it; so that, upon the whole, the difference between the accounts of these two evangelists, is so inconsiderable, that it is needless to say any thing farther on that head. We shall therefore proceed to consider Christ’s temptation, as we find it here recorded. And,

1. We may observe the time in which he was exposed thereunto, to wit, immediately after his baptism, when he first entered on his public ministry, having but just before received a glorious testimony, by a voice from heaven saying, This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased, Matt. iii. 17. upon which it is said, Then was he led into the wilderness, to be tempted of the devil, or, as Mark farther explains it, Immediately the spirit driveth him into the wilderness, Mark i. 12. From whence we may take occasion to infer,

(1.) That God’s children have reason to expect, in conformity to Christ their Head, that, after extraordinary manifestations of divine love, they may sometimes meet with great temptations; so that, as grace is excited by the one, it may be exercised, tried, and the truth thereof more plainly evinced by the other; and, indeed, in us, there is a particular reason for it, which was not applicable to our Saviour, namely, that after great honours conferred upon us, when God is pleased to manifest himself to us, we may be kept, as the apostle says, concerning himself on the like occasion, from being exalted above measure, 2 Cor. xii. 7.

(2.) We may, from hence, observe, how Satan shews his malice and envy at God’s people, so that when they are raised nearest to heaven, he will use his utmost endeavours to bring them down to hell; and hereby he shews his opposition to God, by attempting to rob him of that glory, which he designs to bring to himself, by these extraordinary manifestations, as well as his people, of the blessed fruits and effects thereof, whereby he thinks to counteract what God is doing for them.

(3.) As our Saviour was tempted just before his entrance on his public ministry, we learn, from hence; that when God designs that his people shall engage in any great, useful, and difficult work, they are like to meet with great temptations, which God suffers that he may put them upon being on their watch, and fortify them against many other temptations, which they may expect to meet with, in the discharge thereof. Many instances of this we have in scripture; particularly in Moses, when called to go into the land of Egypt, Exod. iv. 1, 10, 13. and the prophet Jeremiah, when sent to a people, whose faces he was afraid of, Jer. i. 6, 8. Satan suggested several unwarrantable excuses, to discourage them from undertaking the work to which they were called.

2. The next thing to be observed is, the place in which Christ was exposed to these conflicts with the tempter, namely, the wilderness. It is not our business to enquire what wilderness it was, whether one of the smaller wildernesses in the land of Judea, or the great wilderness on the other side Jordan, since the scripture is silent as to this matter; though the latter seems more probable, since there are higher mountains in it than in the other; and we read, that that wilderness, in which Christ was tempted, had in it an exceeding high mountain, from whence the devil shewed him all the kingdoms of the world, and the glory of them. There was in that wilderness mount Nebo, from the top whereof Moses took a view of the whole land of Canaan: But, passing by the consideration of the particular wilderness, in which Christ was tempted, we shall observe, that the place which providence designed for this conflict was a wilderness,

(1.) That he might fast during the time of his being there, that being a place destitute of necessary food: And this was ordered by providence, not only as a particular instance of his humiliation, but that Satan might, from hence, take occasion to suit one of his temptations to his condition, as being an hungred.

(2.) Another reason was, that being separate from all his friends and acquaintance, he might be neither helped nor hindered by them, that so Satan might have the greatest advantage he could desire against him, as solitude is a state most adapted to temptations; and consequently that his affliction herein, and the victory he should obtain, should be more remarkable: As none was with him to offer him any assistance, so none could take occasion to claim a part in his triumph over the adversary.

As to what is said, in the text, concerning his being led by the Spirit, into the wilderness to be tempted, we humbly conceive that it is the Holy Spirit who is there intended, as the words seem to import; for it would not be so proper to say, he was led by the impure spirit, the devil, to be tempted of the devil; and Luke says, that, being full of the Holy Ghost, he was led by the Spirit, that is, the Holy Ghost, with whom he was filled, into the wilderness, Luke iv. 1. Besides this, it doth not seem agreeable to the holiness of Christ, to suppose, that he went into the wilderness at the motion and instigation of the devil; for that would have been an unjustifiable action. We may lawfully go, in the way of temptation, when providence leads us there; but it is not lawful for us to go within the verge of Satan’s temptations, by his own instigation. And this seems farther probable, inasmuch as it is said, that, after the devil was departed from him, he returned in, or by the power of the Spirit, into Galilee, ver. 14. If he returned by the power of the Holy Spirit out of the wilderness, have we not equal ground to conclude that he was led by him into it at first.

But if it be said, that he did not go into the wilderness by the instigation of the devil, but was carried thither with violence by him: though this would clear our Saviour from the guilt of going by the devil’s persuasion in the way of temptation; yet we can hardly allow that God would suffer the devil to have so much power over Christ’s body, as to carry him where he pleased, by a violent motion.

If it be replied to this, that the devil might as well be said to carry him into the wilderness, as to take him up into the holy city, and set him upon a pinnacle of the temple, by a violent motion; in which sense some understand that passage in the second temptation, wherein it is said, that the devil did so, in ver. 5. what answer may be given to this, will appear from what may farther be said, when we speak of this temptation in particular.

3. We shall now consider the three temptations, mentioned in this scripture, which he was exposed to. And that,

(1.) More generally; and accordingly we may observe,

1st, That the two first of them were very subtil: so that some would hardly have discerned wherein the sin lay, had he complied with them; but that will be considered under a following head. We need only remark, at present, that herein the devil acted like a deceiver, and appeared to be, as he is elsewhere called, The old serpent. In the third temptation, he openly discovered his own vileness, and blasphemously usurped that glory which is due to God alone, when he tempted our Saviour to fall down and worship him.

2dly, In these temptations, he insinuates, that some advantage would accrue to our Saviour from his compliance therewith. This he generally does when he tempts us, wherein he makes an overture of some advantage which we shall gain by our compliance. The advantage he proposed, by the first temptation, was, that hereby he might prevent his starving with hunger. By the second, he proposed, that he might gain popular applause, by casting himself down from the temple, among the people that were walking near it, that they might admire him for his wonderful action; and, in both these temptations, he urges him to give a proof of his being the Son of God, by which means his doctrine might be more readily received. In the third temptation, indeed, the advantage is altogether carnal, and such as, had Satan considered the holiness of the Person he was speaking to, and his contempt of the kingdoms of the world, and the glory thereof, he might easily have supposed that our Saviour would have despised the overture, as well as abhorred the action.

3dly, We may observe, that in the second temptation, the devil refers to a promise contained in scripture, and so puts him upon that which carries in it the appearance of duty, namely, his depending upon the divine protection, in expectation that God would give the angels charge over him: but he quotes the scripture fallaciously, by leaving out a very material thing contained in it, He shall give his angels charge over thee, to keep thee in all thy ways, Psal. xci. 11. whereby it is implied, that none have a right to depend on the divine protection, but they who are in the way of duty, which Christ would not have been, had he complied with this temptation.

4thly, Another thing we observe is, that our Saviour not only refused to comply with the temptation, in all these three instances, but he assigned a reason of his refusal, whereby it appears that he did this with judgment; and hereby we are instructed not only to refuse to comply with Satan’s temptations, but we should be able to give a reason of our refusal. And, as we farther observe, that our Saviour answers all these temptations, by referring to scripture, which he adhered to, as a rule to direct his conduct, and therein expressed the greatest deference to it: so he teaches us to do the same, as the Psalmist says, By the word of thy lips I have kept me from the paths of the destroyer, Psal. xvii. 4. it is by the sword of the Spirit, which is the word of God, that we quench all the fiery darts of the wicked, Eph. vi. 16, 17.

(2.) We shall now proceed to consider the three temptations in particular, together with our Saviour’s answer to each of them, and that in the order in which they are related by the evangelist Matthew, in chap. iv.

First, The first temptation was, that he would prove his being the Son of God, by commanding stones to be made bread. The subtilty of this temptation consists,

1. In that it seemed not only lawful, but necessary, for Christ, on some occasions, to give a proof that he was the Son of God; and his working miracles was the way by which this was to be done. And it would not seem, to some, unlawful for him to work a miracle in turning stones into bread, since we read, among other miracles, of his multiplying the loaves and fishes to feed the multitude; therefore why may he not produce bread, in a miraculous manner, as well now, as at any other time?

2. Satan puts him upon working this miracle, from a principle of self-preservation which is a duty founded in the law of nature, to supply himself with necessary food, being an hungred; and, if it was lawful for him to produce bread to feed others, was it not lawful to do the same for his own subsistence, especially since he was in a place in which food was not to be obtained by any other means?

3. He pretends to have a great concern for our Saviour’s welfare, that so he might not perish with hunger: thus he thought to gain an advantage over him, by a pretence of friendship, as he often does in those temptations he offers to us, to promote our own welfare by unlawful means.

Let us now consider wherein the snare lay, which our Saviour was thoroughly apprized of, and in what respects he would have sinned, had he complied with this temptation. This will appear, if we consider,

(1.) That it was not lawful for him to work a miracle to gratify the devil; and that for this reason in particular, because it would have been contrary to the general end and design of his working miracles, which was only for the advantage of his people, who are the proper subjects of conviction thereby; for him to work them with any other design, would have been to prostitute a sacred ordinance, or to apply it to whom it did not belong. When the woman of Canaan came to him, beseeching him to work a miracle, in casting the devil out of her daughter; she being not a member of the Jewish church, or one of the lost sheep of the house of Israel, our Saviour tells her, It is not meet to take the children’s bread, and cast it unto dogs; and that he was not sent but unto the lost sheep of the house of Israel, Matt. xv. 24, 26. that is, he was only to work miracles for the conviction of those who were the proper subjects thereof; and, doubtless, he would not have wrought this miracle at her request, had she not been a proper subject of conviction, which she was, as an elect person, though not by nature an Israelite. Now, to apply this to our present purpose, the devil was not a subject of conviction, and therefore Christ was not obliged to prove himself the Son of God to him; for which reason he would have sinned, had he complied with this temptation.

(2.) Had it been otherwise, it doth not seem necessary, at this time, for him to prove himself to be the Son of God, since that had, but a little before, been sufficiently attested, by a voice from heaven; and therefore to work a miracle to confirm it at present, would argue a disbelief of that testimony.

(3.) For Christ to work a miracle for his own subsistence, seems disagreeable to the main design of his working miracles, which, as was before hinted, was his people’s conviction that he was the Messiah; and therefore it does not sufficiently appear that he ever provided for the necessities of himself, or his family in such a way.[213] But suppose he had at any time, subsisted himself by working a miracle, it would have argued a distrust of the providence of God to have supplied his hunger, at present, that way; as though God, who had hitherto preserved him without food, could not have continued so to do, as long as he was in the wilderness. And it would also have been contrary to one design of his being led there by the Spirit; which was, that he might humble himself by fasting, as well as conflict with Satan’s temptations. Thus concerning the first temptation that was offered by the devil.

Let us now consider Christ’s answer to it. This is contained in ver. 4. It is written, Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God. The scripture here referred to, is in Deut. viii. 3. where we have the very same words; which, as they are applied by our Saviour to repel this temptation, imply in them two things:

1st, That man hath a better life to secure, than that which is maintained by bread, to wit, the life of the soul: thus it is said, A man’s life consisteth not in the abundance of the things which he possesseth, Luke xii. 15. If we take it in this sense, it is as though he he should say, If I comply with this temptation, I should sin against my own soul; and, by using unlawful means to support my natural life, should lose that spiritual life, which consists in the divine favour; or rather the meaning is,

2dly, That it is by the word of God’s power that our lives are upheld; which power, though it be ordinarily exerted in the use of means, by applying that proper food, which God gives us; yet this power can sustain us without it, when we are called, in an extraordinary manner by him, to depend upon it, and have ground to conclude, as our Saviour now had, that our dependence should not be in vain. Hitherto he had depended upon it, for almost forty days, since he was first brought into the wilderness; and therefore he concluded, that it was his duty to exercise the same dependence, so long as he was there.

Secondly, The second temptation was that, in which Satan endeavoured to persuade him to cast himself down from a pinnacle of the temple, expecting that God would preserve him safe from danger; pretending that he would give his angels charge concerning him, and in their hands they should bear him up, lest, at any time, he should dash his foot against a stone. This was a snare laid by the subtle adversary, for his life; and herein we may observe,

1. That as, in the former temptation, he solicited him to distrust the providence of God, and our Saviour’s reply to it, contains an intimation of his firm resolution to depend upon it, for his farther preservation, though without the necessary food of life; now he tempts him, since he is resolved to depend upon the power and providence of God, to do it, in an unlawful way, which is no other than a presuming on the divine protection, without a sufficient warrant.

2. He tempts him to the sin of self-murder, which would be the consequence of his presumption; for, if providence did not preserve him, which he had not sufficient ground to conclude that it would, when engaged in an unlawful action, such as throwing himself down from the temple would have been, this certainly would have proved his death. And the tempter had something farther than this in view, namely, to put a stop to the work of our redemption, and defeat the great design of Christ’s coming into the world; for, if he had died this way, by his own hands, he would have contracted guilt, and brought a dishonour to the divine name, rather than have given satisfaction to divine justice, and finished the work he was sent into the world about.

3. In this, Satan tempts him also to a vain-glorious, and fruitless action, which was far from answering any valuable end: his throwing himself down from the top of the temple, among the people, who were gathered together in that public place of resort, might, it is true, have amused them, when seeing a person flying through the air; but it would not have been an expedient to confirm their faith, since there was no explicit appeal to this miracle for the confirmation of any contested doctrine; and therefore it would have contradicted the general design of his working miracles, and, in that respect, been unlawful. Had he been, indeed, at this time, at the bottom of the temple, disputing with the Jews about his mission, and offering to confirm it, by such a miracle as they should chuse; and, had they insisted on it, that he should go up to the top of the temple, and cast himself down amongst them, and signified that this miracle should decide the controversy, for their conviction, I don’t apprehend that it would have been unlawful for him to have done it; nor would it have been an instance of presumption for him, to expect the divine protection in so doing. But the case was otherwise circumstanced at present; the devil, who was assaulting him in the wilderness (as was before observed) was no proper subject of conviction; and none of his people were present, to desire that this miracle should be wrought, that they might believe.

Having thus considered the matter of the second temptation in general, it may not be amiss for us to enquire into the meaning of those words, in ver 5. which are generally considered, as preparatory to it: thus it is said, The devil taketh him up into the holy city, and setteth him on a pinnacle of the temple. The most common opinion of those, who give their sense of this scripture, is, that the devil had power over the body of Christ, to carry it from place to place; which they reckon not to be an improbable supposition, from the account that some give, who write on the subject of witchcraft, of persons being so carried by him in a preternatural way: but these relations have not much weight in them; and many persons of judgment question the truth thereof; but whether they be true or false, it makes nothing for this purpose, for which they are brought. We do not question, but that the devil, by divine permission, might carry persons, by a violent motion, from place to place; but whether our Saviour was carried by him from the wilderness to the top of the temple, is the question to be debated. They, who suppose this to have been really done, either think that Christ went there together with, and at the instigation of the devil, without any thing preternatural in his being conveyed there by him; or else, that the devil carried him there from the wilderness through the air; the latter of which is the most commonly received opinion: but we cannot see sufficient reason to acquiesce in either of them.

(1.) As to the former of these opinions, I cannot think it lawful for our Saviour to go from the wilderness to the temple at the instigation of the devil, for that would be to go in the way of temptation, without a divine warrant. Had the Spirit of God carried him thither, and encouraged him to throw himself down from thence, it had been his duty to have done it, as much as it was to abide in the wilderness, being led there by the Holy Spirit: But as it would have been unlawful for him to come into the wilderness to be tempted by the devil, so it would be no less unlawful to go from thence to the temple, at his desire.

Moreover, it may be greatly questioned, whether our Saviour was fit to take so long a journey, as from the wilderness to the temple, after he had fasted forty days, and, it may be, his strength impaired thereby. And, indeed, when we read, Luke iv. 14. of his return out of the wilderness into his own country, it was by the power of the Spirit, which supplied his want of strength, for so great a journey; therefore, as his coming there was by the Spirit, his safe conduct back again was by the same Spirit. And we cannot suppose that he went out of the wilderness till the Spirit carried him out into his own country; therefore it does not appear that he went to the temple by the solicitation of the devil, to be tempted by him there, and afterwards returned to the wilderness, to submit to his last temptation.

(2.) We cannot altogether give into the other opinion, which, as was before observed, is the most common, namely, that the devil was permitted to carry our Saviour through the air, and set him on a pinnacle of the temple, (which seems to be the more direct and literal sense of the words of the evangelist, relating to this matter) for the following reasons.

1st, The pinnacle of the temple, upon which the devil is supposed to have set our Saviour, was, as some writers observed, the sharp point, or apex, or extremity, of a cone, on which it was not possible for the smallest bird to perch; therefore a man could not stand upon it, and consequently Christ could not be said to be sit upon it.

To this, it is true, it is generally replied, that by his being set on a pinnacle of the temple, is meant his being set upon one of the battlements, near one of the spires of the temple, on which men may conveniently stand. Here they suppose the devil placed our Saviour, and then tempted him to cast himself down from thence. But suppose this be sufficient to account for those words that speak of Christ’s being set on a pinnacle of a temple, and so enervates the force of this reason against it, let it be farther considered,

2dly, That it does not seem probable that the devil should have so much power over our Saviour, so as to carry him from place to place at his will: But if it be replied to this, that it contains no absurdity for God to suffer it; nor was it any moral evil in Christ to be thus carried, who must be supposed herein to be altogether passive; let it be farther considered,

3dly, That if the devil really carried him through the air, from the wilderness to the temple, this could not well be done, in an invisible way; for that is contrary to the nature of things; for even the motion of a bird, which is a far less creature, through the air, if it be in the day time, is not invisible. Now if this preternatural motion of our Saviour’s body through the air was visible, how comes it to pass that no notice was taken of it by the Jews, which would have been as remarkable an occurrence, as his flying from a pinnacle of the temple to the ground? Some of them, doubtless, would have been amused at it, and probably it would have given them occasion to have said something concerning this preternatural event; and others, it may be, would have reproached him for it; and from his flying by the power of the devil, would have taken occasion to say, that his other miracles were wrought by the same power, which would have given umbrage to the objection, when they said, He casteth out devils by Beelzebub, the prince of the devils.

If it be farther objected, that the devil might carry him to the top of the temple by night, and so his motion through the air not be observed. This seems very improbable; for then he must continue there all night, till the people were gathered together the next day on the plain, at the foot thereof, otherwise his casting himself down from thence, would not have answered the end designed thereby, there being none of the Jews present to observe the miracle; and so the devil might have spared the pains of carrying him to a pinnacle of the temple, and might have as well tempted him to have cast himself down from a precipice in the wilderness. We own, notwithstanding, that it might be replied to this, that the devil might raise a thick fog in the air in the day-time, so that the people could not see him conveyed from the wilderness to the temple: But, though this be possible, it doth not seem probable, especially when we consider the other reasons brought against this supposition in general; therefore we must have recourse to some other sense, in which this scripture is to be understood.

Accordingly some suppose that this was only done in a vision, and that he continued all this time in the wilderness; which will in some measure, account for several difficulties, that would arise from the supposition, of the devil’s having power over him to carry him from place to place; and this agrees with those other scriptures, that speak of his being tempted forty days in the wilderness. Nevertheless, this sense does not appear very probable, as it supposes the devil to have had a greater power over Christ’s imagination, than can readily be allowed of. And it seems to contain an absurdity in this respect; that Christ could not be said to work a miracle, by throwing himself from a pinnacle of the temple, if he were all that while standing in the wilderness; and what proof would that have been of his being the Son of God?

Object. If it be objected to this, that many things are said to be done, in vision, by the prophets, which could not well be said to be done otherwise; as the prophet Ezekiel, when he was among the captives in Babylon, is said to be took by a lock of his head, and, by the Spirit, lifted up between the earth and the heaven, and brought in the visions of God to Jerusalem, Ezek. viii. 3. the meaning of which is, that he had an impression hereof made on his imagination, not much unlike to a dream, which inclined him, at the same time, to think himself carried to Jerusalem, and to behold the idolatry that was practised there.

Answ. To this it may be replied, that this was a divine impression upon the soul of the prophet; and we are not, from hence, inclined to think, that because God has sometimes appeared in vision to his people, that the devil was suffered to do so, with respect to our Saviour, or to have power over his imagination, to give it that disturbance, that would result from hence.

Therefore there is another sense, a little different from this, in which we cannot but acquiesce, though not without great deference to those who are otherwise minded, namely, that the devil had neither power over Christ’s body, nor actually carried him from the wilderness to a pinnacle of the temple, on the one hand, nor had he power to give disturbance to his imagination on the other: But that he tempted, or endeavoured to persuade him to go with him to Jerusalem, which is called the holy city, and then to go up to the top of the temple, and so cast himself down among the people.

Object. The principal objection that is brought against this sense of the words, is taken from its being contrary to the literal, or grammatical sense thereof, inasmuch as the devil is said to take him up into the holy city, and set him on a pinnacle of the temple; which does not seem to imply barely his discoursing with him of going there, and casting himself down from thence.

Answ. The only answer that need be given to this objection, is, that, since what is done in vision, is represented in scripture as though it had been actually done, why may we not suppose, that what is offered in conversation, may be represented as though it had been actually done, especially considering, that what was only discoursed of between two persons, is sometimes said to be done. As when the chief butler reports the conversation which he and the chief baker had with Joseph in the prison, he represents Joseph as doing what he only spake of, when he says, Me he restored unto mine office, and him he hanged, Gen. xli. 13. Therefore there is no absurdity in supposing, that the devil’s carrying our Saviour to Jerusalem, and setting him on a pinnacle of the temple, denotes nothing else but his tempting him to go there. And, if we take it in this sense, the temptation is no less subtle, or pernicious, in the design thereof; and our Saviour’s answer to it, is equally opposite, and to the purpose, as though we suppose the devil had power to carry him there.

We shall now consider Christ’s answer to this temptation, which is contained in these words, Thou shalt not tempt the Lord thy God, in which he refers to the words of Moses, Deut. vi. 16. which though they more immediately relate to the peoples murmuring, and questioning, whether God was among them or not, Exod. xvii. 7. upon which occasion the name of the place was called Massah; yet, inasmuch as there are various ways of tempting God, this general prohibition might well be applied by our Saviour to his own case, in answer to Satan’s temptation; and then it is as though he should say, I will not tempt the Lord my God, either by desiring a farther proof of my Sonship, which has so lately been attested, by a voice from heaven; or rather, I will not tempt him, so as to expect his protection, when engaged, according to thy desire, in an unlawful action.

Thirdly, The third and last temptation, which was the most audacious, vile, and blasphemous of all, is contained in ver. 8, 9. in which Satan makes an overture of the kingdoms of the world, and the glory thereof, to him, provided he would fall down and worship him; in which we may observe,

1. Something preparatory to it, when it is said, The devil taketh him up into an exceeding high mountain, and sheweth him all the kingdoms of the world, and the glory of them. Whether this was actually done, or he only tempted him to go up into an high mountain, which was more convenient for this purpose, I will not peremptorily determine. There are not so many difficulties attending the supposition, that it was actually done, as there were in the former temptation. If it be concluded, that it was actually done, it is very much to be doubted, whether there was any mountain so high, as that he might, from thence have a prospect of the kingdoms of the world; or if there was an exceeding high mountain in the wilderness where Christ was tempted, yet, if we consider the nature of the vision, there are two things that would hinder a person’s seeing the kingdoms of the world, though it were from the highest mountain.

(1.) The convexity, or unevenness of the surface of the earth, which would hinder the strongest eye from seeing many kingdoms of the world; besides, the sight would be hindered by other mountains intervening.

(2.) If there were several kingdoms, or countries, which might be beheld from the top of an exceeding high mountain, yet the organ of sight is too weak to reach many miles. Therefore, when Moses was commanded, by God, to go up to the top of mount Pisgah, to take a view of the whole land of Canaan, it is generally thought there was something miraculous in his strengthening his sight, to see to the utmost bounds thereof; accordingly it is said, that the Lord shewed him all the land, Deut. xxxiv. 1. Now this can hardly be applicable to the case before us, relating to the devil’s shewing our Saviour all the kingdoms of the world; therefore the best and most common sense that is given hereof, is, that he made a representation of the kingdoms and glories of the world in the air, and presented them to our Saviour’s view in a moment; and a mountain was more convenient for this purpose, than if he had done it in a valley; which seems to be the most probable sense of this text.

2. We shall now consider the temptation itself, which is mentioned in ver. 9. All these things will I give thee, if thou wilt fall down and worship me. The evangelist Luke adds something that is omitted by Matthew, as a farther illustration of this temptation namely, that the power of conferring a right to the kingdoms of the world, was delivered unto him; and that to whomsoever he will he gives it, Luke iv. 6. In this temptation, we may observe,

1st, The abominable pride and insolence of the devil, and his appearing herein to be the father of lies, nothing could be more false, than for him to assert that the world was given to him to dispose of, as he pleased; whatever hand he may have in disposing of it among his subjects, by divine permission: yet he has no right to do this; so that herein we may observe his proud and blasphemous insinuation, in pretending to have a grant from God to dispose of that which he reserves in his own hand, to give as he pleases.

2dly, All that he pretends to give our Saviour, is only the kingdoms of the world; and, in exchange for them, he must quit his right to that better world, which he had, by inheritance, a right to, and a power to dispose of, which the devil has not.

3dly, He pretends to give our Saviour nothing but what, as God and Mediator, he had a right to. This Satan maliciously questions, when, by the overture he makes thereof, he insinuates, that he must be beholden to him for it.

4thly, This he proposes, as an expedient for him, to arrive to glory and honour an easier way, than to attain it by sufferings; therefore it is as though he should say; thou expected a kingdom beyond this world, but there are many troubles that lie in the way to it; whereas, by following my advice, and complying with this temptation, thou mayest avoid those sufferings, and enter into the present possession of the kingdoms and glories of this world; by which, it is probable, he makes him an overture of the whole Roman empire: But this our Saviour despises, for he offered it, who had no right to give it; and the terms, on which the overture was made, were very dishonourable; and the honour itself was such, as he did not value, for his kingdom was not of this world. If he had aimed at earthly grandeur, he might easily have attained it; for we read, that he might once, not only have been made a king, but that the people intended to come and make him so by force, John vi. 15. upon which occasion, he discovered the little value he had for this honour, by his retiring from them into a mountain himself alone, rather chusing to continue in the low estate, which he designed to submit to in this world, as a man of sorrows, and acquainted with grief.

Thus concerning the overture made by Satan to our Saviour. Now let us consider the condition on which he made it, namely, that he should fall down and worship him; in which we may observe his pride, in pretending to have a right to divine honour, and how he attempts to usurp the throne of God, and that to such a degree, that no one must expect favours from him, without giving him that honour, that is due to God alone.

Again, he boldly and blasphemously tempts Christ to abandon and withdraw himself from his allegiance to God, and, at the same time, to deny his own deity, as the object of worship, and thereby to cast away that crown of glory, which he has by nature, and to put it on the head of his avowed enemy. Thus concerning the third and last temptation; we may consider,

3. Christ’s reply to it, together with the repulse given to the adversary, and victory obtained over him, who hereupon departed from him; where we may observe,

(1.) That he again makes use of scripture, referring to what is said therein, in different words, though the sense be the same, Thou shalt fear the Lord thy God, and serve him, and to him shalt thou cleave, Deut. vi. 13. and chap. x. 20. This is a duty not only founded in scripture, but in the law of nature, and may be proved from the perfections of God, and our relation to him, as creatures.

(2.) Our Saviour detests the temptation with the greatest abhorrence, can no longer bear to converse with the blasphemer, and therefore says, Get thee hence, Satan. He commands him to be gone, and Satan immediately leaves him, being, as it were, driven away by his almighty power. This is more than we can do; nevertheless, in the like case, we ought, as the apostle did, to beseech the Lord that he might depart from us, 2 Cor. xii. 8. or, to use our Saviour’s words on another occasion, The Lord rebuke thee, O Satan. Thus Christ’s temptations, though very grievous and afflictive, were not only surmounted, but the adversary, that assaulted him, was overcome by him, in his own Person,[214]

From what hath been said, concerning Christ’s temptations, we infer,

1st, The desperate and unparalleled boldness of Satan, in that though he knew well enough that Christ was the Son of God, and therefore able not only to resist, but to destroy him; yet he should venture thus to assault him: whereas, at other times, he seems to be afraid of him, which occasioned him to say, Art thou come to destroy us before the time? Mark i. 24. and elsewhere, Art thou come to torment us before the time? Matt. viii. 29. Besides, he knew, that by this action, his own guilt and misery would be increased; but what will not malice, and a deep-rooted hatred of God and godliness, prompt persons to! The attempt was certainly most unfeasable, as well as prejudicial to himself. Did Satan suppose that he should gain a victory over him? Could he think, that he, who was God, as well as man, was not more than a match for him? It may be, he might hope, that though the human nature of Christ were united to the divine, yet it might be left to itself; and then he thought it more possible to gain some advantages against it, which was a groundless supposition, and altogether unbecoming the relation that there is between these two natures: and it was also impossible that he should be overcome, inasmuch as he was filled with the Holy Ghost from his first conception, and the unction which he had received from the Holy Ghost, would have effectually secured him from falling. Whether the devil knew this, or no, he did not consider it; and therefore this attempt against our Saviour, was an instance of the most stupendous folly in him, who is described as the old serpent for his great subtilty.

2dly, From Christ’s temptation, we may infer the greatness of his sufferings. It could not but be grievous to him to be insulted, attacked, and the utmost endeavours used to turn him aside from his allegiance to God, by the worst of his enemies. And, as Satan’s temptations are not the smallest part of the affliction of his people, they cannot be reckoned the smallest part of his own; nevertheless, the issue thereof was glorious to himself, and shameful to the enemy that attacked him.

3dly, This affords encouragement to believers, under the various temptations they are exposed to. They are not, indeed, to think it strange that they are tempted, inasmuch as they are herein conformed to Jesus Christ, the Captain of their salvation; but they may, from Christ’s temptation, be instructed that it is not a sin to be tempted, though it be a sin to comply with Satan’s temptations; and therefore that they have no ground to conclude, as many do, that they are not God’s children, because they are tempted. Moreover, they may not only hope to be made partakers of Christ’s victory, as the fruits and effects thereof redound to the salvation of his people; but to receive help and succour from him when they are tempted, as he, who suffered, being tempted, is able to succour them that are tempted, Heb. ii. 18. Thus concerning Christ’s humiliation, as tempted.

4. Christ humbled himself, in being subject to those sinless infirmities, which were either common to the human nature, or particularly accompanying that low condition in which he was. Some of those afflictions, which he endured, took their rise from the sin or misery of others: thus he is said to have been afflicted in all the afflictions of his people, Isa. lxiii. 9. which is an instance of that great sympathy and compassion which he bare towards them. Sometimes he was grieved for the degeneracy and apostacy of the Jewish nation, the contempt they cast on the gospel, whereby his ministry, though discharged with the greatest faithfulness, was, through the unbelief of those among whom he exercised it, without its desired success: thus he is represented by the prophet, as complaining, I have laboured in vain; I have spent my strength for nought and in vain, chap. xlix. 4. and, when he had almost finished his ministry among them, and looked upon Jerusalem as a self-ruined people, He beheld the city and wept over it, Luke xix. 41. And, besides this, he was sometimes grieved for the remainders of corruption, and the breakings forth thereof in those whom he loved, in a distinguishing manner; thus he was sometimes afflicted in his own spirit, by reason of the hardness of the heart of his disciples, and the various instances of their unbelief.

These afflictions, more especially, might be called relative, as the occasion thereof was seated in others: but there were many afflictions which he endured that were more especially personal; such as hunger, thirst, fatigue, weariness in travelling to and fro in the discharge of his public ministry; and that poverty and want of the common necessaries of life, which he submitted to, whose divine bounty supplies the wants of all creatures. These, and many other sufferings, he endured in life, which were agreeable to that state of humiliation, in which he was, during the whole course thereof. And this leads us,

Secondly, To consider his humiliation immediately before, as well as in and after his death.

Footnote 208:

Εαυτον εκενωσε.

Footnote 209:

When we consider Christ as Mediator, from all eternity, we include, in this idea, his human nature, as what was to be assumed in time. There is a prolepsis in such a mode of speaking; as, when he is said to be the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world; in the same sense he might be said to be man from the foundation of the world; and so we understand it, when we speak of him as God-man Mediator, from all eternity.

Footnote 210:

By Christ’s mediatorial acts, we mean every thing that he did and suffered, in the whole course of his obedience, unto death. This is not to be considered in a proleptic sense, as what he did as Mediator, before his incarnation, may be said to be, as he might then, in some respects, be said to execute his prophetical or kingly offices, as Mediator, or as one who designed in the fulness of time, to take our nature into union with his divine Person.

Footnote 211:

See Bellarm. Tom. I. Lib. IV. cap. 1. who pretends that it is universally held by them, when he says, Catholicorum, communis sententia fuit, Christi animam ab ipsa sua creatione repletam scientia & gratia; ita ut nihil postea didicerit quod antea nesciret, nec ullam actionem fecerit aut facere potuerit quæ emendatione eguerit. Ita docent cum magistro omnes Theologi & etiam omnes Patres. This he endeavours to maintain by arguments, which I shall not enter into the particular account of.

Footnote 212:

This seems to be a better sense of the text, than what is given by some, who suppose, that is was an accomplishment of what is foretold, by the prophets, concerning his being נצר Netzar, the Branch, in Isa. xi. 1. Jer. xiii. 5. Zech. vi. 12. for that refers to his being of the seed of David, and not to the place of his abode, so that he could not be called the Branch because he dwelt in Nazareth. Others suppose, he is so called from נזיר Nazir, which signifies, in its application, one that dwelt in Nazareth, and, in its derivation, one that is separated, and that either to God, as the Nazarites were of old, or from men, by some peculiar marks of infamy, or reproach, cast upon him, as Joseph is said to have been, in Gen. xlix. 26. separate from his brethren. These do, in effect assert the same thing that we have observed, viz. that it is the concurrent sense of all the prophets, that he should be in a low and humble state, of which his residing in Nazareth was a particular instance.

Footnote 213:

Some ancient and modern writers have supposed, that our Saviour provided for the necessities of his parents in a miraculous way; but the argument, which they bring to prove this, is not sufficiently conclusive, namely, that when he wrought his first public miracle, in Cana of Galilee, mentioned in John ii. his mother desired him to work a miracle to supply them at the marriage-feast with wine, ver. 3. which, they suppose, she would never have thought of, had he not, some time before this, wrought miracles in private to supply her necessities, or provide food for her family: but this does not follow, from her desiring him to do it now, since she might know, that, when he was entered on his public ministry, he was to work miracles: and therefore desired him, on this occasion, to put forth the first instance of his divine power therein. Again, this is said to be the beginning of miracles which he did in Cana of Galilee, ver. 11. and, probably, the first miracle that he wrought in any place; and, indeed, his reply to her, when she desired that he would work this miracle, seems to imply, that he had never wrought miracles to provide for her family, when he says, Woman, what have I to do with thee? q. d. my working miracles is no part of that obedience Which I owe to thee, nor art thou to expect any private advantage thereby, for these are to be wrought with another view.

Footnote 214:

This portion of scripture has been subjected to much examination, which has resulted in a variety of opinions with respect to the things contained in it. We suppose the major part of Christians take the whole as a literal representation of the facts; such seem to choose the safest side. There is another opinion, which is entertained by many; that the whole was a vision; the Saviour’s being in the wilderness; his fasting for forty days; the several temptations; and the relief afforded by the angels.

This latter interpretation is an assumption of unwarrantable latitude in the interpretation of the word of God. All are realities, even the presence and temptations of Satan, and the resistance given him; but the temptations may have been proposed to the Saviour, when exhausted with hunger, and when sunk into some species of waking vision, little distinguishable from a dream.

Satan has not the power of forcing men into sin; his temptations are always disguised; for the knowledge that they are such, is the strongest motive for resisting them; if therefore Satan had discovered himself to Jesus in a visible form, it would not only have been contrary to his usual course, but must have ensured him a defeat.

The replies of Christ were in every instance by scriptures recollected, which leads us to think that it was all before the eye of his mind only; also one of Satan’s temptations was from scripture; these things well accord with its having been in vision.

The changes of place seem to have been too sudden, and also impracticable. He was in the wilderness when the temptations began, and when they ended; which agrees with the supposition that his rapid transition to a pinnacle of the temple, and from thence to a very high mountain, were only in idea.

It is very unaccountable that he should have been transported to the battlements of the temple for a dangerous place, when the country afforded precipices enough, and still more so, that this could have taken place without publick observation; but such flights of the imagination, when the body is fainting with hunger, would not be extraordinary; nor would it excite any wonder, if the person in such exigency should find Satan occupied in giving a turn to his ideas. There is not a mountain on earth from whence all the kingdoms are visible; here therefore we are obliged to give up the literal sense, and may discover an index to the interpretation of the other temptations.

It is not called a vision; in like manner neither did Micaiah nor Jacob denominate their visions. They represented what appeared to them; and so we presume Jesus related these things to his disciples just as they appeared to his mind.

Satan, though he can and does in various ways, by external and internal means, through the medium of our bodies, suggest thoughts, and thus take possession of our hearts in a certain sense; yet he knows not our thoughts; it is the attribute of God only to search the heart. Every thing acted by Satan in this instance could have taken place without his knowing the mind of Christ.[215] If it had not been in vision, then Jesus must have spoken audibly his respective answers; Satan would have known them, and, we presume, in some instance replied; but there is not one reply of Satan, which is an additional proof that he suggested the temptations, and the Saviour resisted them by mental answers, with which the enemy was unacquainted. Adopting this general view, the particular parts will be easily understood.

Footnote 215:

It is highly probable that Satan did not know that this was the Christ; he speaks doubtfully of his being the “Son of God;” this he had heard, we suppose, at his baptism, a short time before. Satan is not omnipresent, nor omniscient, and probably knew less than the angels of these things which they desired to pry into. Christ’s divinity was chiefly concealed thirty years, not always shown in his life, nor at his death. It was the man only that could be thus humbled and tempted; God neither tempts nor can be tempted by any.

Quest. XLIX., L.

QUEST. XLIX. How did Christ humble himself in his death?

ANSW. Christ humbled himself in his death, in that having been betrayed by Judas, forsaken by his disciples, scorned and rejected by the world, condemned by Pilate, and tormented by his persecutors, having also conflicted with the terrors of death, and the powers of darkness, felt and borne the weight of God’s wrath, he laid down his life an offering for sin, enduring the painful, shameful, and cursed death of the cross.

QUEST. L. Wherein consisted Christ’s humiliation after his death?

ANSW. Christ’s humiliation after his death, consisted in his being buried, and continuing in the state of the dead, and under the power of death, till the third day, which hath been otherwise expressed in these words, He descended into hell.

In considering the subject matter of these answers, we are led to take a view of our Saviour, in the last stage of life, exposed to those sufferings which went more immediately before, or attended his death. And,

I. Let us consider him in his sufferings in the garden, when his soul was exceeding sorrowful, even unto death; and he desired his disciples, not only as an instance of their sympathy with, and regard to him in his agony, that they would tarry at a small distance from him, while he went a little farther, and prayed, as one that tasted more of the bitterness of that cup, which he was to drink, than he had done before; but pressed this upon them, as what was necessary to their own advantage, when he says, Watch and pray that ye enter not into temptation, Matt, xxvii. 38, 39. 41. But they seemed very little concerned, either for his distress, or their own impending danger; for, when he returned, he found them asleep, and upbraids them for it, What, could ye not watch with me one hour? ver. 40. and afterwards, though he had given them this first kind and gentle reproof, for their unaccountable stupidity, and repeated his charge, that they should watch and pray; yet, when he came a second time, he found them asleep again, ver. 43. This was, doubtless, an addition to his afflictions, that they, who were under the highest obligation to him, should be so little concerned for him.

II. After this he was betrayed by Judas, a pretended friend, which added to the affliction. This does not argue any unwillingness in him to suffer, as is evident from his own words, some time before, viz. I have a baptism to be baptized with, and how am I straitened till it be accomplished? Luke xii. 50. As also from his going up to Jerusalem with that design, as knowing that his hour was at hand. How easily might he have declined this journey, had he been unwilling to suffer? And, if he thought it his duty to be at Jerusalem, at the feast of the passover, which was not absolutely necessary, (for all were not obliged to come there at the feast) he might, notwithstanding, had he been unwilling to suffer, have went there privately: but, instead of that, he made a more public entrance into it than was usual, riding in triumph, and accepting of the loud acclamations and hosannas of the multitude, which, any one might suppose, would draw forth the envy of his inveterate enemies, and sharpen their malice against him, and thereby hasten the execution of their bloody design.

Again, that he did not suffer unwillingly, appears, in that, when the band of officers, being led by Judas, was sent to apprehend him, He asks them, whom seek ye? They answered him, Jesus of Nazareth; Jesus saith unto them, I am he; upon which we read, that they went backward, and fell to the ground, John xviii. 4-6. and gave him an opportunity to make his escape, had he intended to decline these last sufferings: but he not only delivered himself into their hands, but prohibited the overture of a rescue, which Peter attempted in his favour, ver. 10, 11. As to what concerns his being betrayed into the hands of his enemies, by one of his disciples, this is often mentioned, as a very considerable part of his sufferings: the price which the traitor demanded, or which was the most they would give for this barbarous and inhuman action, was thirty pieces of silver.[216] This being foretold by the prophet, is represented as an instance of the highest contempt that could be cast upon him: he calls it a goodly price that I was prized at of them, Zech. xi. 13. it was the price of a servant, or slave, when pushed by the ox, so that he died, Exod. xxi. 32. This shews how little he was valued, by those who were under the highest obligations to him. And providence permitted it to be a part of his sufferings, that we may learn from hence, that hypocrites sometimes mix themselves with his faithful servants, who, notwithstanding the mask, or disguise of religion, which they affect, their hypocrisy will, one time or other, be made manifest. This was not a wound given by an open enemy, but a pretended friend, and therefore more grievous; and this might also give occasion to some to cast a reproach on his followers (for what will not malice sometimes suggest) as though they were all like him; and their pretence to religion were no more than hypocrisy.

III. Another instance of Christ’s humiliation was, in that he was forsaken by his disciples: thus we read, that when he was apprehended, all the disciples forsook him and fled, Matt. xxvi. 56. from whence we may learn,

1. How unable the best of God’s people are to exercise that holy courage and fortitude that is necessary in trying dispensations of providence, especially when destitute of extraordinary assistance from the Spirit of God.

2. This was ordered by providence, to add weight to Christ’s sufferings, in which none stood with him to comfort or strengthen him; as the apostle Paul says, At my first answer no man stood with me, but all men forsook me, 2 Tim. iv. 16. which could not be otherwise than a very afflictive circumstance; nevertheless,

3. There was a farther design of providence in permitting this cowardise, namely, that they might not suffer with him; and therefore it is observed, by one of the evangelists, that when our Saviour was apprehended by the officers, he desired leave of them, that his disciples might go their way, John xviii. 8. If they had been apprehended, it may be, they might have been accused, condemned, and crucified with him; which might give occasion to some to suppose, that they bore a part in the purchase of our redemption; which belonged to him alone; and therefore it is said, concerning him, I have trodden the wine press alone, and of the people there was none with me, Isa. lxiii. 3. To this we may add,

IV. That it was another part of Christ’s sufferings, that he was disowned and denied by Peter; since this would give occasion to some to think that he was not worthy to be acknowledged by his friends, while he was insulted and persecuted by his enemies. In the account the evangelist gives of this matter, Matt. xxvi. 69-72. we may observe,

1. That Peter was not, at this time, in the way of his duty, though, probably, it was love to our Saviour, and a desire to see the issue of his trial, that might occasion his going into the High Priest’s Palace; yet this he had no call to do at present, it was a running into the midst of danger, especially considering our Saviour, as in the scripture but now referred to, had got leave for his disciples to withdraw. This, Peter ought to have done: for, as we are not to decline sufferings when called to bear them, so we are not, without a sufficient warrant, to rush into them, to go, as he did, in the way of temptation.

2. It was not only shame that induced him to deny our Saviour, but fear; for, it is probable, he might be informed that the High Priest asked him concerning his disciples, as well as his doctrine, therefore he might think, that by owning him and his doctrine, he might be exposed to suffer with him; which, notwithstanding his self-confident resolution a little before, when he said, Though I should die with thee, yet I will not deny thee, ver. 35. he was now afraid to do.

3. He was not only accosted by the damsel, who told him, that he was with Jesus of Galilee; but he was attacked by one of the servants of the High Priest, being his kinsman, whose ear Peter cut off, who said, Did I not see thee in the garden with him? John xviii. 26. This still increased his fear; for he not only appeared as a witness against him, and charged him with having been with him in the garden, but also intimates, that he attempted to rescue him, and that by force of arms, which, as he apprehended might render him obnoxious to the lash of the law as endeavouring to make a riot, for which he concluded that he was liable to suffer punishment; and the person, whose ear he cut off, being the High Priest’s kinsman, this would lay him still more open to his resentment. Thus Peter, through the weakness of his faith, and the prevalency of his fear, denied our Saviour; and this was thrice repeated with curses and execrations annexed to it, which still increased his guilt, tended to expose religion, as well as cast a reproach on our Saviour, who was then bearing his testimony to the truth.

V. Another instance of Christ’s humiliation was, that he was scorned and rejected by the world; scorned, as though he had been inferior to them. Thus he is represented by the Psalmist, as saying, I am a worm and no man; a reproach of men, and despised of the people. All they that see me, laugh me to scorn; they shoot out the lip, they shake the head, Psal. xxii. 6, 7. This was, doubtless, a malicious design, to fill the minds of men with prejudice against it, and make them ashamed to own it. Our Saviour puts these both together, when he speaks of persons being ashamed of him, and of his words, Mark viii. 38. They had often rejected him, by their unbelief; and this crime was the greater, because they were under the greatest obligations to the contrary. How often did he invite them, in the most affectionate manner, to come to him, and annex hereunto a promise of eternal life? We find, notwithstanding, that he had reason to complain, as he does, Ye will not come to me, that ye might have life, John v. 40.

Here we might observe the temper of the Jews, before he appeared publickly among them, to have been different from what it was afterwards. When John the Baptist, his fore-runner told them, that he would shortly be made manifest to Israel, multitudes flocked to his ministry, counted him as a great prophet, and rejoiced in his light for a season, and, at the same time, were baptized, and professed their willingness to yield obedience to Christ. But all this was upon a groundless supposition, that he would appear as an earthly monarch, erect a temporal kingdom, bring all other powers into subjection to it, and so deliver them from the Roman yoke, and advance them to great honours in the world: but, when they saw it otherwise, and that he appeared in a low humbled state, and professed, that his kingdom was not of this world, and therefore his subjects must seek for a glory that lies beyond it, which cannot be beheld, but by faith, and, in the expectation hereof, take up their cross, and follow him, immediately they were offended in him: thus the prophet foretels, that he should be for a stone of stumbling, and a rock of offence to both the houses of Israel, Isa. viii. 14. and the Psalmist styles him, The stone which the builders refused, Psal. cxviii. 22. both which predictions are applied to Christ by the apostle Peter, 1 Pet. ii. 7, 8. This was also foretold by Simeon, concerning our Saviour, when he was in his infancy, Behold this child is set for the fall and rising again of many in Israel, and for a sign, which shall be spoken against, Luke ii. 43. And this offence taken at him, is intimated to have been almost universal, as appeared from the small number that adhered to him, when he was here on earth, which gave him occasion to say, Blessed is he whosoever shall not be offended in me, Matt. xi. 6.

This treatment he met with throughout the whole course of his ministry, when they loaded him with the most injurious reproaches: but, immediately before his death, they filled up the measure of their iniquity, by reproaching him to the utmost; then it is observed that they blasphemed, and cast contempt upon him, with respect to all those offices which he executes as Mediator. As to his prophetical office, with what abominable profaneness do they speak of the sacred gift of prophecy, which their fathers always counted a peculiar glory, which was conferred upon some of them, whereby they were honoured above all other nations in the world! And what contempt do they cast on him, who had sufficiently proved himself to be greater than all other prophets; when as it is said, They smote him with the palms of their hands, saying, Prophesy unto us, thou Christ, who is he that smote thee? chap. xxvi. 67, 68. They also expressed their blasphemy in contemning his priestly office, when they say, He saved others, himself he cannot save, chap. xxvii. 42. and also his kingly, when, in derision, they put on him a scarlet robe, platted a crown of thorns, and put it on his head, and a reed in his right hand, and bowed the knee before him, and mocked him, saying, Hail king of the Jews, ver. 28, 29.

They also expressed the greatest contempt of him, by preferring a vile and notorious criminal, who was a robber, and a murderer, before him; and accordingly, as the prophet says, He was numbered with the transgressors, as though he had been the greatest of them, whereas he had done no violence; neither was any deceit in his mouth, Isa. liii. 9, 12. Thus the apostle tells them, Ye denied the Holy One, and the Just, and desired a murderer to be granted unto you, Acts iii. 14. when Pilate made an overture to release him, they cried, with one consent, Not this man, but Barabbas, John xviii. 39, 40.

From hence we may learn,

1. That the best of men are not to expect to pass through the world without reproach, or contempt, how exact, innocent or blameless, soever their conversation be.

2. We are not to judge of persons, or things, especially in matters of religion, merely by the opinion of the world concerning them; since it is no uncommon thing for religion itself to be had in contempt, as well as those who adhere to it.

3. We ought not to have respect to the praise or esteem of men, as a motive to induce us to choose and adhere to the way of God and godliness: thus our Saviour says, I receive not honour from men, John v. 41. that is, I value it not, so as to regulate my conversation thereby; and then he adds, How can ye believe which receive honour one of another, and seek not the honour that cometh from God only, ver. 44.

4. Let us not think the worse of Christ, or his gospel, because they are reproached, but rather, as the apostle adviseth, Go forth to him without the camp, bearing his reproach, Heb. xiii. 13. and not only be content to bear it, but count it our honour; as he says elsewhere, concerning himself, God forbid that I should glory, save in the cross of our Lord Jesus Christ, Gal. iv. 14.

5. Let us take heed, that while we seem to honour Christ by our profession, and testify our abhorrence of the contempt that was cast on him, by his enemies, we do not reproach him by our practice; and that either by sinning presumptuously, which is called, A reproaching of the Lord, Num. xv. 30. or not by reproving and bearing our testimony against those who blaspheme and revile him; by which means, we shall partake with them in their crime.

VI. Our Saviour was condemned by Pilate. The former indignities offered him, were without any pretence, or form of law; but now he is set before a court of judicature, and there tried, and sentence passed immediately before his crucifixion. In this they had no regard to the exercise of justice, nor desire to proceed in a legal way with any good and honourable design, but to prevent the inconvenience that would have arisen from their putting him to death in a riotous and tumultuous manner, without the form of a trial. This they had in some particular instances, at other times, designed, or attempted to do, but they thought it not a safe way of proceeding; since they might afterwards have been called to an account for it, by the civil magistrate, as the town-clerk says, upon occasion of the tumult at Ephesus, We are in danger to be called in question for this day’s uproar, Acts xix. 40. Therefore our Saviour, being apprehended, is brought before Pilate, the Roman governor; and there were the chief priests and elders met together, as his accusers and prosecutors; and the whole process was the most notorious instance of injustice, that ever was practised in any court of judicature in the world. Whatever pretence of law there might be, the assembly was certainly tumultuous. It is not usual for persons who are tried for capital matters to be insulted, not only by the rude multitude of spectators that are present, but by the judge himself, as our Saviour was, being spit upon, buffeted, and smote with the palms of their hands; and Pilate also, with a sarcastic sneer, unbecoming the character of a judge, says, Behold the Man; Behold your King, John xix. 5, 14. Here we may observe,

1. Concerning his persecutors, that they sought false witnesses against him, that is, they endeavoured to persuade, or bribe any that they could find, among the most vile and profligate wretches, to come in against him; nevertheless, they could not bring this matter to bear for some time: thus, it is said, They sought false witness against Jesus to put him to death, but found none; yea, though many false witnesses came, yet found they none, Matt. xxvi. 59, 60. The evidence that many gave was not regarded, and therefore they were set aside; at last they found two, whom they depended on, as legal evidences: but it is observed, that their witness did not agree together, Mark xiv. 59. and, if they had agreed in their testimony, the matter alleged against him was no crime, namely, We heard him say, I will destroy this temple that is made with hands; and, within three days, I will build another made without hands, ver. 58. which refers to what he had said when he drove the buyers and sellers out of the temple, and foretelling his resurrection from the dead, he uses this metaphorical way of speaking; that when they had destroyed this temple, meaning his body, he would raise it up in three days. We will suppose, that the Jews, then present, did not understand what he meant by this expression, or that he did not explain it, as the evangelist does: but let them take it in what sense they would, it carries in it no crime for him to say so; and therefore it is observed, that when this was witnessed against him, though the High Priest urged him to make a reply, he held his peace, and answered nothing, because there was nothing alleged worth an answer; the thing he was charged with, carried in it its own confutation, and inferred not the least degree of guilt in him. This his enemies themselves seemed to be sensible of; and therefore they ask him this trying question, Art thou the Christ, the Son of the Blessed? expecting that his reply to this would have afforded matter for them to proceed upon his conviction. To this our Saviour gives a direct answer, saying, I am; and ye shall see the Son of man sitting on the right hand of power, and coming in the clouds of heaven, ver. 62. Here he was called to give a reply; the question was worthy of an answer; and therefore he does not, on this occasion, hold his peace, but witnessed a good confession, though he knew it would cost him his life.

2. Some things may be observed concerning Pilate’s conduct in his trial; as,

(1.) He acted contrary to that good advice that was given him by his wife; which, because the Evangelist thinks it worthy to be taken notice of, as occasioned by a dream, in which she told him, She had suffered many things because of him, Matt, xxvii. 19. gives ground to conclude that it was a divine dream, which rendered the advice more solemn, and, as such, deserved his regard.

(2.) He acted against the dictates of his own conscience; for he knew that the chief priests had delivered him for envy, Matt. xv. 20. and therefore he ought to have stopped all farther proceedings, as in cases of malicious prosecutions; and it farther appears that he acted against his conscience, in that he took water and washed his hands before the multitude, saying, I am innocent of the blood of this just Person, Matt. xxvii. 24.

(3.) He appears to have been a very mean-spirited man, and therefore was apprehensive that the Jews had he released our Saviour, would have accused him to Cæsar, for sparing one whom they would have pretended to have been an usurper, and a rebel, inasmuch as he is styled King of the Jews. Accordingly he feared that he should have been turned out of his place, or otherwise punished, provided the matter were not fully heard, or the misrepresentations that might be made thereof, were believed by him. This seems the main reason of his delivering our Saviour up to them, to be crucified: thus it is observed, that Pilate first sought out to release him; but, upon the Jews saying, If thou let this man go, thou art not Cæsar’s friend, he brought Jesus forth, and sat down in the judgment seat, and, in haste, delivered him unto them to be crucified, John xix. 12, 13, 16.

(4.) When he thought it his interest to comply with the Jews in this matter, he did not pass sentence on him himself, it may be, thinking that not so adviseable, as being contrary to the profession he had a little before this, made of his innocency: but he asked his prosecutors, what he should do with him? which was a flagrant instance of barbarity and injustice, in one who had the character of a judge or magistrate.[217]

VII. Our Saviour was tormented by his persecutors, scourged, buffeted, smitten with the palms of their hands, crowned with thorns, which, as most divines suppose, pierced his head, and drew blood from thence, which was a part of the torments he endured. And to this we may add, that they compelled him to bear his cross, till his strength was so exhausted, that he could carry it no longer; and then they obliged one Simon, a Cyrenian, to bear it; or, as Luke says to bear it after him, John xix. 17. compared with Luke xxiii. 26. that is, as some suppose, to help him to carry it, going behind, and bearing a part of the weight thereof. These things he endured, immediately before his crucifixion, from wicked men, divested of all humanity, as well as religion: but still there is something more afflictive than this, which he endured; accordingly it is farther observed,

VIII. That he conflicted with the terrors of death, felt, and bore the weight of God’s wrath; these were the sufferings which he endured, more especially in his soul. From whence we may observe, that the death he was going to endure, was exceeding formidable to him, and accompanied with great terrors; therefore there must certainly be some bitter ingredient in it, more than in the death of others. If we enquire what it was therein that seemed so terrible to him, when many of the martyrs, who have been, as the apostle says, pressed out of measure above strength, 2 Cor. i. 8. that is, suffered as much as frail nature could well bear, have endured it without any dread of the wrath of God, the sting and bitterness thereof being taken away; why then should our Saviour, who never contracted the least degree of guilt, have any conflict of this nature in his own spirit? To this it may be replied, that there were some things in his death that rendered it more formidable, than it ever was to any of his saints and martyrs. For,

1. It is more than probable that the powers of darkness had a great hand in setting before his view the terrors of the wrath of God due to sin, which none are better able to do, than they who are the subjects thereof; and therefore it is observed, in this answer, that he conflicted with the terrors of death, and the powers of darkness. The devil is sometimes said to have the power of death, Heb. ii. 14. that is, if the Spirit of God do not come in with his comforting presence, but Satan be suffered to do what he can to fill the soul with horror, he hath certainly power to make death, beyond measure, terrible. His design herein, with respect to our Saviour, was either to drive him to despair, induce him to repent of his undertaking what he came into the world about, or, at least, to take some indirect methods to decline sufferings. That Satan had some hand in this matter, we may infer from what our Saviour says, when, considering himself as fallen into the hands of his enraged enemies, he tells them, not only that this was their hour, that is, the time in which they were suffered to express their rage and malice against him, but that it was the hour of the power of darkness, Luke xxii. 53.

2. His death was in itself more terrible than the death of his people, when the sting and bitterness thereof is taken away from them; therefore it is farther observed, in this answer, that he felt and bore the weight of God’s wrath, which was the punishment of the sins of his people, for whom he suffered. It was upon this account that he is said to begin to be sore amazed, and to be very heavy, to cry out, My soul is exceeding sorrowful, even unto death; and to pray, that, if it were possible, this part of his sufferings might pass from him, Mark xiv. 33-36. We cannot suppose that he was afraid of death; but the wrath of God was what he principally feared. And, since this wrath is, in itself, so terrible, he might well be supposed to be amazed, and exceeding sorrowful, at the view thereof, not for his own sin, but ours, and yet herein not to be guilty of any sin himself.

That this may farther appear, let it be considered, that as he bore our sins, 1 Pet. ii. 14. and it pleased the Lord to bruise him for them, Isa. liii. 6. so he bore every thing that was a punishment thereof, excepting some circumstances that are peculiar to us, and were inconsistent with his perfect holiness, and the efficacy of his sufferings, to take away the guilt of our sin; and therefore we must suppose that he bore, that is, he had an afflictive sense of the wrath of God due to it. Nothing less than this could occasion him to sweat drops of blood, in his agony, in the garden. Had there been no circumstance in his death, but barely his leaving this miserable world, wherein he had such ill treatment, it would have rendered his stay therein less desirable: but, when he considered those bitter ingredients that were therein, and how he should, when on the cross be forsaken of God, as to his comforting, though not his supporting presence, this made his death more formidable, than the death of any of his people can be said to be. And this leads us to consider the last part of his sufferings; and accordingly it is farther said,

IX. That he endured the shameful, painful, and cursed death of the cross. The pains that he endured before, in being buffeted, scourged, and crowned with thorns, were very great; but what he suffered, when nailed to the cross, and hanging on it till he died, was too great for words to express. His body was, as it were, torn asunder by its own weight, and the small and very sensible nerves and fibres thereof broken, by their violent extension. The apostle therefore speaks of it, as the most cruel death, as appears by the emphasis he puts on the words, He humbled himself unto death, even the death of the cross, Phil. ii. 8. This death was a punishment peculiar to the Romans, while the empire was Heathen; but when Christianity obtained in the world, it was forbidden by supreme authority, not only because of the barbarity of it, but out of respect and honour to our Saviour, who suffered it.[218] And therefore we have only some monuments of antiquity that discover what kind of death it was; but there is enough said of it to give us ground to conclude, that it was the most cruel, painful, and formidable death; wherein the body was fastened to, and extended on a tree, or stake, driven into the ground for that purpose; the arms extended on a transverse beam; the hands and feet fastened, either by ropes or nails. The former of these, as some suppose, was often used in fastening persons to the cross; and, if so, then the nailing our Saviour to it was an instance of unusual cruelty; but whether this observation be just, or no, is uncertain.

It appears that our Saviour was nailed to the cross, by the mark and print of the nails remaining after his resurrection, which he shewed to Thomas for his conviction, John xx. 27. and this greatly tended to increase the pain of his crucifixion, in which the weight of the whole body depended on the hands and feet, which being nervous, are more sensible of pain, than many other parts thereof; and, they being wounded with the nails, the pain must be much more exquisite, and this not only for a little while, but for several hours; all which time he felt the pains of death, and did, as it were, die many deaths in one. This kind of death was so cruel, and so excessively tormenting, that some of the Roman emperors, who were of a more merciful disposition, when persons, for the highest crimes, had deserved it, notwithstanding ordered, that they should first be slain, and then hanged on a cross, to be exposed to shame, or as a terror to others, without suffering those inexpressible tortures, which would attend their dying on it. But our Saviour submitted to all these; and so willing was he to bear them, that when they offered him a mixture of wine and myrrh, as a narcotic, or stupifying potion, that he might be less sensible of his pain, which was the only kindness they pretended to shew him, and which is, by many, supposed to be customary in such cases, he received it not; which is as though he had said, I contemn all your offered assistances to ease my pain, as much as I do your insults and reproaches; all my ease and comfort shall be derived from heaven, and not from you. Thus concerning the death of the cross, as exceeding painful.

There is another circumstance observed in this death, namely, that it was shameful. Many think it was styled so, because persons, who suffered it, were stripped of all their garments: but I am inclined to think, that this opinion, though almost universally received, is no better than a vulgar error; for the Romans, who were a civilized nation, would not admit any thing to be done, which is so contrary to the law of nature, as this thing would have been, had it been done. Besides, there are other circumstances mentioned by the evangelist, Mark xv. 40, 41. which farther argue the improbability thereof.

Object. To this it is objected, that the soldiers parted our Saviour’s garments, and divided them among themselves, after they had cast lots for his upper garment, or seamless coat, John xix. 23. which they suppose to have been done before his crucifixion.

Answ. But to this it may be replied, that it seems more than probable, that only his upper garment, or seamless coat, was taken from him before he was nailed to the cross, and other garments were not taken till he was dead, and, when he was taken down from it, they were exchanged for those linen garments in which he was buried. This seems evident from the words of the evangelist, who intimates, that his garments were taken off when they had crucified him. Therefore the principal reason why the death of Christ is called shameful, as the apostle styles it, when he says, He despised the shame, Heb. xii. 2. is because it was a punishment inflicted on none but those who were charged with the vilest crimes, or who were slaves; and therefore it is called a servile punishment.[219] When any one was made free of Rome, he was exempted from it; and therefore it was reckoned the highest crime to punish such an one with it, because of the reproach thereof.

It is farther observed, that the death of the cross was a cursed death; upon which account the apostle speaks of Christ, as being made a curse for us, as it is written, Cursed is every one that hangeth on a tree, Gal. iii. 13. For the understanding of which, let it be considered, that to be accursed, sometimes signifies to be abandoned of God and man; but far be it from us to assert this concerning the blessed Jesus, who had done no violence, neither was any deceit found in his mouth. Therefore the meaning of that scripture, as applied to him, is only this, that the death of the cross had a curse annexed to it, and it denotes that the person, who thus suffered, died the death of those who were made a public example, as though they had been abandoned of God. Now though Christ’s death had this appearance, yet he was, at the same time, God’s beloved Son, in whom he was well pleased, how much soever he bore the external marks of God’s wrath, or abhorrence of our sins, for which he suffered. The scripture which the apostle refers to, is in Deut. xxi. 22, 23. from whence we may take occasion to observe, that, after the Jews had put persons to death for notorious crimes, they sometimes hanged them on a tree, and such were deemed accursed.

The common punishments, which were ordained, in scripture, to be inflicted on malefactors, were burning, slaying with the sword, or stoning; and when persons were hanged up before the Lord, that they might be a public spectacle to others, it was done after they were slain: thus it is said, that Joshua smote the five kings, and slew them, and then hanged them on five trees until the evening, Josh. x. 26. so David slew the two men that murdered Ishbosheth, and then hanged them over the pool in Heshbon, 2 Sam. iv. 12. and, inasmuch as these are said to be hanged before the Lord, it was a significant sign of God’s righteous judgment inflicted on them for their crimes, upon which account they were said to be cursed: but our Saviour was not liable to the curse of God, as one who had committed any crime that deserved it; but it had respect to the kind of death which he endured for our sins, who were thereby exposed to the curse, or condemning sentence of the law. Thus concerning Christ’s humiliation in his death.

We are now to consider his humiliation after his death. Though the greatest part of his humiliation was finished when he yielded up the ghost, yet his state of humiliation was not fully ended till he rose from the dead; therefore it is observed in the latter of these answers we are now explaining, that he was buried, and continued under the power of death till the third day; which hath been otherwise expressed in these words, He descended into hell, as it is contained in that Creed, which is commonly attributed to the apostles. Here we may observe,

1. That Christ was buried. Before this, while he hanged on the cross, he had, as it was before observed, the visible mark of the curse of God upon him, without any desert of his own; and this he was delivered from, when he was taken down from thence. It was a custom, among the Romans, to suffer the bodies of those that were crucified to hang on the cross till they were devoured by wild beasts, or fowls of the air, or turned to corruption, unless they were given to their relations to be buried, as an act of favour: but, in this instance, we may observe, that Christ’s implacable enemies desired that his body might be taken down soon after he was dead; not out of respect to him, but for fear the land should be defiled, as God had ordained in the law, that if a person were hanged on a tree, his body should not remain all night upon it, but must be buried, lest the land should be defiled, Deut. xxi. 22, 23. and they were the more importunate that he should be taken down, because of the sanctity of the approaching day, John xix. 31. They petitioned Pilate for it with one view, and Joseph of Arimathea, ver. 38. with another; he begged the body that he might bury it.

Here we may observe, that, after the Jews had done their worst against him, and he was taken from the cross, there was a becoming honour and respect shewed to his sacred Body; and herein that scripture was fulfilled, He made his grave with the wicked, and with the rich in his death, Isa. liii. 9. which words, indeed, seem to have some difficulty in them, as they are thus translated; for, though he was crucified with the wicked, it can hardly be said that he made his grave with them; and therefore I would chuse to render them, as some expositors do,[220] His grave was appointed, viz. by his persecutors, to have been with the wicked, that is, they designed to have thrown him into the common grave of malefactors, who had no marks of respect shewn them: but it was otherwise with Christ, for he made his grave with the rich, that is, he was buried in the tomb of Joseph, a rich and honourable counsellor, where he himself designed to lie, which he had thrown out of the rock for that purpose. This honour, as the prophet observes, was conferred on our Saviour, because he had done no violence; neither was deceit found in his mouth.

There were several reasons why God ordained that he should be buried, and that in such a way and place, as he was; for,

(1.) His burial was a convincing proof to the world that he was really dead; so much depended upon his death, that it was thought necessary that there should be an abundant evidence thereof. It is, indeed, expressly said, that he bowed his head, and gave up the ghost, John xix. 30. and his enemies were convinced thereof, and therefore thought it needless to break his legs, as they did those of the thieves, who were crucified with him; providence ordering this, that that scripture should be fulfilled, which fore-signified, that a bone of him should not be broken. But, besides this, that there might be a farther proof that he was really dead, it is said, that, even when they knew it, they pierced his side, which, of itself, would have killed him, had he not been dead: this they did, that they might be sure he was dead, before they took him down from the cross, chap. xix. 33, 34. And it is farther observed, that Pilate, his unjust judge, was resolved to be satisfied that he was really dead, before he gave orders for his being taken down from the cross: thus it is said, that Pilate marvelled if he were already dead; and calling unto him the centurion, he asked him whether he had been any while dead? Mark xv. 44. It may be, the reason why they were so inquisitive to know whether he were really dead, or no, was because he seemed to die in his full strength; for there is something remarkable in that expression, when the evangelist says, Jesus cried with a loud voice, and gave up the ghost, ver. 37. whereby it appeared, that his spirits were not so much exhausted, but that he might, according to the course of nature, have lived longer; but he seemed by an act of his own will, to surrender his soul to God. This was so remarkable an occurrence, that it was not merely by accident that it is mentioned by the evangelist; and, indeed, it was the means of the centurion’s conviction that he was the Son of God, ver. 39.

(2.) Providence ordered that he should be buried by persons of reputation and honour, that so the world might know, that how much soever the rude multitude despised him, persons of figure and character in the world paid a due respect to him, John xix. 39, 40.

(3.) It was farther ordained, that he should be buried in a new tomb, wherein never man was laid; that so his resurrection might be more fully demonstrated, that none might pretend that another was raised instead of him, since no other was buried in this grave.

The fine linen, in which his body was wrapped, and the sweet spices, or perfumed ointment, with which it was embalmed, was not only agreeable to the method of sepulture, used by the Jews, but it was a public testimony of that respect which his friends bore to him, to whom his memory was precious: so that Nicodemus, who, before this, was afraid to come publickly to him, or who, as it is said, at the first, came to Jesus by night, brought a mixture of myrrh and aloes, and they took the body of Jesus, and wound it in linen clothes, with the spices, as the manner of the Jews is to bury, chap. xix. 30, 40.

2. As Christ died, and was buried, so he continued under the power of death till the third day; this the apostle calls, Death’s having dominion over him, Rom. vi. 9. and it must be reckoned a part of his humiliation, as well as the act of dying; for,

1st, Though his soul enjoyed the bliss and happiness of heaven, immediately after his death, as he tells the penitent thief, that that day he should be with him in paradise, Luke xxiii. 43. yet, inasmuch as it was, when separate, in a state of imperfection, and had a natural desire, and hope of re-union with the body, this argues that there were some degrees of perfect blessedness, that it was not then possessed of.

2dly, So long as he continued under the power of death, he was not fully discharged by the justice of God; neither was the work of satisfaction complete, till he was declared to be the Son of God with power, and to have fully conquered death and hell, by his resurrection from the death; this was therefore a part of his humiliation.

3dly, His body, while remaining a prisoner in the grave, could not actively bring that glory to God, which it did before, or would do after its resurrection; and it was, at that time, incapable of the heavenly blessedness, and, in particular, of its being so glorious a body, as now it is.

All these things attending the state of separate souls, or the unseen state, into which Christ is said to go, immediately after his death, some call, as it is observed in this answer, his descent into hell, which is what we are next to consider: but, since this is largely and judiciously handled by several writers,[221] I shall insist on it with brevity. And,

[1.] Consider it as founded on scripture, as the judicious Calvin does,[222] without regard had to its being inserted in any creed of human composure: thus it is said, Thou wilt not leave my soul in hell; neither wilt thou suffer thine Holy One to see corruption, Acts ii. 27. where it seems, as the author but now mentioned observes, to be put before his death; and therefore he supposes, that the apostle hereby intends the sufferings which our Saviour endured in his soul, which were not, in all respects, unlike the punishment due to sin in hell: and herein he is followed by several modern writers; and the principal reason, which they assign for it, is, because, as our Surety, he endured all the essential parts of that punishment, which our sins had deserved; and therefore they suppose, that he endured an afflictive sensation of the wrath of God, which bore some resemblance to that which is endured in hell.

But, though I would not extenuate Christ’s sufferings, especially in that part thereof, that was most formidable to him, which was the cup that he desired, if it were possible, that it might pass from him; nor can we suppose that any thing less than a view which he had of the wrath of God, due to our sins, would fill him with that horror and amazement, which he expressed: yet we ought carefully to distinguish between this part of his sufferings, and the punishment of sin in hell, inasmuch as he was exempted from the sting of conscience, and a constant sense of the everlasting displeasure of God, together with despair of any better condition, or the least relaxation, as a judicious writer observes.[223] And besides, it is expressly said, in this scripture, Thou wilt not leave my soul; which shews, that though he might be destitute of the comfortable sense of God’s presence, which occasioned him to cry out, My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me? yet he was not destitute of the supporting presence of God, nor separate from his love, which always redounded to his Person; though the effects of God’s wrath, which he bore, might fill him with the greatest uneasiness, from the afflictive view, which he had thereof in his soul. However, though the sense of this text must be thus qualified, if we suppose that it denotes Christ’s sufferings in his soul before his death; yet it does not sufficiently appear that the apostle speaks of his sufferings antecedent to it; because it is brought in as an argument, to prove that he should be raised from the dead, and accordingly his flesh is said to rest in hope; therefore we shall proceed,

[2.] To consider Christ’s descent into hell, as contained in one of the articles of the creed, that is commonly attributed to the apostles, which is particularly referred to, in the answer under our present consideration, wherein it is put after his death. Here something might have been premised concerning that Creed in general, and the reason of inserting this article in it: but this having been insisted on with great judgment by others,[224] all that I shall add, is, that notwithstanding what we meet with in some fabulous and spurious writings, this Creed was not compiled by the apostles, how consonant soever it be to the doctrines laid down by them: for we have no account given of it by any ancient writers before the fourth century, therefore it is of later date, than either the Nicene or Athanasian Creed; the former of which was composed about the year of our Lord 325, the latter not long after it. In the Nicene Creed, there is no mention made of Christ’s descent into hell, though the Athanasian Creed inserts it; but there is no mention therein of his being buried. The words are these: He descended into hell, and the third day he arose from the dead; from whence some conclude, that nothing else is intended but his being buried, or continuing in the state of the dead, till his resurrection.[225] Some think, indeed, that there was a marginal note in some copies of this Creed, to explain what is meant by his descending into hell, namely, that he was buried; which the compilers of the apostles Creed afterwards thought to be a part of the Creed itself, and therefore they add, that he died, was buried, and descended into hell. But passing by this critical remark, concerning the reason of the insertion hereof in this article, we shall proceed to consider how this is explained, by various writers, who treat on this subject. And,

(1.) The Papists and Lutherans assert that our Saviour descended locally into hell after his death; not to suffer any of the torments that are endured there, but to shew himself as a conqueror over those who are detained in it, and triumph over them. As for the Papists, they suppose, that he went also into a place, which they describe[226] as a prison, where the souls of the old Testament-saints were detained, as being incapable of entering into heaven, inasmuch as they had not a sufficient discovery of Christ and the gospel made to them, while they were here on earth; and therefore they were detained in this, which we may call a fictitious place, which they represent as being between heaven and hell; not, indeed, according to them, a place of torment, but they suppose it was such, in which they were destitute of the heavenly blessedness; and they add, that immediately after Christ appeared among them, and manifested himself to them, they believed; in which sense they understand that scripture, where it is said, that the gospel was preached to them that are dead, 1 Pet. iv. 6. and, upon this, he carried them with him into heaven. This opinion of Christ’s descending locally into hell, is very absurd, and contrary to scripture; particularly,

1st, To what he says to the penitent thief upon the cross, To-day thou shalt be with me in paradise, Luke xxiii. 43. by which, doubtless he means heaven, which is called paradise in other scriptures, 2 Cor. xii. 2. compared with 4. and Rev. ii. 7. The method which the Papists take to evade the force of this argument, is, by pretending that our Saviour speaks of his being with him in heaven, as he is there in his divine nature; or, since that appears to be so great a strain on the sense of the text, that very few will much regard it; they have another evasion, which is as little to the purpose, by pretending, that there ought to be a stop put after the words to day; and so the meaning is, that now at this time, I say unto thee, that thou shalt be with me in paradise, or heaven, when I ascend into it, after I have descended into hell, and that other place which I must go to, before I come to heaven: but this sense of the text is so evasive, that none, who read the scripture impartially, can suppose that it is just; and therefore nothing farther need be said to it.

2dly, It appears that Christ immediately went into heaven, as to his soul, when he died upon the cross, from his last words, Father, into thine hands I commend my spirit; which having said, he gave up the ghost, Luke xxiii. 46. This giving up himself to God, implies a desire that God would receive his spirit; even as Stephen said, with his dying breath, Lord Jesus, receive my spirit, Acts vii. 59. Christ, in effect, desires that God would receive his spirit; and can we suppose this prayer to be unanswered, or that he was not immediately received into heaven?

We might farther have shown how little ground they have to conclude that Christ went to preach the gospel to those, who, by reason of the darkness of the Old Testament-dispensation, were detained in prison, as being unfit for the heavenly state: but the falseness of this supposition has been considered elsewhere,[227] and therefore pass it over at present. And as for that scripture, which they bring in defence hereof, that Christ went and preached to the spirits in prison, 1 Pet. iii. 19. it is plain from the context, that the apostle means nothing else thereby, but his sending Noah to preach to the old world, who were disobedient, and, for this, were sent into the prison of hell, after the long-suffering of God had waited on them while the ark was building. How easy a matter is it for those, who regard but the analogy of faith, or the context of those scriptures, which they bring in defence of their wild absurdities, to pretend to prove any thing from scripture![228]

As to what they say concerning Christ’s descending into hell, to triumph over the devils, and others, who were there plunged into that abyss of misery, this conjecture has no foundation in scripture. We read, indeed of his spoiling principalities and powers, and making a shew of them openly, triumphing over them; but it was in his cross, and not in hell, Col. ii. 15. and elsewhere of his destroying him that had the power of death, that is, the devil, Heb. ii. 14. But it was not by going in his own Person into that place, where he is detained in chains of darkness; it was not by any thing done by him after his death, but, as it is expressed, by death, as he purchased that victory, which he obtained over him on the cross, which was the seat of his triumph in this respect; and therefore there is no foundation to assert his local descent into hell.

(2.) The most probable opinion concerning Christ’s descent into hell, which I cannot but acquiesce in, is what is observed in this answer, as implying his continuing in the state of the dead, and under the power of death till the third day. The word hell, indeed, in our English tongue, generally, if not always, signifies that place of torment, which they are adjudged to, who are for ever excluded from the divine favour: thus it is said, concerning the rich man in the parable, that in hell he lift up his eyes, being in torments, Luke xvi. 23. But the Hebrew and Greek words,[229] which we often translate hell, have not only that, but another sense affixed to them, as they sometimes signify the grave; so our translators frequently render the word; as when Jacob speaks of bringing down his gray hairs with sorrow to the grave, Gen. xlii. 38. and elsewhere it is said, The Lord killeth and maketh alive; he bringeth down to grave, and bringeth up, 1 Sam. ii. 6. And it is taken for the state of the dead: thus Jacob, when he thought that his son Joseph was torn in pieces, without being laid in the grave, says, I will go down into the grave, unto my son, Gen. xxxvii. 35. There are many other places in which the Hebrew word is so rendered; and as for the Greek word, that, according to its proper derivation and signification, denotes the state of the dead, or the unseen state: thus our Saviour, after death, continued in the state of the dead, his soul being separate from his body till the third day, when his state of humiliation was finished.

This leads us to consider Christ’s state of exaltation.

Footnote 216:

A piece of silver is the same which is elsewhere called a shekel, which was valued at about half a crown, English money; so that the whole price for which our Saviour was sold into their hands, was no more than three pounds fifteen shillings.

Footnote 217:

Pilate is characterized, by various writers, as a man of inhuman cruelty, insatiable avarice, and inflexible obstinacy. An instance of his cruelty we have mentioned in Luke xiii. 1. in his mingling the blood of the Galileans with their sacrifices, that is, as some suppose he fell upon them without a fair trial, and murdered them while they were engaged in a solemn act of religious worship, offering sacrifice at Jerusalem, in one of the public festivals; pretending, though without a fair trial, that they were of the same mind, with Judas of Galilee, who had persuaded many of the Galileans to refuse to give tribute to Cæsar. A learned writer (Vid. Grot. in Luke xiii. 1.) supposes, not only that this was the occasion of this inhuman action, which is not improbable, (though Josephus makes no mention of it) but also that this is one of those things which was reported to the emperor, who did not approve of it. And afterwards there were other instances of his oppression and mal-administration laid before Tiberius, which, had not that emperor’s death prevented, it would have occasioned his disgrace; and afterwards he fell under the displeasure of his successor, and was not only turned out of his procuratorship, but reduced to such miserable circumstances, that he laid violent hands on himself, (Vid. Phil. Jud. de Leg. ad Caj. & Joseph. Antiq. Lib. XVIII. cap. 5. & Euseb. Hist. Eccles. Lib. II. cap. 7.) Therefore we may well suppose, that though he had, in other respects no regard to the Jews; yet, on this occasion, he feared, lest they should report his vile actions to the emperor, and that they would represent this to him with a malicious insinuation, that he was his enemy, because he spared our Saviour: this occasioned him to deliver him up to them, to do what they would with him.

Footnote 218:

Vid. Sozom. Hist. Eccl. Lib. I. cap. 8.

Footnote 219:

It is frequently styled, by the Romans, Servile supplicium, (Vid. Val. Max. Lib. II. de discipl. milit. § 12.) as being inflicted, by them, on none but slaves; so one (Vid. Ter. Andr.) represents a master speaking to his servant, Quid meritus es? To which he replies, Crucem. & Juv. in Satyr, 6. says, Pone Crucem servo. Cicero inveighs, with so much earnestness, against this severe and cruel punishment, that he signifies how glorious and delightful a thing it would be for him to declaim against it, not only at the expence of his strength, but of his very life: Quorum ego de acerbissima morte, crudelissimoq; cruciatu dicam, cum eum locum tractare cœpero; & ita dicam, ut si me in ea querimonia, quam sum habiturus de istius crudelitate, & de civium Rom, indignissima morte, non modo vires, verum etiam vita deficiat, id mihi præclarum & jucundum putem. And elsewhere he intimates, that it was universally reckoned the highest crime to crucify any one that was free of Rome, in a beautiful climax, or gradation of expression: Facinus est, vinciri civem Romanum; scelus verberari: prope parricidium necari: quid dicam in crucem tollere? (Vid. Orat. in Verr. Lib. V.) And elsewhere he says, Nomen ipsum crucis, absit non modo a corpore civium Romanorum, sed etiam a cogitatione, oculis, auribus. And he adds concerning it, together with other cruelties that attended it, Harum enim omnium rerum non solum eventus, atque perpessio, sed etiam conditio, expectatio, mentio ipsa denique, indigna cive Romano, atque homine libero est. (Vid. Orat. pro C. Rabir.) As for the cruelty of this death, it was so great, that the greatest tortures that are expressed by the word Cruciatus, are plainly derived from Crux: and some of the Roman emperors, who were of a more merciful disposition than others, considering the inhumanity of this kind of death, when they exposed some persons for their crimes to public shame upon the cross, ordered them first to be put to death by the sword.

Footnote 220:

See Lowth in loc.

Footnote 221:

Vid. Wits. in Symbol. Exercitat. 18. and Pearson on the Creed, Article 5. and Parker de descensu Christi ad inferos.

Footnote 222:

Vid. Institut. Lib. II. cap. 16. § 10.

Footnote 223:

Vid. Pearson on the Creed, Artic. 5.

Footnote 224:

Vid. History of the apostles Creed.

Footnote 225:

The Creed called the Apostles’ is not offered by the first writers in whom it is found, upon its own authority. They attempt to prove it from the scriptures, and we can receive it in no other way. The article “He descended into hell” did not originally stand in the Eastern, nor in the Roman creed; it was first found in the creed of Aquileia, which had nothing of Christ’s burial; and no doubt as αδκσ is often put for the grave, this article meant in it his burial. When inserted from thence into the two other creeds, which mentioned his burial already, it was understood of his human soul. Yet it stands incoherently, for his body was crucified, dead, buried, arose, and was seen to ascend: but this article, in the midst of those verbs, predicates something of another subject, his soul. Yet if taken in the sense of “Thou wilt not leave my soul in hell,” (Psa. xvi. Acts ii.) it is true. But שאול and αδκσ are each taken for the invisible world or separate state, of the good, as well as evil, both in the old and new Testament, and this was thought by Jews and Gentiles to be under the surface. Thus Abraham and Lazarus were supposed there, and Samuel to have been called up from thence. Christ asserting his divinity, must allege he came from heaven, for that was the place of God. He also returned thither, and is to come from thence; yet he has gone to prepare a place, and his disciples expected by his promise to be with him, and so all other Christians. His descent therefore means that his soul, when separated from his body, was immediately with the separate spirits, who are happy, and so said to be in paradise. But whether above, or below the surface, is unimportant. None but the Divine Spirit is ubiquitary, but the transitions of others may be as quick as thought. They have means of communication with each other, and can receive what answers to our sense of light, without bodily senses, and no doubt vastly more satisfactorily, than we do in our most vivid dreams. The Divine Nature of Christ was, and is, omnipresent; for he declared he was in heaven whilst on earth, and it is not probable that his human soul was separated from this after his death any more than during his life.

Footnote 226:

This they call Limbus Patrum.

Footnote 227:

See Vol. I. page 54, 55, and page 209, ante.

Footnote 228:

1 Peter iii. 18. describes the sufferings, death, and resurrection of Christ, as encouragement for the suffering saints. There are no prepositions before σαρκς, and πνευματι (flesh and spirit:) our translators have taken the former as the dative of the part affected, the latter as the dative of the cause; and have expressed the former by in, the latter by by. Some preposition, or prepositions must be inserted in the translation. It is said, to preserve the antithesis, the same should be repeated, and so it will be; “Was quickened in the Spirit,” which will refer to his human soul. But his human soul was not dead, and could not be quickened. And it is absurd to substitute the adjective quick, (as Dr. Horseley has done) for this is to make, not translate scripture. Nor could his human soul quicken his body; it was the power of God, whether we understand by Spirit his divine nature, the person of the Father, or of the Holy Spirit. Now as the word Spirit here cannot mean his human soul, this passage will not prove that it went to any place, or prison, whatever.

By which, (ver. 19.) relates to the Divine Spirit: he, that is, Christ, went (πορευθεις having gone,) preached (this is also the indefinite past tense) to the spirits in prison. The omission of the substantive verb makes the present tense; and the spirits here spoken of were still in prison, at the time of the writing this epistle, and therefore whether good or evil, they had not been set at large by Christ from their imprisonment. The word disobedient is also the indefinite participle. Went, preached, and disobedient, are all the same tense; and, coming together, evidently relate to the same time. Ποτε οτε connect them with, and pin them down to the time of the verb waited, which is the unfinished action, was waiting, the tense, which is most definite, and in this case actually connected with absolute time, to wit, “in the days of Noah.” The going forth, the preaching, and the disobedience, were therefore all, as well as the waiting of God, in the days of Noah, and not between the death, and resurrection of Christ.

The reason that the Apostle fixes on the fearful example of rejecting divine instructions in the days of Noah, was probably that Noah had been called in scripture a preacher of righteousness: the Lord had also said of that generation, that his Spirit should not always strive with man, which implies, that his Spirit did go forth with the preaching of that age; and their disobedience was proved by their destruction by the deluge; and their death in impenitency was a proof of their everlasting punishment.

Footnote 229:

שאול and Αδης.

Quest. LI., LII.

QUEST. LI. What was the estate of Christ’s exaltation?

ANSW. The estate of Christ’s exaltation comprehendeth his resurrection, ascension, sitting at the right hand of the Father, and his coming again to judge the world.

QUEST. LII. How was Christ exalted in his resurrection?

ANSW. Christ was exalted in his resurrection, in that, not having seen corruption in death, of which it was not possible for him to be held, and having the very same body in which he suffered, with the essential properties thereof, but without mortality and other common infirmities belonging to this life, really united to his soul, he rose again from the dead the third day, by his own power; whereby he declared himself to be the Son of God, to have satisfied divine justice, to have vanquished death, and him that had the power of it, and to be Lord of quick and dead; all which he did as a public Person, the Head of his church, for their justification, quickening in grace, support against enemies, and to assure them of their resurrection from the dead at the last day.

The former of these answers containing only a general account of what is particularly insisted on in some following answers, we pass it over, and proceed to consider Christ as exalted in his resurrection. And accordingly we may observe,

I. That he did not see corruption in death. Corruption according to our common acceptation of the words imports two things,

1. The dissolution of the frame of nature, or the separation of soul and body, in which sense every one that dies sees corruption; for death is the dissolution, or separation of the two constituent parts of man; which therefore the apostle calls the dissolution of this earthly tabernacle, 2 Cor. v. 1. Now when our Saviour is said not to see corruption, it is not to be understood in this sense; because he really died.

2. It consists principally in the body’s being putrified, or turned into dust. In this sense it is said, Thou wilt not suffer thine Holy One to see corruption, Acts ii. 27. which is explained in a following verse, in which is said, that his flesh did not see corruption, ver. 31. i. e. he did not continue long enough in the state of the dead, for his body to be corrupted, which it would have been, without a continued miracle, had it lain many days in the grave.

If it be objected, that to lie two or three days in the grave is sufficient to contract some degree of corruption; therefore Christ’s body could not, in all respects, be free from corruption.

To this we answer, that there was a peculiar hand of providence, in keeping it from being corrupted, during that short space of time, in which it continued in the state of the dead, which was an indication of the great regard which God had to him, his sufferings therein being now at an end. But there may be another reason hereof assigned, inasmuch as the filth of sin is sometimes illustrated by things putrified and corrupted, to beget in us a detestation thereof; therefore God would not suffer the body of Christ to be corrupted; as his soul had not the least taint of moral corruption in life, it was not expedient that his body should have the least mark or emblem of it in death. And it was also necessary, that his body should not see corruption, by being turned into dust, as the bodies of all men will be; otherwise we could not have had so evident a proof, that the same body which died, was raised again from the dead, which will be farther insisted on, under a following head, when we consider the reason why he rose again so soon as the third day.

II. It was not possible for our Saviour to be held any longer under the power of death: this is taken from Acts ii. 24. For the understanding whereof, let us consider,

1. That had he continued always under the power of death, it would have argued the insufficiency of his satisfaction, so that his obedience in life, and his sufferings in death, could not have attained the end designed thereby; and consequently the infinite worth and value thereof would, in effect, have been denied. Therefore the justice of God being fully satisfied, it could not refuse to release him out of prison, that is, to raise him from the dead.

2. It was not possible that he should be held any longer under the power of death, than till the third day, because the purpose and promise of God must have its accomplishment. And, indeed, he was given to understand, before he suffered, that his body should be detained no longer in the grave; as he intimates to his followers, Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up, John ii. 19. This event, therefore, was proposed as a sign, and an appeal is made thereunto, for the confirmation of his mission and doctrine; therefore it was impossible that he should be held any longer in the grave.

III. We are to prove, that Christ actually rose again from the dead. The two main proofs, necessary to support our faith herein, are, 1. A sufficient testimony given hereof by creatures, 2. A farther confirmation of it by miracles, which are a divine testimony. Both these we have; and it may be farther observed, that the great ends of his death and resurrection are fully obtained, as appears by daily experience; all which afforded us unquestionable matter of conviction.

First, As to the former sort of testimony. It was attested by sufficient, undeniable evidence; as,

1. By two angels, who were sent from heaven, as the first witnesses thereof; they are described as being in shining garments, who said, Why seek ye the living among the dead? he is not here, but is risen, Luke xxiv. 4-6. They are called indeed, two men, because they appeared in human form; but another evangelist calls them two angels, John xx, 12.

2. It was attested, by several men and women, who were his familiar friends and followers before his death, and saw and conversed with him, after his resurrection, and therefore had sufficient proof that it was he who suffered that was raised from the dead. And, lest the testimony of his apostles should not be reckoned sufficient, though there were enough of them to attest this matter, he was afterwards seen by a great number, namely, Above five hundred brethren at once, 1 Cor. xv. 6. and surely, all these could not be deceived, in a matter of which it was necessary for themselves, as well as others, that they should have the fullest conviction.

Now that it was morally impossible, that his disciples, in particular, should be imposed on, will farther appear, if we consider,

(1.) That they were his intimate associates; it was for this reason, among others, that providence ordered that he should appear to, and converse mostly with them: had he appeared to others, who never knew him before, and told them that he was risen from the dead, though they could not question his being alive, whilst they conversed with him; yet they might doubt whether he was the same person who died, and so was raised from the dead: and it cannot well be conceived that such could receive a full conviction, as to this matter, without a miracle: but, when he appeared to those who were intimately acquainted with him, before his death, the conviction is easy and natural; for,

If his countenance, or outward appearance, as much resembled what it was before his death, as ours after a fit of sickness does what it was before; then his aspect, or external appearance to them, would afford such matter of conviction, as very few pretend to gainsay; especially, considering it was but three days since they saw him, before he was crucified. But it may be objected to this, that his countenance was so altered, that it was hard to know him by it, insomuch that Mary, one of his intimate acquaintance, when she first saw him, mistook him for the gardener, John xx. 14, 15. and it is said, that, after this he appeared in another form unto two of them, Mark xvi. 12.

As to the former of these scriptures, Mary might easily mistake him for another person, through surprize, and not looking stedfastly on him, as not expecting to see him. This her mistake, therefore, may easily be accounted for, though we suppose his countenance not much to differ from what it was before his death.

As to the other scripture, which speaks of his appearing, in another form, to two of his disciples, as they walked into the country; this is mentioned, with some particular enlargement, by the evangelist Luke, together with the conversation our Saviour had with them; and it is observed, that their eyes were holden, that they should not know him, Luke xxiv. 16. and that afterwards their eyes were opened and they knew him, ver. 31. May we not, from hence, suppose, that there was something preternatural, either in the change of Christ’s countenance, to the end that, at first, they should not know him; or else, that there was some impress upon the minds of the disciples, that prevented their knowing him? If the former of these be supposed, as agreeable to St. Mark’s words, relating to his appearing in another form; this miracle will not give sufficient occasion for us to conclude that our Saviour’s countenance was so much altered, when, in other instances, he appeared to his disciples, that it was impossible that they should know him thereby: but, if this should be allowed; or, if it should be objected, that the most intimate friends may mistake the person whom they see, if there be nothing else to judge by, but the likeness of his countenance, to what it was before; then let us add,

(2.) That our Saviour not only appeared to his disciples, but conversed with them, and brought to their remembrance what had passed between him and them before his death: thus he says, These are the words that I spake unto you while I was yet with you, &c. Luke xxiv. 44. Now, when a person not only discovers himself to others, but brings to mind private conversation that had before passed between them, at particular times and places; this leaves no ground to doubt whether it be the same person, or no. Therefore his appearing to, and conversing with his intimate, particular friends, and calling to mind former conversation held with them before his death, proves that he was the same Person that had lived before; and consequently they might be as sure that he was raised from the dead, as they were that he died.

3. Those persons, who, after his resurrection, were witnesses to the truth hereof to the world, were very worthy of credit; for,

(1.) They were of such a temper, that they would believe nothing themselves, but upon the fullest evidence; and this they had to such an extreme, as is uncommon; providence so ordering it, that we might, from thence, be more sure that we were not imposed on by their report. They were incredulous, even to a fault; for,

1st, Though they had sufficient intimation given them, that our Saviour would rise from the dead, at that time that he really did, and were also credibly informed by the women, who had an account hereof from the angel, that he was risen; yet it is said, Their words seemed to them as idle tales, and they believed them not, chap. xxiv. 11.

2dly, After they had received a farther account of this matter, from those two disciples, who conversed with him, going to Emmaus, and therefore had sufficient ground, from them, to conclude that he was risen from the dead; yet, when our Saviour, at the same time that they were reporting this matter to them, appeared in the midst of them, they were terrified, as if they had seen a spirit, Luke xxiv. 36, 37. This farther discovers how much they were disinclined to believe any thing, without greater evidence than what is generally demanded in like cases.

3dly, The report given by the rest of the disciples to Thomas, concerning his resurrection, and his having appeared to them, and conversed with them, which was a sufficient ground to induce any one to believe it, was not, in the least regarded by him, who determined, that unless he saw in his hands the print of the nails, and put his finger into the print of the nails, and thrust his hand into his side, he would not believe; in which he was afterwards indulged by our Saviour for his conviction. All these things are plain proofs that the disciples, who were to be witnesses of this matter, were not persons of such a temper, as that they might easily be imposed on, and therefore their report is more convincing to us.

(2.) They were men of an unspotted character, unblemished honesty and integrity, which is a very necessary circumstance to be regarded, in those who are evidences to any matters of fact: their conversation was subject to the inspection of their most inveterate enemies, who, if they could have found any thing blame-worthy therein, would, doubtless, have alleged it against them, as an expedient to have brought their persons and doctrines into disrepute, which would have had a tendency to sap the very foundation of the Christian religion; and the Jews need not have had recourse to persecution, or called in the aid of the civil magistrate to silence them, if they could have produced any instances of dishonesty, or want of integrity, in their character. The apostle Peter, who was one of the witnesses to this truth, appeals to the world in the behalf of himself and the rest of the apostles, when he says, We have not followed cunningly devised fables, when we made known unto you the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, but were eye-witnesses of his Majesty, 2 Pet. i. 18. and, indeed, their writings discover not only great integrity, but holiness, and therefore the same apostle styles them all, Holy men of God, ver. 21.

(3.) They could not be supposed to have the least prospect of advantage by deceiving the world, as to this matter; but, on the other hand, were to look for nothing else but the greatest degree of opposition, both from the Jews and the Heathen. The former, who had always been such enemies to their Lord and Master, would, doubtless, be so to them; and, besides this, they reckoned it their interest to oppose and persecute every one who propagated this doctrine, inasmuch as they apprehended, that, if the world believed it, it would fasten an eternal mark of infamy upon them; and they were also apprehensive, that it would bring on them the guilt of his blood, that is, the deserved punishment thereof, Acts v. 28. If any one should object, that they might have some view to their own interest, when they first became Christ’s disciples, or expect some secular advantage, by being the subjects of his kingdom, as apprehending that it was of a temporal nature; this they had not any ground for from him. Besides, since his crucifixion, all expectations of that kind were at an end; and therefore their reporting that he was risen from the dead, if he had not been so, would have been to invent a lie, contrary to their own interest.

Moreover, they would herein not only have imposed on others, but have incurred the divine displeasure, and ruined their own souls, the happiness whereof was equally concerned in the truth of their testimony with that of ours; and none can suppose that they ever appeared so desperate, as not to regard what became of them, either in this or another world.

Thus we have considered the testimony of those apostles, who saw and conversed with Christ after his resurrection, together with their respective character, as witnesses hereof. And to them we have the addition of another witness to this truth, namely, the apostle Paul, who saw him in an extraordinary manner, after his ascension into heaven, and heard his voice, saying, Saul, Saul, why persecutest thou me? I am Jesus, whom thou persecutest, chap. xxvi. 14-16. upon this occasion he says, concerning himself, Last of all he was seen of me also, as of one born out of due time, 1 Cor. xv. 8. that is, one who had this qualification for the apostleship, or his being a witness to Christ’s resurrection, after that time, in which others were qualified to bear their testimony hereunto, that is, after his ascension into heaven. And we may observe, concerning this witness, that he was well known, by all the Jews, to have been one of the most inveterate enemies to Christianity in the world; which he frequently afterwards took occasion to mention, that so his testimony might be more regarded; and, indeed, nothing short of the fullest evidence, as to this matter, could induce him to forego his secular interest, and in common with the rest of the apostles, to expose himself to the loss of all things, in defence of this truth.

And, now we are speaking concerning the witnesses to Christ’s resurrection, and the apostle Paul, as attesting this, from his having seen him in glorified state, we may take notice of one more evidence hereunto, namely, the blessed martyr Stephen, who declared, in the presence of his enraged enemies, Behold, I see the heavens opened, and the Son of man standing on the right hand of God, Acts vii. 56. He was, doubtless, one of the holiest, and most upright men in his day; and, when he gave this testimony, it is said, in the foregoing words, He was full of the Holy Ghost; and certainly the Holy Ghost, would not suggest a falsity to him: and this he spake when ready to expire, and, at such a time, men are under no temptation to deceive the world; so that if, at any time, they are to be believed, it is then, when they are in the most serious frame, and thoughtful about the world into which they are immediately passing. Thus concerning the testimony of Christ’s friends and followers to his resurrection.

And, to this, we might add the testimony of enemies themselves hereunto; they were forced to own this truth, though it was so much against their own interest, and made their crime, in crucifying him appear so black and heinous. Thus we may observe, that when Christ was buried, the Jews desired Pilate, from the intimation which they before had received, that he was to rise again after three days, that his sepulchre should be made sure till that time, which was done accordingly; a stone rolled to the mouth thereof, and sealed, and a watch appointed to guard it; and these were Jews, as Pilate says, Ye have a watch, go your way, make it as sure as you can, Matt. xxvii. 65. He did not order Christ’s friends and followers to watch the sepulchre, but his enemies; and it is observed, concerning them, that when the stone was rolled from the door of the sepulchre, by the ministry of an angel, the keepers, or the watch which Pilate had set, did shake and became as dead men, chap. xxviii. 4. or were ready to die with fear. This could not throw them into a sleep, for fear awakens, rather than stupifies the passions; upon this it is said, Some of the watch came into the city, and shewed unto the chief priests the things that were done; and when they had assembled together, and had taken counsel, they gave large money unto the soldiers, saying, Say ye, his disciples came by night, and stole him away, while we slept; and, since this would render them liable to the governor’s resentment, and some degree of punishment for their not attending their respective post, with that watchfulness that was necessary, they add, We will persuade him and secure you; upon which it is said, They took the money, and did as they were taught; and this saying is commonly reported among the Jews until this day. This is the most stupid and absurd method that could be taken, to discountenance the doctrine of Christ’s resurrection; and, indeed it contains a proof thereof: the soldiers, at first, reported matter of fact; but the evasion thereof confutes itself. Must we not suppose, that there were a considerable number that watched the sepulchre? Doubtless, they would take care to have several there present, lest those who might come to steal him away should be too strong for them: and, if there were several of them present, could they be all asleep at the same time? and could the tomb be opened, which they had made stronger than ordinary, and the stone rolled from it, and yet none of them be awakened out of their sleep? Besides, if they were asleep, their evidence, that Christ was, at the same time, stolen away by his disciples, is too ridiculous to be regarded by any, who consider what sort of evidence deserves to be credited; for how could they know what was done when they were asleep? Thus concerning the testimony given to Christ’s resurrection, both by angels and men. We proceed to consider,

Secondly, How it was confirmed by miracles, which are no other than a divine testimony. The former sort of evidence, indeed, is sufficient to convince any one, who does not give way to the greatest degree of scepticism: but yet we have farther proof of it; for, as the apostle says, If we receive the witness of men, the witness of God is greater, 1 John v. 19. Now God himself has been pleased to set his seal to this truth, or to confirm it by the extraordinary testimony of miracles, which were wrought by the apostles; which was, in some respect, necessary, that the faith of those, who were to be convinced thereby, might be properly divine, and therefore founded on greater evidence than that of human testimony, how undeniable soever it were: thus it is said, that with great power gave the apostles witness of the resurrection of the Lord Jesus, Acts iv. 33. and the Holy Ghost, in particular, by whose immediate efficiency these miracles were wrought, is said to be a witness hereunto: thus the apostles say, We are his witnesses of these things, and so is also the Holy Ghost, whom God hath given to them that obey him, chap. v. 32. the meaning of which is, we are speaking and acting by the immediate power of the Holy Ghost, confirming to you this great truth. And, indeed, those miraculous gifts of the Holy Ghost were an extraordinary means for the conviction of the world concerning this truth; which our Saviour gave his followers ground to expect, at this time, before his death, when he spake concerning the Spirit, which was not before given, John vii. 36. that is, not in so great a degree, so as to enable them to speak with divers tongues, and work various sorts of miracles, beyond what they had done before; accordingly it is said, The Holy Ghost was not yet, or before this, given, because that Jesus was not glorified. This Christ also promised them, immediately before his ascension into heaven, that these signs shall follow them that believe; in my name shall they cast out devils; they shall speak with new tongues, they shall take up serpents, and, if they drink any deadly thing, it shall not hurt them; they shall lay hands, and they shall recover, Mark xvi. 17, 18. These miracles are called signs, as ordained to signify or give a proof of Christ’s resurrection; and they are said to be wrought by them, who had the faith of miracles, believed it themselves, and hereby induced others to believe it; and also they wrought them in his name, with a design to set forth his glory, which could not have been evinced hereby, had he not been risen from the dead.

And to this we may add, that all the gifts and graces of the Spirit, which believers are made partakers of, are convincing evidences of this doctrine. But this will be considered under a following head, when we speak to the latter part of this answer, respecting the fruits and consequences of Christ’s resurrection, which the church, in all the ages, thereof, experiences, whereby the work of grace is begun, carried on, and perfected in them; which leads us to consider,

IV. The properties of the body of Christ, as thus raised from the dead, as it is said, in this answer, that the same body was raised again, with all the essential properties thereof, but without mortality, and other common infirmities belonging to this life.

1. It was the same body which suffered that was raised from the dead, otherwise it could not be called a resurrection: thus the apostle Paul, speaking concerning the general resurrection at the last day, compares it to the springing up of seed, 1 Cor. xv. 37, 38. that is sown in the ground, which, though it be very much altered, as to its shape, and many accidental properties, yet it is the same for substance that was sown; accordingly, every seed hath its own body; the matter is the same, though the form be different.

2. When it is said, that the body of Christ had the same essential properties which it had before his death, we are to understand hereby, that it was material, and endowed with the same senses that it had before, which were exercised in the same manner, though it may be, in a greater degree.

3. It is farther observed, that it had not the same accidental properties which belonged to it before; for it was without mortality, and other infirmities of this life; thus the apostle speaks, concerning the resurrection of all believers to this purpose, It is sown in corruption, it is raised in incorruption; it is sown in dishonour, it is raised in glory; it is sown in weakness, it is raised in power; it is sown a natural body, it is raised a spiritual body, ver. 42-44. and it is said in particular, concerning our Saviour, that, being raised from the dead, he dieth no more, Rom. vi. 9. that is, he was raised immortal. And as believers, after their resurrection from the dead, shall be delivered from the common infirmities of life, such as hunger, thirst, pain, sickness, and the like; much more may we conclude that our Saviour was so: but how far his human nature was changed as to all the properties thereof, it is not for us to pretend to determine, nor ought we to be too inquisitive about it; nevertheless, we may conclude, that though it was raised incorruptible and immortal, and exempted from the common infirmities of this life; yet it was not, while here on earth, clothed with that lustre and glory which was put upon it, when he ascended into heaven; the reason of which might probably be this, that he might converse with men, or that they might be able to bear his presence, which they could not have done, had his body been so glorious, as it is now at present, since his ascension into heaven.

V. It is farther observed, that Christ was raised from the dead on the third day, that is, he continued in the state of the dead, from the evening of the sixth day, to the morning of the first, which is the Christian Sabbath: thus the day on which Christ died is said to be the preparation, and the Sabbath drew on, Luke xxiii. 54. which another Evangelist explains, and says, It was the preparation, that is, the day before the Sabbath, Mark xv. 42. The reason why the day before the Sabbath is so called, is, because it was the day wherein they prepared every thing that was necessary for the solemnity of the day following, and gave a dispatch to their worldly affairs, that they might not be embarrassed therewith, and that by fore-thought and meditation on the work of that day, they might be better prepared. This was on the sixth day of the week, and Christ died in the evening, not long before sun-set; and it is also said, that he rose again from the dead when the seventh day was past, very early in the morning on the first day of the week, chap. xvi. 1, 2. so that our Saviour continued in the state of the dead a part of the sixth, the whole seventh, and a part of the first day of the week; upon which account he is said to rise again on the third day, 1 Cor. xv. 4. that is, the third day, inclusive of the day of his death, and that of his resurrection. The learned bishop Pearson, in his marginal notes on the fifth article of the Creed, illustrates it by a tertian, or third-day ague, which is so called, though there be but one day’s intermission between the paroxisms thereof, and so the first and third day are both included in the computation. This is farther illustrated by him and others, who treat on this subject, viz. that the scripture often speaks of a number of days, inclusive of the first and last; as when it is said, When eight days were accomplished, our Saviour was circumcised, Luke xii. 21. including the days of his birth and circumcision, between which six days intervened.[230] Thus our Saviour continued three days in the state of the dead, inclusive of the first and last; or, he rose again, the third day, according to the scriptures.

We shall now consider what reasons may be assigned why providence ordered that Christ should continue three days, and no longer, in the state of the dead.

1. It seems agreeable to the wisdom of God that there should be some space of time between his death and resurrection, that so there might be a sufficient evidence that he was really dead, since much depends on our belief thereof. He might have breathed forth his soul into the hands of God one moment, and received it again, as raised from the dead, the next: but God, in wisdom, ordered it otherwise; for, had he expired, and rose from the dead, in so short a time, it might have been questioned whether he died or no; whereas his lying in the grave till the third day, puts this matter beyond all dispute.

2. It was agreeable to the goodness and care of providence that our Saviour should not continue too long in the state of the dead: had he continued several years in the grave, there could not have been an appeal to his resurrection, during all that space of time, to confirm the faith of his people concerning his mission. God would not keep his people too long in suspense, whether it was he that was to redeem Israel; nor would he too long delay the pouring forth of his Spirit, or the preaching of the gospel, which were designed to be deferred till Christ’s rising from the dead; and it seems most convenient that he should soon rise from the dead, that is, on the third day, that the world might have a convincing proof of his resurrection, while his death was fresh in their memories, and the subject-matter of the discourse of all the world. And they, having been told of this before-hand, were, or ought to have been in expectation of this wonderful and glorious event; and consequently it would be an expedient for their greater conviction.

Object. To what has been said concerning Christ’s arising again on the third day, so as that he lay but one whole day in the grave, and a part of two days, it is objected, that he is said, in Matt. xii. 40. to be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth, which includes a longer time than what is before mentioned; therefore he was crucified on the fifth day of the week, not on the sixth; and it is also contrary to what has been said concerning his being crucified on the preparation before the Sabbath.

Answ. In answer to this objection, let it be considered,

1. That it cannot be denied, according to the scripture-account of time, that the measure of a day contains the space of time, from one evening to the next, which is twenty-four hours. This we call a natural day, the night being the first part thereof, and not the morning according to our computation, as we reckon a day to contain the space of time from one morning to the next. The reason why the Jews thus begin their day, is, because it is said, The evening and the morning were the first day, Gen. i. 5. and the Sabbath day was reckoned to continue the space of time, from the evening of the sixth day, to the evening of the seventh, viz. from sun-set to sun-set; as it is said, From even unto even shall ye celebrate your sabbath, Lev. xxiii. 32. This farther appears, from what is said concerning our Saviour’s going into Capernaum, and, on the Sabbath day, entering into the synagogue, and teaching; whereas it is said, in a following verse, When the Sabbath was over, they brought unto him all that were diseased and possessed with devils; and the city was gathered together at the door, and he healed many that were sick of divers diseases, &c. Mark i. 21. compared with ver. 32-34. from whence it appears, that the Sabbath was over at sun-set that day; for the Jews, thinking it unlawful to heal on the Sabbath day, as they expressly say elsewhere, would not bring those who had diseases to be healed till the Sabbath was past.

2. When a whole natural day, consisting of twenty-four hours, is spoken of in scripture, it is generally called a day and a night, or an evening and a morning. The Jews have no compound word to express this by, as the Greeks[231] have: thus it is said, Unto two thousand and three hundred days, then shall the sanctuary be cleansed, Dan. viii. 14. The word which we render days, in the Hebrew, signifies, as our marginal reference observes, evening morning, or so many spaces of time, each of which consists of evening and morning; and elsewhere it is said, that Moses was upon the mount forty days and forty nights, Exod. xxiv. 28. that is, forty of those spaces of time, which we call days, each of which make a day and a night; so that a day and a night, according to the Hebrew way of speaking, imports no more than a day; therefore, when our Saviour is said to be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth, it is an hebraism, which signifies no more than three days, or three of those spaces of time, each of which being compleated, consists of a day and a night.

3. It is a very common thing, in scripture, for a part of a day to be put for a day, by a synecdoche of the part for the whole; therefore a part of that space of time, which, when completed, contains day and night, or the space of twenty-four hours, is called; therefore that which is done on the third day, before it is completely ended, is said to take up three days in doing: thus Esther says, Fast ye for me, and neither eat nor drink three days, night or day; I also and my maidens will fast likewise, and so will I go unto the king, Esth. iv. 16. whereas it is said after this, that on the third day Esther put on her royal apparel, and stood in the court of the king’s house, chap. v. 1. therefore she could not be said to fast three whole days, but a part thereof; for, before the third day was ended, she went to the king. Therefore a part of three days, or that which is said to be done after three days, or three days and three nights, which is all one, that may be said to be done on the third day, though not completely ended. Therefore our Saviour may be said to be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth, that is, a part of those spaces of time, which, if completed, would have contained three days and three nights.

VI. Christ raised himself from the dead by his own power. Here let it be considered,

1. That no power but what is divine, can raise the dead, since it is a bringing back the dissolved frame of nature into the same, or a better state than that in which it was before its dissolution, and a remanding the soul, which was in the hand of God that it may be again united to its body, which none can do, but God himself. Accordingly the apostle mentions it as a branch of the divine glory, and God is represented, as he who quickeneth all things, 1 Tim. iv. 13. therefore the body of Christ was raised by divine power: thus the apostle says, This Jesus hath God raised up, Acts ii. 32. and, when he mentions it elsewhere, he makes use of a phrase that is uncommonly emphatical; he wants words to express it, when he speaks of the exceeding greatness of his power which he wrought in Christ, when he raised him from the dead.[232]

2. Since the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, are God, as has been observed under a foregoing answer,[233] it follows, that this infinite power belongs equally and alike to them all, and therefore all these divine Persons may be said to have raised Christ’s body from the dead. That the Father raised him, no one denies that speaks of the resurrection; and the apostle expressly says, that he was raised up from the dead by the glory of the Father, Rom. vi. 4. And it is farther said, that he raised himself from the dead: thus he tells the Jews, speaking of the temple of his body, destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up, John ii. 19. And that the Holy Ghost raised him, seems to be implied in that expression, in which it is said, He was declared to be the Son of God with power, according to the Spirit of holiness, by the resurrection from the dead, Rom. i. 4. that is, the Spirit, by this act of divine power, declared him to have been the Son of God, and to have finished the work he came about; and elsewhere he is said to be quickened by the Spirit, 1 Pet. iii. 18.

3. Christ, by raising himself by his own power, declared that he was the Son of God, that is, not only a divine Person, which his Sonship always implies, but his mission and authority to act as Mediator; and also that he had accomplished the work that he came into the world about.

As to what our Saviour says, concerning his raising himself by his own power; the Socinians apprehending this to be an argument tending to overthrow the scheme they lay down, who deny his divinity, are forced to make use of a very sorry evasion, when they pretend to give the sense of that scripture before mentioned, Destroy this temple, and after three days I will raise it up. They suppose, that the meaning is only this, that the Father put life into his dead body, and united it to the soul, and, after that, he lifted himself up out of the grave, which is certainly a very jejune and empty sense of the words: Is it so great a matter for a Person, who was quickened by divine power, to lift up himself from the grave, in which he lay? In this sense, any one may be said to raise himself up, as well as Christ, or any one might raise the dead after this, by taking him by the hand, and lifting him up from the ground. This shews how much men are sometimes put to it to support a cause that is destitute of solid arguments for its defence. According to this method of reasoning, the whole world may be said to raise themselves at the last day, when God has put life into their dead bodies: but certainly more than this is implied in Christ’s raising himself up, inasmuch as it is opposed to his body’s being destroyed, or the frame of nature’s being dissolved in death; therefore he certainly intends that he would exert divine power, in raising himself from the dead, and hereby declare himself to be a divine Person, or the Son of God.

VII. We are next to consider the effects of Christ’s resurrection, either as they respect himself or his people.

1. As to what concerns himself. This was a demonstrative evidence that he had fully satisfied the justice of God, or paid the whole price of redemption, which he had undertaken to do; for hereby he was released out of the prison of the grave, not only by the power, but the justice of God, and received a full discharge; and accordingly was, in this respect, justified, and a full proof given that the work of redemption was brought to perfection.

It is also observed, that hereby he conquered death, and destroyed him, that had the power of it, to wit, the devil, Heb. ii. 14. and so procured to himself a right to be acknowledged as the Lord both of the dead and the living, Rom. xiv. 9. This is, in some respects, different from that universal dominion which he had over all things, as God, which was the result of his being the Creator of all things and was not purchased or conferred upon him, as the consequence of his performing the work which he came into the world about: I say, this dominion, which we are considering, is what belongs to him as Mediator; and it includes in it a peculiar right which he has, as Mediator, to confer on his people those blessings which accompany salvation; and his right to give laws to his church, defend them from their spiritual enemies, and bestow all the blessings on them, which were promised to them in the covenant of grace, and also in his ordering all the affairs of providence to be subservient thereunto. Had he not designed to redeem any of the race of mankind, he would have had a dominion over the world, as God, the Judge of all; a right to condemn and banish his enemies from his presence: but he could not be said to exercise dominion in such a way, as it is displayed, with respect to the heirs of salvation; for that would have been inconsistent with his divine perfections. Had he not died, and rose again, he would, indeed, have had a right to have done what he would with his creatures; but as he could not, without this have redeemed any, so he could not confer, upon a peculiar people, that possession, which he is said hereby to have purchased.

2. The effects of Christ’s resurrection, which respect his people, consist more especially in four things.

(1.) Their justification is owing hereunto. And we are said sometimes to be justified by his death, or by his blood, Rom. v. 9. so elsewhere we are said to be justified, both by his death and resurrection, in different respects, Who is he that condemneth? it is Christ that died, yea, rather that is risen again, chap. viii. 34. by which some understand, that Christ, by his death paid the debt, which we had contracted, to the justice of God; and, by his resurrection, he received a discharge, or acquittance, in their behalf, for whom he died, and rose again; so that when he was discharged, his people might be said to be discharged in him, as their public Head and Representative. This is well expressed in our large English Annotations,[234] viz. that “our justification, which was begun in his death, was perfected in his resurrection. Christ did meritoriously work our justification and salvation, by his death and passion; but the efficacy and perfection thereof, with respect to us, dependeth on his resurrection. By his death, he paid our debt; in his resurrection, he received our acquittance, Isa. liii. 8. Being taken from prison, and from judgment. When he was discharged, we, in him, and together with him, received our discharge from the guilt and punishment of all our sins;” which is very agreeable to what is said in this answer, that he did all this as a public Person, the Head of his church. Nevertheless, there is another notion of our justification, which consists in our apprehending, receiving, or applying his righteousness by faith, which, as will be observed in its proper place,[235] cannot, from the nature of the thing, be said to be before we believe.

(2.) Another effect of Christ’s resurrection, is our quickening in grace; as it is said, When we were dead in sins, he hath quickened us together with Christ, Eph. ii. 5. This implies either that his death, being the procuring cause of all inherent grace begun in regeneration, and carried on in sanctification; his was the first step taken in order to his applying what he had purchased; and that afterwards we are raised, as the consequence thereof, from the death of sin, to a spiritual life of holiness; or else it denotes that communion which believers have with Christ in his resurrection, as well as his death, as he is the Head and they the members; which is agreeable to that peculiar mode of speaking, often used by the apostle Paul, who, in several places of his epistles, speaks of believers, as crucified, dead, and buried, risen, and ascended into heaven, and sitting at God’s right hand, in heavenly places, in, or with Christ.[236]

(3.) This is also a means for our support against our enemies, whose utmost rage can extend itself no farther than the grave. They, for whom Christ died, and rose again, shall obtain a glorious resurrection and eternal life with him; and therefore he advises his people not to be afraid of them that kill the body, and, after that have no more power that they can do, Luke xii. 4. which will farther appear, if we consider another effect of Christ’s resurrection, viz.

(4.) That they are hereby assured of their resurrection from the dead at the last day. Christ’s resurrection is, as it were, the exemplar and pledge of their’s; as hereby he conquered death in his own Person, so he gives them ground to conclude, that this last enemy, which stands in the way of their complete blessedness, shall be destroyed, 1 Cor. xv. 26. accordingly it is said, that he is risen from the dead, and become the first fruits of them that slept, ver. 20. But this will be farther considered, under a following answer.[237]

Footnote 230:

This observation is of use for the explaining the sense of several scriptures, which contain a seeming contradiction between them: thus, in Luke ix. 28. it is said, About eight days after these sayings, Jesus took Peter and John and James, and went up into a mountain to pray; whereas Mark says, in chap. ix. 2. that this was done after six days, Luke speaks of the eight days, inclusive of the first and last. Mark speaks of eight days, exclusive of them both, which is but six days.

Footnote 231:

This they call νυχθημερον.

Footnote 232:

Eph. i. 19, 20. υπερβαλλον μεγεθος της δυναμεως αυτου, power that is great, even to an hyperbole.

Footnote 233:

See Quest. IX, XI.

Footnote 234:

See the notes on Rom. iv. 25.

Footnote 235:

See Quest. LXX, LXXII.

Footnote 236:

See Page 182, ante.

Footnote 237:

See Quest. LXXXVII.

Quest. LIII., LIV.

QUEST. LIII. How was Christ exalted in his ascension?

ANSW. Christ was exalted in his ascension, in that having, after his resurrection, often appeared unto, and conversed with his apostles, speaking to them of those things pertaining to the kingdom of God, and giving them commission to preach the gospel to all nations; forty days after his resurrection, he, in our nature, and as our Head, triumphing over enemies, visibly went up into the highest heavens, there to receive gifts for men, to raise up our affections thither, and to prepare a place for us, where himself is, and shall continue, till his second coming at the end of the world.

QUEST. LIV. How is Christ exalted in his sitting at the right hand of God?

ANSW. Christ is exalted in his sitting at the right hand of God, in that, as God-man, he is advanced to the highest favour with God the Father, with all fulness of joy, glory, and power over all things in heaven and earth, and doth gather and defend his church, and subdue their enemies, furnish his ministers and people with gifts and graces, and maketh intercession for them.

In the former of these answers, we have an account of Christ’s ascension into heaven; in the latter, of his sitting at the right hand of God, which contains a circumstance of glory, that was immediately consequent hereupon. And accordingly we are led,

First, To consider Christ’s ascension into heaven. Here we may observe,

1. The distance of time between his resurrection and ascension, and what he did during that interval. It is expressly said, that he shewed himself alive after his passion, by many infallible proofs, being seen of them, viz. the apostles, forty days, and speaking of the things pertaining to the kingdom of God, Acts i. 3. Some of the evangelists are more particular on this subject than others: but if we compare them together, we may observe,

1. That our Saviour, during this interval, did not converse freely and familiarly with the world, as he had done before his death, during the exercise of his public ministry; and, indeed, we cannot learn, from any account given by the evangelists of this matter, that he appeared, so as to make himself known, to any but his friends and followers. He might, it is true, have appeared to the Jews, and thereby confuted that lie, which they so studiously propagated, that his disciples came by night and stole him away, and consequently that he was not risen from the dead: but he thought, as he might well do, that he had given them sufficient proof, before his death, that he was the Messiah; and, since he designed that his resurrection should be undeniably attested, by those who were appointed to be the witnesses thereof, it was needless for him to give any farther proof of it. And, besides, his enemies being wilfully blind, obstinate, and prejudiced against him, he denied them any farther means of conviction, as a punishment of their unbelief; therefore he would not appear to them after his resurrection. And, indeed, had he done it, it is probable, considering the malicious obstinacy and rage which appeared in their temper, that they would have persecuted him again, which it was not convenient that he should submit to, his state of humiliation being at an end.

2. He did not continue all the forty days with his apostles; nor have we ground to conclude that he abode with them in their houses, as he did before his death, nor did he eat and drink with them, excepting in two or three particular instances, mentioned by the evangelist, Luke xxiv. 41-43. John xxi. 13. the design of which was to prove, that, after his resurrection, he had as true an human body, with all the essential properties thereof, as he had before his death; and therefore was not, as they supposed him to be, when first they saw him, a spectrum.

All the account we have of his appearing to his friends and followers, is, that it was only occasionally, at such times as they did not expect to see him. At one time, he appeared to the two disciples going to Emmaus, and made himself known to them, when they came to their journey’s end, and then withdrew himself in an instant; afterwards, we read of his appearing to the apostles, when they were engaged in social worship, on the day of his resurrection; and also, that he appeared to them again on the first day of the following week, John xx. 19. compared with ver. 26. and another time at the sea of Tiberias, chap. xxi. 1. and it is expressly said, after this, that this was now the third time that Jesus shewed himself to his disciples, after that he was risen from the dead, ver. 14. And, besides this, we read elsewhere of his being seen of above five hundred brethren at once, 1 Cor. xv. 6. which was probably in Galilee, where his followers generally lived, which was the country in which he mostly exercised his public ministry before his death. This seems to have been appointed as a place of general rendezvous, if we may so express it, as he says, After I am risen, I will go before you into Galilee, Mark xiv. 28. and the angel gives the same intimation, Go your way, tell his disciples that he goeth before you into Galilee; there shall ye see him, as he said unto you, chap. xvi. 7. Now this intimation being, as is more than probable, transmitted to his followers, five hundred of them waited for him there, and accordingly he appeared to them. All these appearances were only occasional; he principally designing thereby to convince them of the truth of his resurrection, and to give his apostles, in particular, instruction concerning some things, which they were unapprised of before. Thus concerning the time which Christ continued here on earth, in which he sometimes appeared to his disciples.

We now proceed to consider what he imparted to them, during his stay with, or at those particular times when he appeared to them. Here we cannot certainly determine any thing farther than the account we have thereof in scripture, in which, as was before observed, it is said, that he spake of the things pertaining to the kingdom of God. By the kingdom of God, I humbly conceive, is meant either that glorious state and place to which he was to ascend, where they should, at last, be with him, which was a very useful and entertaining subject, and they could not but be happy in hearing those things from him; or else, we are hereby to understand the gospel-state, which, in the New Testament, is often called the kingdom of God, or the kingdom of heaven. And accordingly, as he designed they should be his ministers, whom he would employ in preaching the gospel, and thereby promoting the affairs of his kingdom; it was necessary that they should receive instructions concerning this matter, without which they could do nothing for the promoting his interest in the world; or, at least, they must have a particular direction from the Holy Spirit relating thereunto, or else, they would have had no warrant to give instructions to the church concerning this new dispensation. We have no ground to doubt but that they had the Spirit’s direction in every thing that they laid down for the church, as a rule of faith, or practice, afterwards: this they seem not to have had, while our Saviour was with them; however, it is more than probable it was a part of what he discoursed with them about, as he ordered them to teach those, to whom they were sent, to observe all things whatsoever he had commanded them, Matt. xxviii. 20.

(1.) We have sufficient ground to conclude, that he gave them direction concerning the observation of the first day of the week, as the Christian Sabbath. He had told them, before his death, that he was Lord of the Sabbath, Mark ii. 28. and now we may suppose that he more eminently discovered himself to be so, by changing the day from the seventh to the first day of the week. That they had this intimation from him, concerning the Christian Sabbath, seems probable, because it was observed by them, in the interval between his resurrection and ascension; and, we read, more than once, of his giving countenance to their observance of it, by his presence with them; whereas, at this time, the Holy Ghost was not poured forth upon them; therefore their practice herein seems to be founded on some intimation given them by our Saviour, during his continuance with them forty days; though perhaps this might be confirmed to them afterwards, by extraordinary revelation from the Holy Ghost.

(2.) It was in this interval that our Saviour gave them a commission to preach the gospel to all nations, and instituted the ordinance of baptism, Matt. xxviii. 19. which differs very much from the commission he had before given to his twelve disciples, when he ordered them not to go in the way of the Gentiles, nor to enter into any city of the Samaritans, but rather to go to the lost sheep of the house of Israel, chap. x. 5, 6. whereas now none are excluded, but their commission must be exercised throughout the whole world, wherever they came; and, together with this, he promised to be with them, so as to assist and succeed them in their ministry, to the end of the world. Moreover, he enjoined them to tarry in the city of Jerusalem, until they were endued with power from on high, waiting there for the promise of the Father, or for their being baptized by the Holy Ghost, which privilege they should soon after receive, Luke xxiv. 49. compared with Acts i. 4, 5. This was a very necessary advice which our Saviour gave them; for, though they had a commission to preach the gospel, they wanted those qualifications for it, which they were to receive from the Holy Ghost. They were also to tarry at Jerusalem, after they had received extraordinary gifts from the Holy Ghost till they had an intimation given, in what parts of the world they should begin the exercise of their public ministry.

(3.) Though it be not particularly mentioned in the evangelical history, yet it is not improbable, that our Saviour spake to his disciples concerning the nature of the gospel-church, and its government, and how they were to exercise their ministry therein; what doctrines they should preach, and what success should attend them; and also what they should suffer for his sake. Why may we not suppose that he spake of these things to all his apostles, when he condescended to tell Peter, by what death he should glorify God? John xxi. 19. And their knowledge of many of these things was necessary for the right discharge of their ministry, which they were to begin at Jerusalem, where the first church was to be planted; and it can hardly be supposed that he would only give them a commission to preach the gospel, without some instructions relating thereunto: but, since this is only a probable argument, let me farther add, that it is certain they afterwards had particular direction from the Holy Ghost, relating hereunto, who was given, after Christ’s ascension into heaven, to lead them into all truth, or to impart, by them, to the gospel-church, an infallible and standing rule of faith and practice.

II. After our Saviour had continued forty days on earth from his resurrection, and, in that time, conversed with his apostles of the things pertaining to the kingdom of God; it is observed, that he ascended into heaven, or, as it is here expressed, visibly went up into the highest heavens. There are two phrases, in scripture, whereby this is set forth: thus it is said, He was taken up, and he went up, Acts i. 9, 10. which variation of expression is used by the Holy Ghost, as some think, to denote two different respects, or circumstances, attending his ascension. His going up, signifies, that he ascended into heaven by his own power, pursuant to that right which he had to that glory; as he says elsewhere, Ought not Christ to suffer, and to enter into his glory? Luke xxiv. 26. And when it is said, he was taken up into heaven, that signifies the Father’s act in exalting him. As he sent him into the world, so he took him out of it, into a better, when he had finished his work upon earth. This variety of expression we find used in several other scriptures: thus it is said, that he ascended up on high, Eph. iv. 8. entered into heaven, Heb. ix. 24. and so put in his claim to the heavenly glory; and, on the other hand, it is said, that he was received up into heaven, Mark xvi. 19. and consequently his claim to it admitted of, and accordingly he was exalted to this honour by God’s right hand, Acts ii. 33. as what was due to him, as the consequence of his sufferings.

But, that we may more particularly consider what it was for Christ to ascend into heaven,

1. We are not to understand hereby that his divine nature was translated from earth to heaven, or changed the place of its residence; for that is contrary to the omnipresence thereof. Whenever a change of place is ascribed to it, it respects not his essential, but his manifestative presence. Though it was united to the human nature, yet it was not confined to it, or limited by it; and though it displayed its glory therein, in one way, whilst he was here on earth, and in another, when he ascended into heaven; yet, considered as to its essential glory, it fills all places; in which respect it is said, that he was in heaven whilst here on earth.[238]

2. When we say, that Christ ascended into heaven in his human nature, this is not to be understood in a metaphorical sense, as though it denoted only his being advanced to a more glorious state, than he was in before his death; since heaven signifies a glorious place, as well as state. Were it only to be taken in the former sense, it might, for the same reason, be said, that there are no saints, or angels, locally in heaven, since the metaphor might as well be applied to them, as to our Saviour, which is directly contrary to the known acceptation of the word in scripture. Moreover, that his ascending into heaven denotes a change of place, as well as state, is evident, inasmuch as, though his state of humiliation was over immediately after his resurrection; yet he says, concerning his human nature, that, during his abode forty days here on earth, though raised from the dead, I am not yet ascended to my Father, John xx. 17. therefore,

3. His ascension into heaven is to be understood, in the most proper and known sense of the word, inferring a change of place, as well as state, denoting his being carried from this lower to the upper world, in his human nature, and so entering into that glorious place, as well as triumphant state. This is called, The heaven of heavens, Psal. cxlviii. 4. which gives us ground to conclude, that the word heaven is taken in various senses in scripture: thus it is sometimes taken for the air; and accordingly the fowls, that fly in it, are said to fly in the midst of heaven, Rev. xix. 17. and sometimes it is taken for the clouds, and so we read of the rain, Deut. xi. 11. or dew of heaven, Gen. xxvii. 28. as coming down from thence; and sometimes it is taken for the stars, as we read of the stars of heaven, chap. xxii. 17. but, besides all these senses of the word, it is taken for the seat of the blessed, the throne of God, where he manifests himself, in a glorious manner, to his saints and angels. To this place Christ ascended; and, in this respect, it is not only said that he went into heaven, but that he was made higher than the heavens, Heb. vii. 26. or that he ascended far above all heavens, Eph. iv. 10. Thus it is said, in this answer, that he went up into the highest heaven.

Now that Christ ascended into heaven, and that in a visible and glorious manner is evident from the account we have hereof in scripture: which, together with the circumstances that went immediately before it, is what is next to be considered. Accordingly we read, in scripture,

That when the eleven disciples were assembled together, he came with a design to take his leave of them; and, after having opened their understandings that they might understand the scriptures, and had farther confirmed their faith, by applying them to himself, and had concluded all those necessary instructions, which he gave them, he led them as far as Bethany; and then it is said, in Luke xxiv. 50-53. He lift up his hands and blessed them; and, while he blessed them, he was parted from them, and carried into heaven. But, inasmuch as this relation seems somewhat different from the account given of it by the same inspired writer, in Acts i. 12. who observes, that, when Christ had ascended into heaven, in the sight of his disciples, they returned to Jerusalem, from the mount called Olivet, which is from Jerusalem a Sabbath day’s journey; and therefore it is plain that he ascended into heaven from that mountain; how then could he ascend thither from Bethany? It is observed, that Bethany, John xi. 18. was about fifteen furlongs from Jerusalem, and the mount of Olives a Sabbath-day’s journey; so that Bethany and the mount of Olives seem to be almost a mile distant from each other: if Christ ascended from one of these places into heaven, how could he then be said to ascend from the other.

The answer that may be given to this seeming inconsistency, between these two accounts of the place from whence Christ ascended into heaven, is, that the town of Bethany was situate at the foot of the mount of Olives; therefore that part of the mountain that was nearest to it, might have two names, to wit, Olivet, which was the name of the whole mountain, or Bethany, which denomination it might take from the adjoining village.

Or, if this be not sufficient to account for the difficulty before mentioned, we may suppose, that when the evangelist says, in one of these places, that our Saviour led them out as far as Bethany, he does not say he was taken up into heaven from thence; but, after he led them there, he blessed them, and, while he blessed them, he was parted from them; therefore it is probable, that, when he was come to Bethany he gave them an intimation that he should soon be received into heaven; and, while he was going from thence, or going up the mount of Olives, he continued blessing them; and, when he was come up to that part of the mount from whence he ascended, he lifts up his hands, and conferred his last benediction on them, upon which he was parted from them, and a cloud received and conveyed him to heaven; so that there is no inconsistency between the two scriptures, as to the place from whence he ascended. It is farther observed, that his ascension was visible; they looked stedfastly towards heaven as he went up, Acts i. 10.

From this account of Christ’s ascension into heaven, we may make two or three remarks.

1st, As to the place from whence he ascended, which was the mount of Olives, it may be observed, that it was the same place to which he often retired, when he was at Jerusalem, to converse with God in secret, Luke xxiii. 39. Here it was that he was in his agony, ver. 44. in which he sweat great drops of blood, when having a very terrible apprehension of the wrath of God, which he was to bear, as a punishment due to our sin, which was the most bitter part of his sufferings; and therefore here he chose to begin his triumphs, as from hence he ascended into heaven. And hereby it seems, as it were, to give an intimation to his people, that they ought to set the glory, which they shall be advanced to, against the sufferings of this present life, as a ground of encouragement and support to them. That place, which, at one time, discovered nothing but what was matter of distress and anguish of spirit; at another time opened a glorious scene of joy and happiness. This mountain, which before had been a witness to that horror and amazement, in which our Saviour was, when in the lowest depths of his humbled state, now represents him as entering immediately into his glory.

The place in the mountain, from whence he ascended, is not particularly mentioned; nor is there any mark of sanctity put on it; though the Papists with a great deal of superstition, pretend to discover the very spot of ground from whence our Saviour ascended, and impose on those who will believe them, by shewing them the print of the feet, which, they suppose, he left behind him upon the mountain; in which place they have erected a church, open at the top, to signify his ascension into heaven: but this is little better than a fabulous conjecture. It is an easy matter to find some hollow place, in any mountain; but to say that any such small valley was made by our Saviour’s feet, as a memorial of his ascending from thence, is nothing else but an imposition on the credulity of ignorant persons, without scripture-warrant.

2dly, From what is said concerning Christ’s conversing with his disciples about the things pertaining to the kingdom of God, we may observe, that the work he was engaged in, just before his ascension into heaven, was of such a nature, that it is a very desirable thing for a person, when called out of the world to be found so doing. Our Saviour’s whole conversation, while on earth, had some way or other, a reference to the kingdom of heaven, and had a tendency to bring his people there; and this was the last subject that he conversed with them about.

3dly, What is said concerning his blessing them when he was parted from them, was agreeable to what is mentioned concerning Elijah, whose translation into heaven was a type of Christ’s ascension thither, concerning whom it is said, that he bade Elisha ask what he should do or desire of God for him, before he was taken from him, 2 Kings ii. 9. As the great design of our Saviour’s coming into the world, was to be a publick blessing to his people; so the last thing he did for them, was blessing them, and that either by conferring blessedness upon them, as a divine Person, or else by praying for a blessing for them as man, whereby he gave them a specimen of the work which he is engaged in, in heaven, who ever lives to make intercession for them; and it is farther observed, that he lift up his hands, and blessed them. Sometimes when persons blessed others, they did it by laying their hands upon them: this Jacob did, when he blessed the sons of Joseph, Gen. xlviii. 14. as a sign of his faith, which was herein expressed, that blessings should descend from God upon them. And, when many persons were blessed at the same time, instead of laying their hands on them, they sometimes lifted them up; accordingly Aaron is said to lift up his hands towards the people, and bless them, Lev. ix. 22. So Christ lifted up his hands when he blessed his disciples, as an external sign of his lifting up his heart to God, while he prayed for the blessings which they stood in need of. Thus concerning Christ’s ascension into heaven.

There is one thing more mentioned in this answer, which I cannot wholly pass over, namely, that he did this as our Head. The headship of Christ is a circumstance often mentioned by the apostle Paul, who supposes him to stand in this relation to his people, in every thing that he did for them as Mediator, in which he is considered as a public person, the Representative of all his elect, who acted in their name, as well as for their interest; which leads us to consider,

III. That it was necessary that Christ should ascend into heaven after he had finished his work on earth; for this was an accomplishment of what was foretold concerning him. This the Psalmist mentions, in a very beautiful and magnificent way, Lift up your heads, O ye gates, and be ye lift up ye everlasting doors, and the King of glory shall come in, Psal. xxiv. 9. and elsewhere it is said, Thou hast ascended on high, Psal. lxviii. 18. which the apostle Paul particularly applies to his ascension into heaven, as a prediction thereof, Eph. iv. 8. and this was also signified by that eminent type of it, which was equivalent to a prediction, in the high priest’s entering into the holiest of all, which the apostle also speaks of, as shadowing forth the same thing, Heb. ix. 7, 8, 9, 11, 24.

Moreover, this was foretold by our Saviour himself, whilst he was here on earth, before and after his death, when he tells his disciples, I go to prepare a place for you, John xiv. 2. and, I ascend to my Father, &c. chap. xx. 17. so that there was really an appeal to his ascension into heaven, as well as to his resurrection, for the proof of his mission, and his relation to God, as his Father, therefore it was necessary that he should ascend thither. It was also necessary, as this was a glory promised him, as the consequence of his sufferings; and accordingly it became him, for whom are all things, and by whom are all things, to make the Captain of our salvation perfect, through, or after his sufferings, Heb. ii. 10.

It was also necessary that he should ascend visibly into heaven, or that his apostles, who were to be witnesses thereof, as well as of his resurrection, should see him go thither: for this was necessary to be believed, as well as the other, and whatever they were to give their testimony to, must be the result of the fullest conviction; and therefore, that they might convince the world that he was ascended into heaven, they must be qualified to tell them, that they saw him ascend there.

Object. If it be objected, that, since they might give their testimony that he rose again from the dead, though they did not see him rise, they might attest the truth of his ascension, though they had not seen him ascend into heaven.

Answ. To this I answer. It is true, their witness that he was risen from the dead, was sufficient, though they did not see him rise, inasmuch as they saw him after he was risen, and had undeniable proofs that he was the same Person that suffered; yet there is a circumstance attending his ascension into heaven, which renders it necessary that they should see him ascend there, though it was not necessary that they should see him rise from the dead, in order to their giving conviction to the world as to this matter; for he did not design that they should see him, after his ascension, till his second coming to receive them into heaven, and then their testimony will be at an end; and therefore it was necessary that they should see him ascend. The apostle Paul, it is true, at his conversion, saw him clothed with his heavenly glory in his exalted state; but this was a singular and extraordinary instance, which he gave his other disciples no ground to expect; therefore, that they might want no qualification that was necessary, in order to the fulfilling their testimony, he ascended into heaven visibly, in the presence of all his apostles.

IV. There are several great and valuable ends of Christ’s ascension, mentioned in this answer, some of which were glorious to himself, and all of them advantageous to his people. Accordingly it is observed,

1. That he triumphed over his enemies; as the apostle says, When he ascended up on high, he led captivity captive, Eph. iv. 8. which is an allusion to the solemn triumphs of princes, after having obtained some remarkable and complete victories. Now the empire of Satan was demolished, his prisoners ransomed, and accordingly delivered from his power; and the gospel, which was to be preached throughout the world, was a public proclamation of liberty to captives, and the opening of the prison doors to them that were bound, Isa. lxi. 1. compared with Luke iv. 18.

2. Christ ascended into heaven, that he might receive gifts for men. The scripture seems to distinguish between Christ’s purchasing and his receiving gifts for men; the former was done by his death; the latter was consequent on his ascension into heaven. There are two expressions used relating to this matter, namely, that of the Psalmist, Thou hast received gifts for men, Psal. lxviii. 18. and the apostle’s reference thereunto, when he says, He gave gifts unto men, Eph. iv. 8. that is, he received gifts for men, with a design to give them to them, which he did, after his ascension into heaven, when there was a very great effusion of the Spirit on the gospel-church erected, and furnished with a variety of ministers, such as Apostles, prophets, pastors, and teachers, for the perfecting of the saints, for the work of the ministry, for the edifying of the body of Christ, ver. 11, 12. which is a farther allusion to the custom of princes in their triumphs, on which occasion they extend their royal bounty to their subjects.

3. Christ’s ascension into heaven to prepare a place for his people, as he told them he would do, after his death, John xiv. 2. and accordingly he is said to have entered there as the Fore-runner, Heb. vi. 20. and so he took possession of those heavenly mansions in their name, to which he designs, at last, to bring them.

4. It is farther observed, that he ascended into heaven, to raise up their affections thither, and to induce them to set their affections on things above, Colos. iii. 2. That place is always most dear to us, which is our home, our rest, where our best friends reside; our thoughts are most conversant about it, and we are inclined to desire to be with them there; therefore Christ’s being in heaven, together with all his saints, is a motive to all believers to have their conversation in heaven, which is the character given of them by the apostle, Phil. iii. 20.

5. The last thing observed in this answer is, that Christ designed to continue in heaven till his second coming at the end of the world; as it is said, Whom the heavens must receive, till the time of the restitution of all things, Acts iii. 21. and then he will come again in this lower world, not to reside or fix his abode here, but to receive his people into heaven, where they shall be with him to all eternity, as it is said, So shall we ever be with the Lord, 1 Thes. iv. 17. Thus concerning Christ’s exaltation in his ascension into heaven; we now proceed to consider him,

Secondly, As exalted in sitting at the right hand of God, which is a glory that was conferred upon him after his ascension into heaven. This is a figurative way of speaking, which the Holy Ghost condescends to make use of; and it cannot be understood in any other sense, since God being a Spirit, is without body, or bodily parts; and, being immense, the heaven and heaven of heavens cannot contain him, 1 Kings viii. 27. therefore it does not denote the situation of Christ’s human nature in some particular part of heaven, but his being advanced to the highest honour there. As the right hand, amongst men, is used to signify some peculiar marks of honour conferred on them who are seated there; thus when Bathsheba went in unto king Solomon, he caused a seat to be set for her, and she sat at his right hand, chap. ii. 19. So when Christ is said to sit on the right hand of the throne of the Majesty in the heavens, Heb. viii. 1. it denotes the highest degree of honour conferred on him, as Mediator; and particularly his sitting there denotes,

1. That glorious rest which he enjoys, after having sustained many labours and afflictions in this world; a sweet repose, and perfect deliverance from all those things which formerly tended to make him uneasy, while in his way to it.

2. It also implies that honour and supreme authority which he is invested with. Others are represented as servants standing in the presence of God; accordingly it is said, Thousand thousands ministered unto him, and ten thousand times ten thousand stood before him, Dan. vii. 10. but Christ is distinguished from them all by this mark of regal dignity, in that he sits and rules upon his throne, Zech. vi. 13. Thus the apostle says, concerning him, that, having purged our sins, he sat down on the right hand of the Majesty on high, intimating, that he was made so much better than the angels, as he hath, by inheritance, obtained a more excellent name than they, Heb. i. 3, 4. which he farther proves, when he says, To which of the angels, said he, at any time, sit on my right hand till I make thine enemies thy footstool, ver. 13.

3. It also signifies the perpetuity, or eternal duration of his Mediatorial glory and authority, as to sit, in scripture, often signifies, to abide: but this has been before considered, when we spake concerning the eternity of Christ’s kingdom[239]. There are other things, mentioned in this answer, which are the fruits and effects of Christ’s sitting at the right hand of God, to wit, the exercise of his power over all things in heaven and earth; and, as the consequence thereof, gathering and defending his church, subduing their enemies, and furnishing his ministers with gifts and graces: but these will be more particularly insisted on, under a following answer, in which we shall be led to speak concerning the special privileges of the visible church[240]. Therefore what we are next to consider is, that Christ, as sitting at the right hand of God, makes intercession for his people.

Footnote 238:

See Vol. I. page 347.

Footnote 239:

See Page 393.

Footnote 240:

See Quest. lxii, lxiii.

Quest. LV.

QUEST. LV. How doth Christ make intercession?

ANSW. Christ maketh intercession, by his appearing in our nature, continually before the Father in heaven, in the merit of his obedience and sacrifice on earth, declaring his will to have it applied to all believers, answering all accusations against them, procuring for them quiet of conscience, notwithstanding daily failings, access with boldness to the throne of grace, and acceptance of their persons and services.

The intercession of Christ, as has been observed, under a foregoing answer, is a branch of his priestly office, and is founded on his satisfaction. The reason why it is mentioned in this place, after we have had an account of his death, resurrection, and ascension into heaven, is, as I conceive, because the apostle lays down these heads in the same order, when he speaks of them, It is Christ that died, yea, rather that is risen again, who is even at the right hand of God, who also maketh intercession for us, Rom. viii. 34. In speaking concerning Christ’s intercession,

I. We shall consider the necessity thereof; and that,

1. Because this was foretold and typified. It was predicted, concerning him, that he should make intercession for transgressors, Isa. liii. 12. and elsewhere God the Father is represented, as saying to him, Ask of me, and I shall give thee the heathen for thine inheritance, and the uttermost parts of the earth for thy possession, Psal. ii. 8. which words, though they contain the form of a command, are, doubtless, a prediction relating to this matter, whereby it is intimated, that the glorious success of the gospel, when preached to the world, should not only be the purchase of his death, but the consequence of his intercession; and what Elihu speaks of an advocate, as pleading the cause of a poor afflicted person, and saying, Deliver him from going down to the pit; I have found a ransom; and as it is farther added; He shall pray unto God, and he shall be favourable to him, and he shall behold his face with joy; for he will render unto man his righteousness, Job xxxiii. 23, 24, 26. seems rather to be understood of Christ than any other; for it is most agreeable to the character given him of a messenger with him, and an interpreter one among a thousand, and his being gracious unto him, when he thus makes intercession for him.

Moreover, when the Psalmist represents him, as saying, concerning his enemies, I will not take up their names into my lips, Psal. xvi. 4. it plainly intimates his design to intercede for all others, namely, for his people. And that David does not here speak in his own person, but in the person of Christ, is very evident, because it was his duty, in common with all mankind, to pray for his enemies; and therefore he speaks of another sort of intercession, viz. Christ’s, that which is different from that which one man is obliged to make for another. This appears, in that, in some following verses, we have a prediction of his rising from the dead before he saw corruption, as it is particularly applied to him in the New Testament, Acts ii. 31.

And to this we may add; that as Christ’s intercession was expressly foretold by the prophets; so it was typified by the High Priest’s entering every year into the holy of holies, with blood and incense, to appear before God in the behalf of the people, as making intercession for them. This is expressly applied to Christ, as the anti-type, and his entering into heaven; now to appear in the presence of God for us, Heb. ix. 7, 9. compared with ver. 11, 12, 24.

2. Christ’s intercession was necessary, as the condition of fallen man required it. Some have been ready to conclude, that, by reason of that infinite distance there is between God and man, it was necessary that there should be an advocate to procure for him a liberty of access to God: but that does not evidently appear, for as we have no ground to conclude, that the holy angels, though infinitely below him, are admitted into his presence, or made partakers of the blessings, that are the result thereof, by the intervention of an advocate, or intercessor, with him, in their behalf; so man would not have stood in need of a Mediator, or advocate, to bring him into the presence of God, or plead his cause, any more than he would have needed a Redeemer, had he not fallen: but his present circumstances require both; it is necessary therefore that Christ should intercede for him.

(1.) Because, being guilty, he is rendered unworthy to come into the presence of God, and actually excluded from it; as the Psalmist says, Thou art not a God that hast pleasure in wickedness; neither shall evil dwell with thee. The foolish shall not stand in thy sight; thou hatest all workers of iniquity, Psal. v. 4, 5. This punishment is the immediate consequence of guilt, whereby the sinner is exposed to the curse of God, whose holiness obliges him to order such to depart from him. Moreover, there is a servile fear, or dread of him, as a consuming fire that attends it; upon which account, he desires rather to fly from, than to have access to him; therefore he needs an intercessor to procure this privilege for him.

(2.) There are many accusations brought in against him, as a ground and reason why he should be excluded from the divine favour, and not have any saving blessings applied to him, which must all be answered; and therefore there is need of an advocate to plead his cause.

II. None but Christ our great Mediator and advocate, is fit to manage this important work for us. We cannot plead our own cause; for guilt stops our mouths, as well as renders us unworthy of any blessing from God. And it is certain that no mere creature can do this for us; for none can speak any thing in their favour, who are under a sentence of condemnation, unless an expedient were found out to bring them into a state of reconciliation with God, for that would tend to the dishonour of his justice; and none can plead for any blessing to be bestowed on them, but he who was able to make atonement for them, which no mere creature could do, since the greatest price, that he can give, is far from being of infinite value: but such a price as this Christ has laid down, as has been before considered, in speaking concerning his priestly office; and therefore he alone is fit to be an advocate, or intercessor, for his people; which leads us to consider,

III. That Christ is his people’s advocate, or makes intercession for them. This appears from several scriptures; thus it is said, He ever liveth to make intercession for them, Heb. vii. 25. and we have an Advocate with the father, Jesus Christ the righteous, 1 John ii. 1.

1. Christ is represented as making intercession for his people before his incarnation; as when it is said, Zech. iii. 2. The Lord said unto Satan, The Lord rebuke thee, O Satan[241].

2. After his incarnation, he interceded for his people in his human nature; and while he was here on earth, he did it agreeably to that state, in which he then was, though the efficacy of his intercession depended on his compleating the work of our redemption, which was not done before he arose from the dead; in which respect, there was something proleptical in his intercession then, as well as when he is represented as making intercession before his incarnation; therefore,

3. As the price of redemption was not fully paid till his state of humiliation was at an end, upon which account he is generally styled a consummate Mediator from that time, when he was made perfect through sufferings, Heb. ii. 10. so he was, after that, a compleat advocate, or intercessor, for his people; in which respect, he is said, in a way of eminency, to make intercession for them, after his death, resurrection, and ascension into heaven, in his glorified state, in which he manages their cause with an advantageous plea, which he could not use, while here on earth; for then he had not accomplished his work of redemption, and therefore could only plead the promise made to him, upon condition of his bringing that work to perfection, which was then only begun. And also whatever act of worship he then performed, it was agreeable to that state of humiliation, in which he was: but now he is in heaven, and consequently his work of redemption finished; he pleads his absolute and actual right to receive those blessings for his people, and apply them to them, which God before had promised in the covenant of redemption; and this he does with those circumstances of glory, that are agreeable to his exalted state, as sitting at God’s right hand, and having such visible marks of the divine favour, that nothing can be denied him that he asks for. It is true, while he was here on earth, he says, Father I thank thee, that thou hearest me always, &c. John xi. 41, 42. which he might well say, inasmuch as there was sufficient security, or ground to conclude, that he could not fail in the work which he was engaged in, so as to leave it incomplete. How much more may he say this, when he is in his exalted state, and pleads as one that has brought the work, he came into the world about, to perfection?

And to this let me add, that he will intercede for his people for ever, as he shall always continue in this exalted state. And, indeed, it cannot be otherwise; if Christ’s presence in heaven be a full and comprehensive plea for all the blessings we enjoy or hope for; then so long as he shall abide there, he will intercede for us, and that will be for ever. That this may farther appear, let it be considered; that the sacrifice, which he offered for his people while on earth, procured for them not only the blessings they enjoy in this world, but those that they shall be possessed of in heaven. And as his being received into heaven was a convincing evidence, that what he did and suffered, before he went thither, was accepted, and deemed effectual to answer all the valuable ends thereof; so his continuance there will remain a standing and eternal evidence thereof; which contains in it the nature of a plea. But this respects not only the blessings they now enjoy, but all that they hope for, therefore their eternal happiness is founded thereon; which is what the apostle principally intends, when he says, He ever liveth to make intercession for them, Heb. vii. 25.

IV. We shall now consider the difference between Christ’s intercession for us with the Father, and our praying for ourselves, or others, and that when we address ourselves either to men or God.

1. When we intercede with men to obtain some favour from them, we hope, either by our arguments, or importunity, or at least, by our interest in them, or some obligation which we have laid them under, to persuade them to alter their minds, as we are treating with mutable creatures. But this is by no means applicable to Christ’s intercession, in which he deals with an unchangeable God, who has, in various instances, declared his love to, and willingness to save all those, whose salvation he intercedes for; in which sense we are to understand our Saviour’s words, I say not unto you, that I will pray the Father for you; for the Father himself loveth you, John xvi. 26, 27.

Moreover, when we intercede with men for any favour, we don’t usually present any price paid by us for the benefit we intercede for; but Christ in interceding for his people, presents the merit of his obedience and sacrifice, which is the only thing that renders it effectual.

2. When we pray to God for ourselves, or others, this differs from Christ’s intercession, in that we present ourselves and our petitions to him in the name of Christ, and hope for a gracious answer, in the virtue of his mediation and righteousness; so that our access to God is mediate, Christ’s immediate. We plead what he hath done for us, as our Surety, and not any thing done by ourselves; but he pleads what was done by himself. We acknowledge, in all our supplications, that we are unworthy of the least of his mercies; whereas he appears in our behalf before God, as one who is worthy to have that granted which he pleads for.

V. We shall now consider how Christ makes intercession; and it is observed, that he does this,

1. By his appearing in our nature continually before the Father in heaven, in the merit of his obedience and sacrifice on earth. This is taken from the practice of attornies, or advocates, in civil courts, when a cause is to be tried, in which case the plaintiff or defendant does not appear himself, but his advocate appears for him: thus Christ appears in the presence of God for us. This virtually includes in it the nature of a plea. For the understanding of which, let it be considered, that as God cannot, consistently with the glory of his divine perfections, save any of the fallen race of mankind, upon any other condition, than that satisfaction should be given to his justice, and such a price of redemption paid, as tended to secure the glory of his holiness, and other perfections, he has, in his eternal covenant with the Son, promised, that if he would perform this work, then he would bring his people to glory. Christ, on the other hand, undertook it with this encouragement, that, when he had perfected it, he should be received into glory, as a public testimony that justice was fully satisfied; therefore his being set at God’s right hand, in heavenly places, as the consequence thereof, is a convincing evidence, to angels and men, that his work is brought to perfection. Accordingly his being there, or appearing in heaven, contains in it the nature of a plea; more especially if we consider him as appearing there as our Head and compleat Redeemer, who has finished the work which he came into the world about. This I take to be the principal idea in Christ’s intercession.

If it be farther enquired, whether he makes use of a voice, as we do, when we pray for ourselves, or others? I dare not deny that he does, since he made use of words when he prayed for his people on earth; which was a short specimen of his intercession for them in heaven: but yet it must be considered,

(1.) That it is impossible for words to express the particular necessities of every one, whom he appears for in heaven, at the same time; and to suppose that Christ represents the case of one at one time, and another at another, as we do when we pray for different persons, is hardly sufficient to answer all the valuable ends of his intercession, for all his people at all times; neither are we to suppose, since the human nature of Christ is not omniscient, that he has therein a comprehensive view, at once, of all the particular necessities of his people, for that would be to confound his human nature with his divine; and it is only in the human nature that he prays, though the efficacy of this prayer is founded on the infinite value of his oblation performed therein, which was the result of its union with the divine, as has been before observed[242]; therefore,

(2.) When Christ is said to make use of words in interceding for his people, these are principally to be considered, as expressive of their wants and infirmities in a general way; so that a few comprehensive words may include in them the general idea of those things that are common to them all. In this respect, I am far from denying that Christ, in interceding for his people, makes use of words; but, when we consider his being in heaven, or appearing in the presence of God in the behalf of his people, as virtually containing (as was before hinted) the nature of a plea, this extends itself to every particular necessity of those for whom he intercedes at all times.

2. It is farther observed, that Christ, in making intercession, declares his will to have the merit of his obedience and sacrifice applied to all believers: thus he says, Father, I will that they also whom thou hast given me be with me where I am, that they may behold my glory, &c. John xvii. 24. in which he does, as it were, make a demand of what is due to him, in right of his purchase; and so it is distinguished from a supplication, or entreaty, that God would bestow an unmerited favour. All our prayers, indeed, are supplications, that God would bestow upon us undeserved blessings; but Christ’s prayer is a kind of demand, of a debt due to him pursuant to the merit of his obedience and sufferings. Moreover, this mode of speaking may be farther understood, as containing an intimation of his divine will, to have what he purchased, in his human nature, applied to his people; though this is rather a consequence of his intercession, than, properly speaking, a formal act thereof.

3. It is farther observed, that he intercedes for his people, by answering all accusations that may be brought in against them: thus the apostle, Rom. viii. 33, 34. supposes a charge to have been brought in against God’s elect, and that they were under a sentence of condemnation; and shews how this sentence is reversed by the death of Christ; and the charge answered by his intercession. If we consider the many things laid to the charge of God’s elect, either by the world, satan, or their own consciences, these are supposed to be either false or true. What is falsely alleged, Christ, as their Advocate, answers, by denying the charge, and undertakes to vindicate them from it: but when the thing laid to their charge is undeniably true; as, for instance, that they are sinners, and have thereby contracted guilt, and deserve to be for ever banished from the presence of God; this Christ undertakes to answer, no otherwise than by pleading the merit of his obedience and satisfaction, whereby they obtain remission of sins and a right to eternal life.

VI. Christ, by his intercession, procures for his people many valuable privileges, three of which are mentioned in this answer.

(1.) Quiet of conscience, notwithstanding daily failings. This supposes, that the best believers on earth, by reason of the remainders of indwelling corruption, are liable to many sinful infirmities; as it is said, There is not a just man upon earth, that doth good and sinneth not, Eccles. vii. 20. and, If we say we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us, 1 John i. 8. And these have a proportionable degree of guilt attending them; and this guilt has a tendency to make the conscience uneasy, unless we have an Advocate, who has a sufficient plea to allege in our defence: but such an one is Christ, and consequently his intercession procures for us this privilege; If any man sin we have an Advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous, chap. ii. 1.

(2.) He also procures for us access, with boldness, to the throne of grace. As sin renders us guilty; so guilt exposes us to fear, and a dread of coming before the throne of God, as a God of infinite holiness and justice: but when he is represented as sitting on a throne of grace, as the consequence of Christ’s death and intercession, our servile fear is removed, and we are encouraged, as the apostle says, to come boldly unto the throne of grace, that we may obtain mercy, and find grace to help in time of need, Heb. iv. 16.

(3.) Another consequence of Christ’s intercession is, the acceptance of our persons and services; first, of our persons, then of our services; as it is said, The Lord had respect unto Abel, and to his offering, Gen. iv. 4. The acceptance of our persons is a branch of our justification, which is founded on Christ’s sacrifice and intercession, as it is said, He hath made us accepted in the beloved, Eph. i. 6. And the acceptance of our services, which are performed by faith, supposes the removal of the guilt that attends them, by reason of our sinful infirmities: thus God’s people are called an holy priesthood, and said to offer up spiritual sacrifices acceptable to God by Jesus Christ, 1 Pet. ii. 5.

VII. Let us consider how Christ’s intercession ought to be improved by us.

1. It is a great remedy against those desponding or despairing thoughts, which we are sometimes liable to, by reason of the guilt of sin, when charged on our consciences; in which case, we should give a check to ourselves, and say, with the Psalmist, Why art thou cast down, O my soul? and why art thou disquieted within me? Psal. xlii. 10. Why should we entertain such sad and melancholy thoughts, especially if Christ intercedes, on our behalf, for the forgiveness of all our sins? and our sincere repentance, together with the exercise of those other graces, that accompany it, will afford us an evidence of our interest in this privilege, which will be an expedient to raise our dejected spirits, and fill us with the joy of his salvation.

2. Christ’s intercession is to be improved by us, as an encouragement to prayer; and, as a farther ground, to conclude, that our poor, broken, imperfect breathings, shall be heard and answered for his sake, who pleads our cause.

3. This is a great inducement to universal holiness, when we have ground to conclude, that those services, that are performed to his glory, shall be accepted, upon the account of his intercession.

Footnote 241:

Christ did not intercede for his church before his incarnation formally, inasmuch as it is inconsistent with his divine nature to pray; prayer being an act of worship; but virtually, by which we are to understand that all the blessings which the church then enjoyed, were founded on the sacrifice, which, in the fulness of time, he designed to offer; and this is, by a prolepsis, represented as though it had been then done, in the same sense as he is elsewhere said to be the Lamb slain, from the foundation of the world. See page 397.

Footnote 242:

See Page 235.

Quest. LVI.

QUEST. LVI. How is Christ to be exalted in his coming again to judge the world?

ANSW. Christ is to be exalted in his coming again to judge the world, in that he, who was unjustly judged and condemned by wicked men, shall come again at the last day, in great power, and in the full manifestation of his own glory, and of his Father’s, with all his holy angels, with a shout, with the voice of the arch-angel, and with the trumpet of God, to judge the world in righteousness.

Our Saviour being in his exalted state, is to continue at the right hand of God, till he has finished the remaining part of his work, in the application of redemption, and, by his Spirit, in the methods of his providence and grace, brought in the whole number of the elect; after which follows another branch of his Mediatorial glory, when he shall come again to judge the world at the last day, which is the subject matter of this answer. For the understanding of which, let it be considered,

I. That though he was, before this, solemnly invested with a power of exercising judgment, and is continually distributing rewards and punishments in the course of his providence; yet the full manifestation of his glory, as Judge of quick and dead, and that in a visible manner in his human nature, is deferred till the last day. Though he be now known by the judgments that he executes, which are oftentimes attended with wonderful displays of his divine glory; and, though the eternal state of all men be fixed by him at their death, at which time a particular judgment is passed on them by him, as the apostle says, It is appointed unto men once to die, and after this the judgment, Heb. ix. 27. yet this is done without those external and visible marks of glory in his human nature, with which he shall appear in the end of time. This is styled, The last day, John xi. 24. chap. xii. 48. and, in that respect, that measure of duration, which we generally call time, will be ended, and another, which is distinguished from it, which, by reason of its having no end, is called eternity, shall commence; not that it is like eternity of God, without succession: but some think it differs from time, principally in this, that it shall not be described by the same measures that it now is; nor shall the motion of the heavenly bodies produce those effects which they do, in the frame of nature, whereby the various changes of seed-time and harvest, summer and winter, day and night follow each other in their respective courses.

Some, indeed, think that this is called a day, in the same sense as the present season, or dispensation of grace, is sometimes called the sinner’s day, Luke xix. 42. or the day of God’s patience, and long-suffering. And when this shall be at an end, and the gospel, which is compared to a glorious light, that shines therein, shall be no longer preached, the end thereof being fully answered, this may well be styled the last day, when Christ shall come to judgment.

II. This glorious appearing of Christ to judge the world, is set in opposition to that part of his state of humiliation, in which he was unjustly judged and condemned by wicked men, and is designed to aggravate the crime of those, at whose tribunal he stood, who, though he then told them of this matter, namely, that hereafter they should see the Son of man sitting on the right hand of power, and coming in the clouds of heaven, Matt. xxvi. 64. yet they believed him not. And this may also be considered, as set in opposition to all that contempt, which his name, interest, and gospel, daily meet with, in an ungodly world, whereby he is, as it were, judged and condemned afresh, and the unjust sentence that was passed upon him, in effect, approved of; from all which, Christ shall be for ever vindicated, when his glory shines forth in a most illustrious manner, as calling the whole world to stand at his tribunal, and rewarding every one according to their works.

III. The time when Christ shall thus come to judge the world, is unknown, either by angels or men; and, indeed, our Saviour himself, while here on earth, speaks of this, as a secret, that had not been made known to him, as man, Mark xiii. 32. and the reason why God has thus concealed it, is because he would not give occasion to any to indulge the least degree of carnal security, (for the same reason that he has not made known to us the term or bounds of life) but that we may be always ready for his coming. Therefore we cannot but reckon it an instance of unwarrantable presumption in several Jewish writers, and some of the Fathers after them,[243] to suppose, as they do, that the world shall continue six thousand years, from the creation; and that, as it was made in six days, and the seventh ordained to be a Sabbath, this had a mystical signification; and accordingly, in its application to this matter, a day answers to a thousand years; or that, as the world was two thousand years without the written word, or law of God, and after that, two thousand years under the law, so the days of the Messiah shall continue two thousand years, and then follows the eternal sabbatism at Christ’s second coming. As for the Jews, who speak of this matter, their unbelief is condemned out of their own mouths; since they do, as it were, concede, that the time in which the Messiah was to come, was that in which he actually appeared; notwithstanding, this is a groundless conjecture, so far as it respects the end of the world; and, indeed, it is an entering into a secret, which is altogether hid from mankind.

IV. We are now to consider that glory with which Christ shall appear, when he comes to judge the world. Accordingly it is said, he shall come in the full manifestation of his own glory, and of his Father’s, with all his holy angels, and with other circumstances, that will be very awful and tremendous.

1. He shall come in his own glory, by which we are to understand, that the glory of his divine nature shall shine forth, or be demonstrated in a more illustrious manner, than it has hitherto been. When he was here on earth, this glory had, as it were a veil put on it, by reason of the low and humbled state of his human nature: but, when he shall come again in his exalted state, it will never be a matter of doubt to any, whether he be God incarnate or no. And to this we may add, that there will be many things done by him, when he comes to judgment, which will be eminently the effects of his divine power, wisdom, justice, goodness, and faithfulness, whereby the glory of his divine nature will farther appear, in determining the final state, both of angels and men.

2. He is also said to appear in his Father’s glory. For the understanding of which let us consider,

(1.) That whatever work he is engaged in, or glory he receives as Mediator, it takes its rise from the Father; it was he that called him to perform it, sanctified, and sent him into the world, furnished him with an human nature, united to his divine Person. From him it was that he received a commission to lay down his life, and to take it upon him again; and it is he who hath appointed the day in which he will judge the world; and, pursuant to this decree and appointment, he will come to perform this glorious work.

(2.) Every thing that he does as Mediator, is referred to the glory of the Father; as he says, I honour my Father, John viii. 49. and therefore this work, which is, as it were, the laying the top-stone of the glorious fabric of our salvation, will tend eminently to set forth the Father’s glory, who laid the foundation stone thereof.

(3.) Whatever work he performs for the honour of the Father, he receives from him, a testimony of his highest approbation of him therein. When he was here on earth, as the apostle says, He received from the Father honour and glory; when there came such a voice to him from the excellent glory, saying, This is my beloved Son in whom I am well pleased, 2 Pet. i. 17. This testimony was given to him at his baptism, and transfiguration in the holy mount; the latter of which the apostle more immediately refers to, as appears by the following words; therefore we may conclude,

(4.) That since his coming to judgment will be the most illustrious part of his mediatorial work, he will have the most glorious testimony from the Father; and, indeed, his receiving the saints into heaven, who are styled, Blessed of his Father, who shall inherit the kingdom which he had prepared for them, from the foundation of the world, Matt. xxv. 34. will be a standing monument of his approbation of him, or well-pleasedness with whatever he has done in order thereunto; and therefore he may well be said to come in the glory of his Father.

V. He is farther said to come in the glory of his angels. This, indeed is to be understood in a sense different from that of his appearing in his own glory, or that of his Father; for the angels are said rather to behold and admire his glory, than to confer any branch thereof upon him. However, they are described as attending him in his coming, as it is said, He shall come in his glory, and all the holy angels with him, ver. 31. and accordingly he will appear in the glory of his angels, as they shall be his retinue, and bear a part in the solemnity of that day, whereby they not only acknowledge his rightful authority to engage in this glorious work, but their willingness to attend him in every part thereof, in which he thinks fit to employ them, as ministering spirits, in subserviency to the proceedings of that day. And this leads us to consider that glorious solemnity, together with some things that will be done, preparatory to Christ’s judging the world. Accordingly it is said,

VI. That he shall come with a shout, with the voice of the arch-angel, and with the trumpet of God, which are the apostle’s words, 1 Thes. iv. 16. and he adds, that this shall be attended with the resurrection from the dead, and the change of those who being found alive, shall be caught up together in the clouds, to meet the Lord in the air; and elsewhere he says, The trumpet shall sound, and the dead shall be raised incorruptible, and we shall be changed, 1 Cor. xv. 52. and our Saviour speaks of a throne’s being erected; and that when he shall come in his glory, and all the holy angels with him, he shall sit on the throne of his glory, Matt. xxv. 31, 32. We also read of the gathering of the whole world before him, and the separation of the righteous from the wicked, which is said to be done by the ministry of angels, chap. xxiv. 31. and chap. xix. 28. these things will immediately go before Christ’s judging the world: but since it is expressly said, in this answer, that he shall come with a shout, with the voice of the archangel, and the trumpet of God, this we shall particularly consider. And,

1. When he is said to come with a shout, and with the voice of the archangel, it does not seem probable, that by a shout, is meant an articulate sound, as the word is sometimes applied, when used by us, as signifying that joy and triumph which is expressed by those who shout for victory. Notwithstanding the word may be understood in a metaphorical sense, signifying some triumphant expressions of joy, suitable to the great occasions; or the word,[244] which we render a shout, may signify the powerful word of command given by our Saviour, whereby the dead are called out of their graves; and agreeable hereunto, it is added, that Christ shall come with the voice of the arch-angel. This has given occasion, to some, to enquire, whether there be one among the angels who is called so, as being the prince and chief of all the rest, who will receive the word immediately from Christ, and transmit it to other angels, whereby the world will be summoned to appear before his tribunal; but it is very difficult for us to account for this matter. That there is a very beautiful order and harmony among the angels, is beyond dispute; nevertheless, we have no ground to assert, that one is superior to the rest, unless that be the meaning of the word arch-angel, in this, and two or three other scriptures, in which we meet with it. But, though I will not contend with those who are otherwise minded, yet I am rather inclined to think that the word is always applied to our Saviour, and that he is called the arch-angel, as he is the head and sovereign of all the angels, who, as the apostle says, were created by him, and for him, Col. i. 16. and who are commanded to worship him, Heb. i. 6. and, as it is said elsewhere, Angels, authorities, and powers, are made subject unto him, 1 Pet. ii. 22. therefore he certainly has a greater right to this glorious character than any creature.

If to this it be objected, that Christ’s being said to come with the voice of the arch-angel, denotes, that the arch-angel is distinguished from him; to this it may be replied, that this does not necessarily follow from hence; for the meaning of the words may be this, that the Lord shall descend with a shout, or powerful word of command, given forth by him, who is the prince and Lord of all the angels, and transmitted by them to the whole world, who shall be hereby summoned to appear before him.

2. He is said to come with the sound of a trumpet; which seems to allude to the use of trumpets, to gather the hosts of Israel together, when they were to march by their armies, or in the day of their solemn festivals, and in the year of Jubilee, which was proclaimed thereby; and accordingly this eternal Jubilee, and triumph of the saints, is said to begin with the sound of a trumpet; not that there shall be a material trumpet, like those in use among us, as some, who have low apprehensions of the glory of this day, have supposed, as though there were nothing figurative in the mode of speaking; whereas the principal thing intended thereby is, that there shall be some glorious ensigns of the divine majesty, or the effects of his power, which shall fill his saints with exceeding great joy, and his enemies with terror, and shall be a signal to all to appear before his tribunal. This is all we need to determine concerning it; though I will not altogether deny the literal sense of the words, provided they be understood in the same manner, as when God appeared from mount Sinai, with the voice of a trumpet exceeding loud, Exod. xix. 16. it is not improbable that there will be a sound like that of a trumpet formed in the air, by the immediate power of God, which shall be heard throughout the whole world, which will be an intimation to all, that the great Judge of quick and dead is at hand, and will be a branch of that external glory, with which he shall appear.

We might here have proceeded to consider Christ as seated on his throne, and the glorious work that he shall be engaged in, in judging the world in righteousness, which is the last thing mentioned in this answer: but, since we are led particularly to insist on that subject, and to speak concerning the persons to be judged, as set at Christ’s right or left hand, together with the manner of proceeding in that day; the sentence passed, and the final estate of angels and men determined thereby, together with the consequence thereof, both to the righteous and wicked, in some following answers,[245] we shall proceed to speak concerning the application of redemption, or the benefits procured by Christ’s mediation.

Footnote 243:

As for the Jewish writers, they mention a tradition taken from one Elias, which, some think, refers to a spurious writing, that went under the name of the prophet Elijah: but this they leave uncertain: neither do they signify whether it was a written or an oral tradition; nor do they intimate when, or where, this Elias lived. However, the tradition was received by many of them. It is mentioned in the Talmud in Tract. Sanhedrim, cap. xi. § 29. Edit. a Cocc. Traditio est domus Eliæ: Sex mille annos durat mundus: bis mille annis inanitas & vastitas. Bis mille annis Lex. Denique bis mille annis dies Christi. At vero propter peccata nostra & plurima & enormia, abierunt ex bis, qui abierunt. And the same is mentioned in another Talmudic treatise, called, Avoda Sara, (Vid. eund. edit. ab Edzard. cap. 1. page 65. cum. ejusd. annot. page 244, & seq.) And Manasseh Ben-Israel asserts the same thing, (Vid. ejusd. de Creat. Probl. 25.) Other writers, among them, improve upon this conjecture, and pretend, that as the sun was created the fourth day, so the Messiah was to come, after 4000 years, by which they appear to be self-condemned. However, as an expedient to disembarrass themselves, they all pretend, that Christ’s coming is deferred for their sins; which evasion is too weak to ward off the evidence which we have for the truth of Christianity. That several of the Fathers imbibed this notion, concerning the world’s continuing 6000 years, according to the number of the days of the creation, is evident. Lactantius begins his Millennium then, and supposes, that the thousand years, from thence to the end of time, answers to the seventh day or Sabbath of rest. (Vid. Lactant. de Vit. Beat. § 14.) Augustin, who does not give into the Millennium, supposes, that time will end with the 6000 years, which answers to the sixth day of the creation; and then, according to him, follows an eternal sabbatism, (Vid. Aug. de Civ. Dei, Lib. XX. cap. 7.)

Footnote 244:

Κελευσμα.

Footnote 245:

See Quest. LXXXVIII.-XC.

Quest. LVII., LVIII., LIX.

QUEST. LVII. What benefits hath Christ procured by his mediation?

ANSW. Christ, by his mediation, hath procured redemption, with all other benefits of the covenant of grace.

QUEST. LVIII. How do we come to be made partakers of the benefits which Christ hath procured?

ANSW. We are made partakers of the benefits which Christ hath procured, by the application of them unto us, which is the work especially of God the Holy Ghost.

QUEST. LIX. Who are made partakers of redemption through Christ?

ANSW. Redemption is certainly applied and effectually communicated to all those for whom Christ hath purchased it, who are, in time, by the Holy Ghost, enabled to believe in Christ, according to the gospel.

I. In the first of these answers, we have an account of the blessings, which Christ, as Mediator, has procured for his people, namely, redemption, with all the other blessings of the covenant of grace; and accordingly we may observe, that the covenant of grace is the foundation of all the blessings that we enjoy, or hope for; and, among these, redemption is included, which having been before considered, we need not, at present enlarge on it.

As for those other benefits of the covenant of grace, which are the consequents of our redemption, they differ from it, in that redemption is said to be wrought out for us by Christ, in his own Person, whereas some other benefits we enjoy, are, more especially considered as wrought in us; and these are particularly mentioned in several following answers; which treat of effectual calling, sanctification, repentance unto life, and other graces, which are inherent in us, whereby our hearts and actions are changed and conformed to the will of God. And there are other blessings which, more especially, respect our state God-ward; such as justification in which our sins are pardoned, and our persons accepted; and adoption, wherein we are made and dealt with as God’s children; and there are several other benefits which follow hereupon, whereby the work of grace is carried on, and we enabled to go on in the ways of God, with spiritual peace and joy in believing, till we come to glory.

II. It is farther observed, that we are made partakers of these benefits by the application thereof to us; first, they are purchased, and then applied. We are first redeemed by price, and then delivered by the almighty power of God, and the application hereof is said to be more especially the work of the Holy Ghost; whereas the purchase of it only belongs to the Mediator.

In considering the application of redemption, we may observe, that it is a divine work, and therefore not to be ascribed to ourselves, but it is the gift of God, Eph. ii. 8. and, as it is a work appropriate to God, so it is, in several scriptures, said to be wrought in us by the Holy Ghost. Accordingly we are said to be born of the Spirit, John iii. 5. and saved by the washing of regeneration, and renewing of the Holy Ghost, Titus iii. 5. upon which account, the Spirit is sometimes called the Spirit of holiness, and power, and he is said to dwell in us; which plainly shews that he is eminently glorified in the application of redemption.

But inasmuch as it is said, in one of the answers we are explaining, that this is the work especially of God the Holy Ghost, which is a mode of speaking often used by those who treat on this subject; this is to be considered with great caution; and therefore when we speak of it, as the work especially of God the Holy Ghost, we are not to understand it as though the Father and the Son were not equally concerned therein; for it is allowed by all, who have just ideas of the doctrine of the ever-blessed Trinity, that those works, in which any of the divine perfections are displayed, belong equally, and alike, to the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost;[246] therefore when the application of redemption is said, more especially, to belong to the Holy Ghost, we are to understand nothing else by it, but that this work is peculiarly attributed to the Spirit, inasmuch as hereby he demonstrates his Personal glory, in the subserviency of the work performed by him, to the glory of the Father, and of Christ the Mediator: but this we shall pass over, having insisted on it elsewhere.[247]

III. We are now to consider redemption as certainly and effectually applied to all, for whom it was purchased, together with the character of the persons who are interested therein. In this account of the application thereof, there is something supposed, namely, that it is not applied to all mankind. This every one will allow; for even they, who plead for universal redemption, do not assert the universal application of it, or that all mankind shall be eventually saved, as being contrary to the whole tenor of scripture; therefore we must conclude, that it is applied to none but those for whom Christ has purchased it. This is evident, because the design of the purchase thereof was, that they, who were redeemed, might reap the benefit of it. And, in this sense, it is farther observed, that it is certainly and effectually applied to them; from whence it follows, that the application thereof does not depend on the will of man, or on some uncertain conditions, which God expects we shall perform, that so the death of Christ might be rendered effectual; for whatever condition can be assigned, as conducive hereunto, it is the purchase of Christ’s death; in which respect, the Spirit’s applying one saving benefit, must be considered as a condition of his applying another; which is not only an improper sense of the word condition, but it contains several things derogatory to the divine glory: but this need not be farther insisted on, since we have had occasion to speak of it elsewhere.[248]

This leads us to consider the character of the persons to whom redemption is applied. These are described as such, who are enabled to believe in Christ, according to the gospel. This is a very extensive character belonging to those who are interested in Christ’s redemption, as it includes in it all other graces, which accompany or flow from saving faith; and we are not, by nature, disposed to believe in Christ, but are rather averse to it; therefore it is farther said, that we are enabled to believe in him, as will be considered under a following answer.[249] And this is said to be done according to the gospel, and it not only discovers to us the object of faith; but contains many invaluable promises of this and other graces, that accompany salvation. And this grace of faith is farther said to be wrought in time, to denote, that though the purpose relating hereunto was from eternity, and the purchase thereof was made before we had a being, yet the application of it is in God’s appointed time, when, after having run great lengths in impenitency and unbelief, he is pleased to call us by his grace, and thereby bring us into the way of salvation.

Footnote 246:

Thus divines generally say, Opera Trinitatis ad extra sunt indivisa.

Footnote 247:

See Vol. I. page 291, 292.

Footnote 248:

See page 185, 187, 322, 324.

Footnote 249:

See Quest. lxxii.

Quest. LX.

QUEST. LX. Can they who have never heard the gospel, and so know not Jesus Christ, nor believe in him, be saved, by their living according to the light of nature?

ANSW. They who, having never heard the gospel, know not Jesus Christ, and believe not in him, cannot be saved, be they never so diligent to frame their lives according to the light of nature, or the law of that religion which they profess; neither is there salvation in any other, but in Christ alone, who is the Saviour only of his body the church.

This answer is an inference deduced from the foregoing; for, if redemption be only applied to those who are enabled to believe in Christ, according to the gospel, then it follows, that they who have not the gospel, cannot be made partakers of this privilege; and the general scope and design thereof is to assert the necessity of divine revelation, as well as faith in Christ, against those who suppose that the gate of salvation is much wider than our Saviour has determined it to be, who says, Strait is the gate, and narrow is the way which leadeth unto life, and few there be that find it, Matt. vii. 14. I am sensible that this doctrine cannot but be disrelished by them, who are disposed to exclude any from a possibility of attaining salvation; and are ready to charge those with groundless censoriousness, and want of Christian temper, who pass so severe a sentence on so great a part of mankind, as are included in it. It is also contrary to the presumptuous hope of corrupt nature, which is unwarrantably prone to expect salvation, without faith in Christ. This some defend by arguments, but many more seem to do it by their practice.

They who maintain the doctrine of universal redemption, design hereby to advance the goodness of God, and are ready to conclude, that it is inconsistent with that divine perfection to exclude any from a possibility of salvation; and therefore it is not agreeable to their method of reasoning, to confine the means of grace to so small a number, as that of those to whom the gospel is preached; accordingly many of them have asserted, that the Heathen, as well as Christians, are put into a salvable state by the death of Christ, so that they shall be saved if they live according to the dictates of the light of nature, though they know nothing of Christ and the gospel. But, in order to their maintaining this argument, they have some great difficulties to surmount, inasmuch as, while they attempt to aggrandize the mercy of God, they seem to overthrow the necessity of divine revelation, as well as run counter to the sense of many scriptures.

Therefore some who have asserted universal redemption, have not extended the universality of it any farther, than to those who are favoured with the gospel; but either leave it, as a matter which we know nothing of, and ought not to enquire into, or else they seem to suggest, that the dark traditional knowledge of the gospel, which they suppose, some of the Heathen have had, was sufficient to lead them to a small degree of faith in Christ; or, since that cannot well be defended, others have supposed, that God may lead many of the Heathen into the knowledge of Christ, before they go out of the world, by some secret methods, not to be discerned by us. These are not willing, with the Deists, to set aside the necessity of divine revelation; whereas others, who do not suppose it necessary to salvation, but only to our farther improvement in the way thereunto, and therefore conclude, that Christianity is only a brighter, or clearer way to heaven; these are, more especially, opposed in this answer we are explaining.

I am sensible that this subject, we are entering on, has been treated with more reflection and censure than many others; and we are hereby supposed to conclude, that the divine dispensations are too severe, and that that goodness and mercy, which is his nature and delight, is not sufficiently advanced and magnified; and that it is a sour and ill-natured way of reasoning, to suppose that any are put under a necessity of perishing, for want of a divine revelation, and that it does not become us to pass a damnatory sentence on any, more especially on so great a part of the world, as that is, who know nothing of Christ, and the way of salvation by him. It is necessary for us therefore to premise,

1. That we pretend not to pass a judgment concerning the final state of particular persons, by concluding, that they, who are now strangers to Christ, and his gospel, shall always remain so; for we know not when, to whom, or by what means, God may reveal Christ, to those who now sit in darkness, and are unacquainted with the way of salvation by him. And as for the possibility of God’s revealing Christ, in a secret way, to those who do not sit under the sound of the gospel, we will not deny it; however, we cannot infer the certainty of events, from the possibility thereof, and therefore we must have a clearer proof hereof, before we can believe it.

2. God might justly have excluded the whole race of mankind from a possibility of attaining salvation, as well as the fallen angels; for there was nothing out of himself that moved him to have compassion on those who are the heirs of salvation, any more than others.

3. We are far from supposing that the Heathens shall be condemned for not believing in Christ, whom they never heard of, or not complying with the gospel-overture, which was never made to them. Invincible ignorance, though it be an unhappiness, and a consequence of our fallen state, is not a crime; therefore,

4. The Heathen shall be judged by the law of nature; and, if the apostle’s words, As many as have sinned without law, shall perish without law, Rom. ii. 12. be applicable to them, which, I think, no one will deny; yet their condemnation cannot be equal to that of those, who neglect and despise the great salvation offered to them in the gospel.

5. The Heathen, who have had no other light but that of nature, cannot be exculpated from the charge of many actual sins committed by them; in which respect they have rebelled against the light they have been favoured with. All of them, indeed, have not contracted the same degree of guilt with those whom the apostle describes, who committed sins contrary to nature, being filled with all unrighteousness, fornication, covetousness, maliciousness, wickedness, chap. i. 25, 26. & seq. and many other sins of the blackest nature, and therefore all of them are not liable to the same condemnation. And, indeed, some of the Heathen moralists have been a blessing, in many respects, to the age in which they lived, who, by their writings and example, have endeavoured to reform it from vice and immorality; and it is certain, that they shall not be punished for crimes which they have not committed: but whether the best of them shall be saved by the merits of Christ, though destitute of faith in him, is the question under our present consideration. To conclude that their good works have merited salvation, is not only contrary to the analogy of faith, but it is more than what can be said concerning the best works that were ever performed by Christians; and to argue, as many do, from the goodness of God, that they shall be saved, is certainly an inconclusive way of reasoning, unless we had some intimation of his purpose relating thereunto. If God has determined so to do, we must have recourse to his revealed will, and prove, from scripture, that there are promises of eternal life made to those who have no interest in Christ, and some ground, at least, to conclude, that some shall be happy in beholding his glory in another world, who have had no communion, by faith, with him in this. These things must first be proved, before we can see reason to deny what is contained in this answer, which we proceed to consider. Accordingly it is observed,

I. That they who never heard the gospel, and neither know nor believe in Christ, cannot be saved. This supposes, that faith and salvation are inseparably connected; and, though it be particularly applied to those who are destitute of the gospel; yet it is levelled against all, who presumptuously expect salvation, without ground, who remain in a state of unbelief and impenitency, whether they have the means of grace or no. And here let us consider that many who are called Christians, though they know little more than the bare name of Christ, yet they doubt not but that they shall be saved by his merits, and so live and die in this fatal mistake, how vile soever their conversation has been, as the prophet Isaiah says, Thou art wearied in the greatness of thy way; yet saidst thou not, There is no hope, Isa. lvii. 10. or like the person whom Moses speaks of, who, when he heareth the words of this curse, yet blesseth himself in his heart, saying, I shall have peace, though I walk in the imagination of mine heart, to add drunkenness to thirst, Deut. xxix. 19. It is too notorious to be denied, that a great part of men though grossly ignorant, and openly profane, who live without God in the world, notwithstanding, expect to be saved; and it is one of Satan’s great engines, by which he endeavours to banish all religion out of the world, by persuading his deluded subjects that all things shall go well with them, though they make no pretensions to it. This presumption is rather founded in stupidity, than supported by arguments, and is a great instance of the alienation of the mind and affections from God, and shows how deceitful and desperately wicked, the heart of man is, when destitute of divine grace.

But what shall we say of those who pretend to defend this, and thereby put a sword into the hands of those who adhere to them, to destroy themselves? This the Deists do. And, inasmuch as their method of reasoning is subversive of the Christian religion, and of faith in Christ, as connected with salvation, I cannot omit to mention it in this place. These pretend not to be Atheists, though they express not a due veneration for the divine Majesty, that they may not be excluded from the society of mankind, who have some degree of abhorrence of Atheism impressed on their nature. They talk, indeed of God, and of natural religion, but make revealed the subject of their scorn and ridicule. If they read the scriptures, it is apparently with a design to burlesque them, and charge them with inconsistency and self-contradiction. When they speak of revelation, or the gift of prophecy, they give it no better a term than enthusiasm; and, when they mention the failings, recorded in scripture, of those who were otherwise holy and excellent men, they take occasion maliciously to reproach them, and insinuate, that they were vile persons, guilty of the most enormous crimes, and yet were saved: and wickedly infer from thence, that there is nothing solid and substantial in religion, but that persons may be as safe and happy without it, as with it. If they refer to the brightest and most excellent part of the character of the saints recorded in scripture, this they suppose to be the effect of implicit faith, and to take its rise from priest-craft. And our Saviour himself is not only divested by them of his glory, but reckoned, as, they suppose, Moses was of old, a designing person, who brought a new set of notions into the world to amuse and confound it. As for his miracles, which none but the blinded Jews, and they who are equally prejudiced against Christianity, never pretended to contest, much less to vilify, these they treat with the utmost scorn and contempt, as a late writer has done, whose blasphemy has been made manifest, by those who have wrote in defence of this part of our religion.

But inasmuch as persons, who are not disposed to indulge so great a degree of profaneness, have been sensible that this is not a right method to extirpate Christianity, since it cannot but be treated with the utmost abhorrence, by those who read the scripture with any religious design; there are others who, though they speak of God, yet glorify him not as God. These will, indeed, allow him to have some divine perfections; but they cast a reproach on his providence, and suppose, that he is too great to be affected with, or concerned about the actions and behaviour of so mean a creature as man. And as what we call sin, can be no disparagement to his glory, so he is too good and pitiful to his creatures, to punish them, at least, with eternal torments for it; so that if they allow the soul to be immortal, and capable of happiness in another world, which all of them, without exception, do not; yet they suppose that God made no creature to be for ever miserable. And as for those laws which he has given to mankind, which are enstamped on their nature, and contain nothing but what might have been known without revelation, these they pretend to be designed only to keep the world in order, to promote the interest of civil society, to prevent men from murdering one another, disturbing the tranquillity of the government in which they live, or invading the property of others; which is not doing as they would have others do to them. And as for the punishment of sin; that is no farther to be regarded, than as vice and immorality render persons obnoxious to bodily diseases, some marks of infamy, which custom has annexed thereunto, or the lash of human laws. This is all the scheme of religion, that some among the Deists endeavour to propagate; and every thing that is built more immediately upon divine revelation, they not only reckon unnecessary, but enthusiastic, and no other than a contrivance of some, who, with a view to their own interest, endeavour to puzzle the world with mysterious doctrines, which neither they, nor their votaries understand.

It must be supposed, that these men do not think that the knowledge of Christ, or faith in him, is necessary to salvation; yet they doubt not but that it shall go well with them in another world, if there be a future state, which, through the influence of that scepticism, which is, for the most part, a concomitant of Deism, they sometimes question. We shall not make so great a digression from our present subject as to give a particular reply to these assertions, which, though propagated with much assurance, are not pretended to be defended by solid arguments; and, indeed, the whole gospel is a reply to it. Whatever doctrine thereof is maintained by Christians, it will have a tendency to give them an abhorrence of it, and confirm their faith against such attempts, as are used to stagger and pervert it.

Thus concerning the methods that are used, by some, to overthrow revealed religion, and the necessity of faith in Christ to salvation. We shall now proceed to consider on what grounds persons hope to be saved, without the knowledge of Christ, or faith in him. And,

1. Some have no other ground of hope but the goodness of the divine nature; and accordingly they think, that because God delights not in the misery of any of his creatures, but takes all occasions to make himself known, as a God of infinite kindness and compassion, whose thoughts are not as our thoughts, nor his ways as our ways, and will not resent those injuries which we may offer to him, but will lay them under eternal obligations to him, who have, by their sins rendered themselves unworthy to be saved by him; therefore they hope that all things shall go well with them, though they are utter strangers to the way of salvation by a Redeemer, and are altogether destitute of faith in him.

But this we cannot call any other than a presumptuous confidence; it is nothing else but to abuse the riches of God’s goodness, and to claim an interest in it, without ground. It is, indeed, a very great truth that God delights in mercy; and that this attribute cannot be too much admired or advanced by us; but yet it must not be set in opposition to any of his other perfections. He is certainly a just and holy, as well as a merciful God; and therefore we are not to suppose that one of these perfections shall be glorified, to the dishonour of another. Might not fallen angels as well make use of the same argument, and say, that because God is merciful, therefore he will deliver them from those chains of darkness and misery, in which they are held; as that the mercy of God should be presumed to be a foundation of hope, to those who have no ground to conclude their interest in it, as expecting it another way, than that in which he has declared his will to glorify it? And it is certain, that whomsoever God designs to glorify his mercy in saving, he first determines to advance the glory thereof, in making them meet for salvation, by sanctifying or purifying their hearts by faith. To separate these two, is therefore a dishonour to the divine perfections: God never designed to save his people in sin, but first to save them from it, and then to crown the work, which he had begun, with complete blessedness. Therefore the man who lives in all excess of riot, and yet hopes for salvation, must be guilty of a groundless presumption. When we read, in scripture, of God’s extending mercy, we find that there are certain marks and characters annexed, of those persons who have ground to lay claim to an interest in it: thus it is said, The Lord is merciful and gracious, slow to anger, and plenteous in mercy, Psal. ciii. 8. but then it is added, that this mercy is from everlasting to everlasting upon them that fear him; to such as keep his covenant, and to those that remember his commandments to do them, ver. 17, 18. and elsewhere the Psalmist admires the goodness of God, (which is, doubtless, beyond expression wonderful) when he says, O how great is thy goodness, which thou hast laid up, and wrought, in which he speaks of the present displays of goodness, and the future reserves thereof; but it follows, that this belongs only to them that fear him, and to them that trust in him before the sons of men, Psal. xxxi. 19. and elsewhere it is said, All the paths of the Lord are mercy and truth, unto such as keep his covenant and his testimonies, Psal. xxv. 10. that is, to them, exclusively of all others.

Moreover, we never read of God’s glorifying his mercy but in Christ; first, in bringing sinners nigh to him, by his blood, and then in applying redemption purchased by his Spirit: thus the apostle says, God was in Christ reconciling the world unto himself, 2 Cor. v. 19. and then he adds, as an expedient to give sinners a ground of hope, that they have an interest in this privilege, that, in the gospel, he sends an embassy to them, to beseech them, as they value their own souls, to be reconciled to God, by complying with the gospel-overture, and repeating of, and desisting from their rebellion against him. And, when he is represented as the Father of mercies, and the God of all comfort, he is, at the same time, styled, the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, chap. i. 3. to denote, that this mercy is displayed in and through a Mediator; and therefore our hope of attaining it, must be founded in our interest in him, which cannot be considered otherwise, than as including in it the grace of faith. Are they, who have a right to expect salvation, called heirs of God, and joint-heirs with Christ? Rom. viii. 17. They are farther described, as conformed to his image, ver. 29. Have they a right to the inheritance of the saints in light? they are characterized as made meet for it, Colos. i. 12. and when the apostle exhorts persons to look for the mercy of God unto eternal life, he intimates that this would be a presumptuous expectation, were it separate from their keeping themselves in the love of God, Jude, ver. 21.

2. Others have no foundation for their expectation of salvation, but by extenuating sin; and are hardly persuaded to confess themselves to be sinners, how vile soever their conversation be: thus it is said, concerning Ephraim, The balances of deceit are in his hand, he loveth to oppress; yet he refused to acknowledge this, and says, In all my labours they shall find none iniquity in me, that were sin, Hos. xii. 7, 8. and, when the prophet Jeremiah exhibits a charge against a degenerate age, and tells them, Thou hast taught the wicked ones thy ways, also in thy skirts is found the blood of poor innocents; what abominable stupidity were they guilty of, when they reply to this, Because I am innocent, surely his anger shall turn from me, Jer. ii. 33-35.

Sometimes they build their hope of salvation, though they cannot exculpate themselves from the charge of sin, on the bare supposition, that some others are greater sinners than themselves: thus the Pharisee pleases himself, that he was not guilty of some notorious sins: that he was no extortioner, or adulterer, nor even as the Publican, whom he looks upon with great contempt, Luke xviii. 11. or if they are forced to conclude themselves to be among the number of the vilest and most notorious sinners, yet they presume that God will not punish them eternally for this, but will make some allowance for the propensity of human nature to sin, or the force of those temptations, which they have not been able to withstand; or, if they are liable to any extraordinary afflictions in this life, they suppose that these are sufficient to compensate for all the sins that they have committed, and therefore their miseries shall not be extended beyond it; so that, that which lies at the root of this presumptuous hope, is a secret denial of the infinite demerit of sin, or that it deserves eternal punishment. Now, that we may shew the vanity of that expectation, which has no other foundation than this, let us consider,

(1.) That to extenuate sin, is an argument that persons are unacquainted with themselves, know not the plague of their own hearts; and therefore it is the most destructive fallacy that men can put on themselves; and it is a sad token that they are given up to judicial blindness: but, when God shall charge sin on the conscience, or, as the Psalmist speaks, reprove them, and set their iniquities in order before their eyes, Psal. l. 21. which he will do, at one time or other, they shall appear to have been self-deceived, and the ground of their hope of salvation, sink under them.

(2.) To suppose that sin does not deserve eternal punishment, is an affront to the holiness of God and a disbelief of those threatenings which are denounced against it. It is, in effect, to deny that sin is objectively infinite, which cannot be done, without denying, in effect, that God is a God of infinite perfection; it is a flying in the face of his justice, and charging him with mal-administration; to such it may be said, as Elihu says to Job, Wilt thou condemn him that is most just? Job xxxiv. 17. or, as God speaks, to reprove and humble him, Wilt thou also disannul my judgment? Wilt thou condemn me that thou mayest be righteous? chap. xl. 8. But since the eternity of the punishment of sin is particularly insisted on, under a following answer,[250] we shall add no more on that head at present; only let it be considered, that this method of reasoning has a tendency to banish all religion out of the world; and it is never made use of, but by those who make no pretensions to it.

3. If it be reckoned preposterous for any one to found his hope of salvation on the extenuating of his sins, others have a more plausible pretence, when they expect to be saved, because they perform some works that are materially good, though these are not only destitute of the grace of faith, but strangers to the way of salvation by Jesus Christ. If they perform some moral duties, or abstain from some gross enormities, much more if they have a form of godliness, and are reckoned to be religious persons by the world, and, in many instances, are useful to those with whom they converse, they are ready to conclude, that they do, as it were, merit eternal life thereby, and God, for this, becomes a debtor to them; the former sort above-mentioned have too light thoughts of sin; these set too great a value on their duties, which is contrary to what our Saviour says, When ye shall have done all those things which are commanded you, say, We are unprofitable servants, Luke xvii. 10. I would not have it thought that hereby I design to depreciate any moral duties, or virtues, which have in them a degree or excellency, in proportion to their nature: but the only thing that I intend hereby is, that good works which do not proceed from a right principle, and are not performed for right ends, if there be not an internal principle of grace implanted in regeneration, nor faith in Christ, as the main spring thereof, or, if they be put in the room of Christ’s righteousness, and so made the foundation of our justification, or right to eternal life, they are not accepted by God; and that hope of salvation, which is founded thereon, is vain, and unwarrantable.

4. There are others, who, as it is expressed in this answer, frame their lives according to the light of nature, or the law of that religion which they profess, and doubt not, but in so doing, they shall be saved. This presumption is defended by many, who call themselves Christians, who suppose, that a person may be saved in any religion, whether true or false: these do not stick to say, that, if they lived at Rome, they would embrace the Popish doctrines; or, if in Turkey, they would profess the Mahometan faith; or, had they been born in India, among the Pagans, they should have ground to conclude that they are in a safe way to heaven. This opinion certainly reflects dishonour on the Christian name; and it savours so much of scepticism, that these must be supposed to conclude, that there is nothing certain in religion; or, as to the different modes thereof, that these are only a political engine, a mere human invention, which stands upon no other basis, but tradition, and has nothing else to propagate it, but implicit faith. This is the notion which they, who set themselves against divine revelation, entertain concerning religion in general; or, if there be any thing in it that escapes their reproach and censure, it is only such maxims as are founded in the laws of nature, viz. that we ought to do to others as we would have them do to us, govern our passions, that they may not be outrageous, and disturb not only our own peace, but that of all civil societies; and that we must not offer injuries, or violence, to those whom we converse with; but rather be gentle, good-humoured, kind, and compassionate to them, and abstain from those enormities, which are abhorrent to nature. This they suppose to be sufficient to denominate any one a good man, who need not entertain any doubt of his own salvation: but this is to set aside all revelation, and disbelieve the demonstrative evidence which we have of the truth of the Christian religion, and it is to cast contempt on that, as unnecessary, which has in it the greatest excellency. It also contains a denial of that which is experienced by all true believers, namely, that revealed religion has the greatest tendency to dispose them to glorify God, and to do good to men; these sensibly find, that they have the greatest comfort, and most solid ground of hope, in a firm adherence thereunto: and laying all the stress of their salvation on what is revealed in the gospel; and desiring to adhere stedfastly, by faith, to Christ, as the only way of salvation.

II. It is farther observed, in this answer, that there is salvation in no other but in Christ. The scripture is very full and express to this purpose; Thus it is said, Neither is there salvation in any other; for there is none other name under heaven given among men, whereby we must be saved, Acts iv. 12. and elsewhere the apostle says, Other foundation can no man lay, than that is laid, which is Jesus Christ, 1 Cor. iii. 11. On him the church is built; he is the only Mediator between God and man, the only Redeemer, who purchased salvation for those who shall be made partakers of it: He laid the foundation-stone of this glorious fabric, and therefore we must conclude, that the carrying on of this work belongs to him, till the top-stone is laid, and the work brought to perfection; upon which account he is styled, The Author and Finisher of faith, Heb. xii. 3. Accordingly we may observe,

1. That faith, and all other graces that accompany salvation, have a peculiar reference to Christ: Thus we are said to obtain precious faith through his righteousness, 2 Pet. i. 1. and he is said to dwell in the hearts of his people by faith, Eph. iii. 17, and to increase their faith, Luke xvii. 5. and he is also the Object of faith, as he says, Ye believe in God; believe also in me, John xiv. 1. and this grace is frequently described as a coming to him, chap. vi. 35. and it is such a coming as implies more than an attendance on his ordinances; for it is connected with salvation, which is the meaning of that metaphorical expression, in which it is said, that such shall never hunger nor thirst; by which we are to understand that all their desires shall be fulfilled, and they shall be satisfied with that perfect blessedness, which he will make them partakers of. Besides, it is such a coming to Christ, as is the effect of God’s almighty power; therefore he says, No man can come to me, except the Father which hath sent me draw him, ver. 44.

This will farther appear, if we consider that salvation is founded on Christ’s executing his three offices of Priest, Prophet, and King. The first of these he executes in our behalf; not in us, but for us, whereby faith, and all other graces, are purchased; whereas, in the execution of his other two offices, namely, his Prophetical and Kingly, especially when it is rendered effectual to salvation, his people are the subjects in whom they are executed; the work performed is internal, and the consequence of it is the soul’s giving that glory to him, that is the result thereof; and this cannot be done, without our knowing him to be a Mediator, and, as such, ordained and qualified to execute them. This cannot be known without divine revelation.

Moreover, this is evident, from the apostle’s method of reasoning, in which he considers our calling on the name of the Lord as inseparably connected with salvation, and necessary thereunto, and that this proceeds from faith; for, says he, How shall they call on him, in whom they have not believed? Rom. x. 14. And this faith supposes the preaching of the gospel, which gospel is represented, in many scriptures, as a display of the glory of Christ; therefore it follows, that there is no salvation without divine revelation; or that they, who never heard of Christ, and consequently never believed in him, have no right or claim to it.

We might also observe the account which the same apostle gives of that worship, which is necessary to salvation, when he says, Through him we have access, by one Spirit, unto the Father, Eph. ii. 18. To have access to God, is certainly necessary to salvation; and this is by a Mediator, which is elsewhere called, Coming to God by him: But this cannot be done without the knowledge of him, as the way to the Father, and that faith in him, which is founded thereon. Moreover, salvation is to be considered as a promised blessing, founded in the covenant of grace, and therefore they, who are strangers to this covenant, have no right to lay claim to the promises thereof, which are no where contained but in divine revelation, and accordingly they are said to be yea and amen in Christ, to the glory of God, 2 Cor. i. 20. Therefore, what hope can there be of obtaining these promised blessings, without the knowledge of Christ?

2. It farther appears, that there is no salvation without faith in Christ, as founded in divine revelation, inasmuch as there is no justification without it. Justification is inseparably connected with salvation by the apostle, when he says, Whom he justified, them he also glorified, Rom. viii. 30. To separate these two, is to suppose, that a person may expect salvation, without being delivered from the guilt of sin, and the condemning sentence of the law; or to have a right to eternal life, without being able to plead any righteousness that is worthy of God’s acceptance, which is certainly to build our hope on a sandy foundation, and is contrary to those scriptures that set forth the impossibility of our being justified by the works of the law, or the necessity of faith in Christ’s righteousness, in order to our claiming this privilege. This the apostle Paul frequently inculcates; therefore it follows, that no one can plead any thing done by him, as the matter of his justification, though he could say, as that apostle did, touching the righteousness that is in the law, I am blameless, Phil. iii. 6. and elsewhere he says, Though I know nothing by myself, yet I am not hereby justified, 1 Cor. iv. 4. If the best saint in the world must have something, to support his expectation of being discharged from condemnation, that is infinitely more valuable than any act of his own obedience; then certainly that obedience, which is performed, according to the dictates of the light of nature, without divine revelation, is far from being a sufficient foundation to support a person’s hope of justification and salvation: But such who are destitute of the gospel, have nothing else to plead; therefore we must conclude, as it is expressed in this answer, that they, who never heard the gospel, and believe not in Christ, cannot be saved.

3. This may be also inferred, from those scriptures that set forth the pernicious consequence of unbelief, as it is said, He that believes not is condemned already, and shall not see life, but the wrath of God abideth on him, John iii. 18, 36. and elsewhere, If ye believe not that I am he, ye shall die in your sins, chap. viii. 24. And inasmuch as faith is founded on divine revelation, there are other scriptures that represent those who are destitute of it, as being in an hopeless state: thus the apostle tells the church at Ephesus, that when they were Gentiles, and consequently strangers to the gospel, they had no hope, being without God in the world, Eph. ii. 12. so that, whatever knowledge they had of a God by the light of nature, or whatever blessings they received from common providence, they had not such a knowledge of him, nor such an interest in him, as gave them hope of salvation. The apostle does not speak of them as being in an hopeless state, because their conversation had been more vile than that of other Gentiles, as acting contrary to the dictates of the law of nature; but he speaks of them as Gentiles, that is, without the light of divine revelation; and therefore what he says, concerning them is applicable to all the Heathen, as such.[251]

Again, it is farther observed, in scripture, that, before Christ was preached to the Gentiles, they were not the objects of his special care and goodness, but, in this respect, neglected by him; accordingly it is said, that, in times past he suffered all nations to walk in their own ways, Acts xiv. 16. and elsewhere these are called, Times of ignorance, which, it is said, God winked at, chap. xvii. 30. as it is in our translation: but this is not so agreeable to the sense of the Greek word,[252] as if we rendered it, during the times of this ignorance, God having overlooked them, that is, the Gentiles, hath now commanded all men every where to repent; and, if they were disregarded by him, they could not be supposed to be the objects of his special grace, or to have a right and title to salvation.

Moreover, the apostle Paul, when speaking of some among the Heathen, who excelled others in wisdom; notwithstanding being destitute of gospel light, he casts the utmost contempt on those attainments in the knowledge of divine things, which they gloried in, as being insufficient to salvation; and therefore he says, that whatever they knew of the perfections of the divine nature, so far as they may be known without divine revelation, yet by wisdom they knew not God; and therefore he says, Where is the wise? where is the scribe? where is the disputer of this world? Hath not God made foolish the wisdom of this world? 1 Cor. i. 20.

Object. 1. It is objected, that it is contrary to the goodness of God to condemn persons for invincible ignorance, as that of the Heathen must be supposed to be, since it was impossible for them to know the way of salvation by a Redeemer.

Answ. To this it may be replied, that we must distinguish between God’s condemning persons for not knowing the gospel, which is to condemn them for invincible ignorance, and his not giving the gospel to a greater part of the world, (as a necessary means of grace and salvation) whom he designed, as we before observed, to overlook, and suffer to walk in their own way. If the goodness of God had laid a natural obligation on him, without an act of his sovereign will, to bestow the means of grace, or the knowledge of the way of salvation on them, then it would have been contrary to his divine perfections to have denied the gospel to any, and so to condemn them who are ignorant thereof. It is one thing for God to leave them in their fallen state, the result whereof would be their not knowing the way of salvation; and another thing for him to condemn them for this, as though there were no other reason obliging him to inflict this righteous judgment on them.

Object. 2. It is farther objected, that the apostle says, in Rom. i. 19. That which may be known of God, is manifest in them; for God hath shewn it unto them; and, in chap. ii. 14, 15. When the Gentiles which have not the law, that is, any other law than that of nature, do, by nature the things contained in the law; these having not the law, are a law unto themselves; which shew the work of the law written in their hearts, their consciences also bearing them witness, and their thoughts the mean while accusing or else excusing one another. From hence it is argued, that the Gentiles have sufficient knowledge of the divine law, to bring them into a state of salvation; their consciences are said to excuse them, that is, not to charge guilt upon them; therefore they are justified by walking according to the dictates of the light of nature.

Answ. 1. As to what the apostle said, in the former of these scriptures, that that which may be known of God, is manifest in them, or shewed to them; he does not speak of those things which are to be known of God, that have an immediate reference to salvation; nor does he say, that every thing necessary to be known of him, in order thereunto, is manifest in them; but, that of God which is known by them,[253] is from him as the God of nature, he has shewn it to them, that is, he has given them sufficient light to discover his eternal power and Godhead, in a way of reasoning from the things that are made, as he adds, in the following words; but the eternal power and Godhead may be known by those who are destitute of that knowledge, which is necessary to salvation.

2. As to the other scripture, mentioned in the objection, in which the Gentiles are said to do by nature the things contained in the law; he does not infer from thence that they are the servants of God, or willing subjects to his government, or, indeed, that they fulfil the law of nature; and therefore we cannot suppose that he concludes them justified thereby, which is contrary to the whole tenor of the apostle’s doctrine, in other parts of his writings. It is true, he says, that their consciences sometimes excuse, as well as, at other times, accuse them; yet it must be considered, that conscience may excuse, or plead not guilty, with respect to the charge of some crimes, which are committed by others, when, at the same time, this does not exempt them from the guilt of sin in general, or give them a right and title to eternal life. The apostle therefore designs only to shew how far the corruption of men may be restrained, by their attending to the dictates of the light of nature, whereby a great deal of sin and guilt might be prevented; but he does not determine that God has any farther design of grace toward them; for, if he had, he would have given them the means of salvation; and if he has not said that he will save them, without giving them these means, we have no ground to assert that he will; for this is to conclude, without sufficient evidence from scripture.

Object. 3. It is said, in Rom. ii. 4. that the goodness of God leadeth to repentance; but repentance is certainly connected with salvation; therefore the goodness, or bounty of God, which persons, who have no other right but that of nature, have some knowledge of, may lead them to salvation.

Answ. It is evident that the apostle, in this scripture, does not speak to the Gentiles, but to the Jews; for, having considered the vile abominations which were practised by the Gentiles, in the foregoing chapter, in this he reproves the Jews, when he says, in ver. 1. Thou art inexcusable, O man, that judgest, and yet dost the same things; and, in ver. 17. Behold, thou art called a Jew, and restest in the law, and makest thy boast of God; therefore, if the apostle is speaking to them, when he says, The goodness of God leadeth thee to repentance, we are not only to understand hereby the bounty of common providence, or those effects of the divine goodness, which are known and experienced by the whole world; but the goodness of God, which they had experienced, who were the peculiar objects thereof, and favoured by him, above all the rest of the world, to whom pertained the adoption, the glory, the covenants, and the giving the law, and the service of God, and the promises as we read, in chap. ix. 4. therefore certainly they were highly to blame, that they were not hereby led to repentance.

Object. 4. It is farther objected, that the apostle, in disputing with the Athenians, in Acts xvii. 27. put them upon seeking after God, if haply they might feel after him, and find him; whereas, if it were impossible to find God, that is, the way of acceptance in his sight, by the light of nature, it would have been a preposterous thing for the apostle to have put them upon seeking him; therefore it follows, that they are not destitute of all means of grace, or without a possibility of salvation.

Answ. To this it maybe replied, that, if by seeking the Lord, the apostle means enquiring into the way of salvation by a Redeemer, and pressing after faith in him; as it is said, Seek and ye shall find; knock, and it shall be opened unto you, Matt. vii. 7. and, If thou seek him, he will be found of thee, 1 Chron. xxviii. 9. this does not argue, that the Heathen, before the gospel was preached to them, in seeking, might find the way of salvation: For,

1. Though he be speaking to the Heathen, yet they are considered, at this time, as having the gospel preached to them by him, and therefore not destitute of the external means of grace, which he advises them to attend to, in hope that their endeavours might be succeeded.

2. If, on the other hand, he speaks to them without regard to the privilege they then enjoyed, and so inform them what they might attain to, without divine revelation, which is the only sense that seems, in the least, to favour the objection; then, by seeking the Lord, we must understand their enquiring into the divine perfections, so far as the knowledge thereof is attainable by the light of nature; and the consequence of it would be their attaining such a degree thereof, as would discover the absurdity of that idolatry that they were guilty of, which the apostle is arguing against. And we may observe, that he makes use of such a mode of speaking, as is very agreeable to this sense of the text, when he says, If haply ye might feel after him; which is a metaphor, taken from those who are endeavouring to find their way in the dark, in which they feel after things which they cannot see, and sometimes they find them. And, when he concludes, that haply, or, peradventure, you may find him, this implies, that though the Heathen, by the light of nature, had some means of attaining such a measure of knowledge, as would have given them a full conviction that there was but one God, and that this God ought to be worshipped in a way agreeable to his divine perfections, and consequently that they ought not to think that the God-head was like to gold or silver, or stone, graven by art and man’s device, which would have effectually confuted that gross idolatry, which they were charged with; yet some did not attend to the light of nature, so far as this amounts to, which was the case of those whom he was disputing with; and therefore his design is to reprove their idolatry, and persuade them to seek after that knowledge of God, which would have induced them to forsake it; so, that, in that part of his argument, he does not seem to proceed any farther than this; and therefore, when, in another part of it, he treats of that knowledge of God, which is more immediately connected with salvation, he speaks of Jesus and the resurrection, though they treated it with ridicule and contempt; therefore it does not follow, that the Heathen, by the light of nature, had a sufficient discovery of the way of salvation.

Object. 5. There is another objection against the doctrine we are maintaining, taken from some instances of those who are supposed to have been destitute of divine revelation, as living without the pale of the church, and yet recommended in scripture, as men excelling many others in grace, concerning whom there is no reason to doubt, but that they were in a state of salvation; such as Melchisedeck, Job, and his friends, with whom the dispute was held, mentioned in the book of Job; and, in the New Testament, the Centurion concerning whom our Saviour says, Verily, I have not found so great faith, no not in Israel, Matt. viii. 10. and Cornelius, whom we read of in the Acts of the Apostles; these were all supposed to be in a state of salvation, and yet reckoned among the Heathen.

Answ. 1. As to Melchisedeck, we have, under a foregoing answer[254], given our sentiments who he was, which, if what was there observed be true, will render this objection of no force: but, inasmuch as it is founded on the commonly-received opinion, namely: that he was a priest and a king in the land of Canaan, we may add, that this will make very little to their purpose; for, it is certain, he was not an idolater, or a stranger to revealed religion; and therefore it cannot be argued, from hence, that they, who are so, may be in a state of salvation.

2. As for Job, and his friends, mentioned in that book which goes under his name, it is certain, that they were well acquainted with the revealed will of God, as appears from the subject-matter of that book; and to say, that they were out of the pale of the church, as they did not descend from that branch of Abraham’s family, from which the Israelites came, this will not do much service to their argument, unless it could be proved that they were strangers to the faith, and way of salvation, that was professed by the church. We have, under a foregoing answer[255], considered them, as living before the scriptures were committed to writing, and also before the distinction between the Jew and Gentile was much known in the world, or, at least, before the true worshippers of God had universally apostatized to idolatry; and therefore, though many other nations were idolaters, and, probably, some were so in the country where they lived, yet it does not appear that they were so; therefore this cannot be brought, as an argument, to prove, that such who are destitute of the knowledge of the true God, as founded on divine revelation, may be in the way of salvation.

3. As for the centurion, though he was a Roman officer, it does not follow, from hence, that when he came to our Saviour, and expressed his great faith and humility, that he was an heathen; for he had seen or heard of Christ’s miracles, and his doctrine, and probably, might be convinced thereby, and disposed to believe in him from that conviction; and, it is certain, his words do not argue him to be an heathen; therefore this part of the objection is foreign to the design for which it is brought.

4. As for Cornelius, it is true, there are many things extraordinary in his character, viz. that he was a devout man, and one that feared God; who gave much alms to the people, and prayed to God always, Acts x. 2. and it is farther said, concerning him, that his prayers and his alms came up for a memorial before God; all which expressions seem to favour the objection. Notwithstanding it may be replied to it,

(1.) If this account, concerning him, give ground to conclude that he was in a state of salvation before Peter was sent to preach the gospel to him, which the learned Beza[256], and others, suppose: nevertheless, it must be proved, that he was altogether a stranger to divine revelation, and the account we have of the way of salvation, therein, or else the argument, taken from thence, in opposition to what we are maintaining, is of no force. It is true, it is said, that he fell down at Peter’s feet, and worshipped him, ver. 25. which seems to argue him to be no better than an heathen idolater at that time: but they who conclude him to have been, at the same time, in a state of salvation, reckon this nothing else, but an instance of extraordinary civil respect, which, because it had the appearance of religious worship, Peter, as it is intimated in the following words, refused to receive it, lest some present should conclude that he gave him that honour, which belongs to God alone.

All that I shall say, in answer to the objection, as supposing him to be in a state of salvation, is, that though he was a Roman, and bred up in their religion, yet it appears, from his general character that he was very much concerned about the salvation of his soul, and therefore, doubtless, he had not been wanting in his enquiries about the way to attain it. As for the gospel, that had not been publicly preached, at that time, to the Gentiles, and he had not had any opportunity to converse with the apostles, or to sit under their ministry, before this; but his conversation had been principally among the Jews, from whom he might be informed, that though they did not believe our Saviour, who was crucified, to be the Messiah: yet the Messiah was expected; and, when he came, he would do that for his people, which was foretold by the prophets. Here his faith rested, and he wanted only a convincing evidence that our Saviour was he; and this Peter was sent to communicate to him.

(2.) If we should suppose him not to have been converted before Peter was sent to him, which seems more probable, because, in Peter’s relation of this matter to the apostles, he adds a particular circumstance that implies as much, in chap. xi. 14. namely, that he should tell him words, whereby he and all his house, should be saved; it plainly argues, that, before this, they were not in a state of salvation; and, if so, then the objection, which supposes that he was, is sufficiently answered: but, if we acquiesce in this answer to it, there is one difficulty that remains to be accounted for, viz. how this is consistent with his character, as a devout man, fearing God, and his prayers and his alms being accepted by him?

The only reply I shall give to this, is, that some duties may be performed that are materially good, by those who are not in a state of salvation; and that these works may, as far as they have any circumstance of goodness in them, come up for a memorial before God: thus God owned the humiliation, repentance, and reformation of the Ninevites; and it is said, that when one came to our Saviour, and told him how he had observed the commandments of God, and, at the same time, expressed an earnest desire to inherit eternal life; it is remarked on this occasion, that though he would not part with all for Christ, and therefore was not to be reckoned a believer; yet Jesus, beholding him, loved him, Mark x. 21. that is, he approved of what was good in him, though it wanted some circumstances that were necessary to denominate an action good in all respects. Therefore, why, may we not suppose that God approved of what was excellent in Cornelius’s character, before he was converted by Peter’s preaching?

Object. 6. It is farther objected, that the heathen had some means of salvation, which took their first rise from divine revelation, as appears from several rules and modes of worship, which they had, by tradition from the Jews. It was a generally received opinion among them, that the sins they committed, were, some way or other, to be expiated, or some atonement was to be made for them; upon which account they offered sacrifices, and, in order thereunto, had their temples, altars, and priests, consecrated for that purpose; which is something more than they had learnt from the law of nature.

Answ. This argument has very little weight in it; it is true, it seems to allow that there is a necessity of persons being, at least, in a small degree, apprised of some doctrines, which first took their rise from divine revelation: but that which was transmitted to the church, pure and uncorrupt, was handed down to several nations by uncertain tradition, with a great mixture of corruption; so that it is hard to find such a resemblance between them, as would denominate them of divine original. But suppose they had a conviction that sin was to be expiated by sacrifice; yet they had no manner of idea concerning the reference, of those sacrifices they offered, to Christ, which, as the apostle observes, was the only thing, in those sacrifices that were performed by a divine warrant, which had a tendency to take away sin, or make them that did the service perfect, as pertaining to the conscience, Heb. ix. 9. and therefore, when the Jews offered sacrifices, and observed several other rites of worship, which were instituted by God, yet, inasmuch as they rested in the external performance thereof, and were destitute of faith in Christ, and other religious duties that were to attend them, they were reckoned no better than vain oblations, Isa. i. 13. or unprofitable services: how much more might all the rites of worship, observed by the heathen, be deemed so? Therefore this does not give us sufficient ground to conclude, that they had the means of salvation, who were destitute of divine revelation, and faith in Christ.

III. It is farther observed, in this answer, that Christ is the Saviour only of his body the church. This seems to obviate an objection that might be brought against the impossibility of attaining salvation, without faith in Christ; for some will be ready to conclude, that Christ may be a Saviour by his death, to those who are strangers to him, and not members of his body the church, and therefore it is added, that he is the Saviour only of such; which is what several understand, when they say, that there is no salvation out of the pale, or inclosure of the church. This is rather to be explained than denied; and it will appear, from what is said in the following answers, wherein the visible church is described, as including in it those who profess the true religion; and the invisible church is called the body, of which Christ is the Saviour, Eph. v. 23. and the members thereof are said to be made partakers of union and communion with him, and to be inseparably joined to him, as their head and Husband, when they are effectually called; so that these have an interest in that salvation, which he has procured. From hence we have ground to conclude, that he will save none by his merits, but such who are made partakers of the internal graces of the Spirit, and are united to him by a lively faith, founded on divine revelation; which is agreeable to what has been before maintained in this answer, which establishes the necessity of divine revelation, or the impossibility of persons attaining salvation by framing their lives according to the light of nature, who never heard of the gospel, nor of Jesus Christ, the sum and substance thereof.

If this be reckoned an hard saying, tending to lessen the mercy of God, with respect to the objects thereof, it must be considered, that we have no other rule of judging concerning this matter, but what is contained in scripture. If God has therein made known to his people the only way of salvation, we have no warrant to extend it farther than he has done, or to say, that because he can apply his grace in such methods, as are altogether unknown to us, that therefore he will do it, is no just or conclusive argument. And the great design of all that has been said, in this answer, is to induce us to set the highest value on Christ, and his gospel; to adore and magnify him for the privileges which we enjoy, in being favoured with it, and to put us upon improving it to the best purposes; for, if they are excluded from the benefits thereof, who never heard of it, How shall we escape, if we neglect so great salvation? Heb. ii. 3.

Footnote 250:

See Quest. LXXXIX.

Footnote 251:

It is a rule in logic, A quatenus ad omne valet consequentia.

Footnote 252:

υπεριδων.

Footnote 253:

το γνωστον του Θεου.

Footnote 254:

See page 266-268.

Footnote 255:

See I. Vol. 458, 459.

Footnote 256:

Vid. Bez. in loc.

Quest. LXI., LXII., LXIII., LXIV.

QUEST. LXI. Are all they saved who hear the gospel, and live in the church?

ANSW. All that hear the gospel, and live in the visible church, are not saved, but they only who are true members of the church invisible.

QUEST. LXII. What is the visible church?

ANSW. The visible church is a society made up of all such as, in all ages, and places of the world, do profess the true religion, and of their children.

QUEST. LXIII. What are the special privileges of the visible church?

ANSW. The visible church hath the privilege of being under God’s special care and government, of being protected and preserved in all ages, notwithstanding the opposition of all enemies, and of enjoying the communion of saints, the ordinary means of salvation, offers of grace by Christ to all the members of it in the ministry of the gospel, testifying, that whosoever believes in him shall be saved, and excluding none that will come unto him.

QUEST. LXIV. What is the invisible church?

ANSW. The invisible church is the whole number of the elect, that have been, are, or shall be gathered into one, under Christ the Head.

They who are made partakers of Christ’s redemption, and are brought into a state of salvation, have been before described, as members of Christ’s body the church; and we are now led to consider them as brought into this relation to him, and accordingly are to enquire in what sense they are members of Christ’s church, and so to speak of this church as to its nature, constitution, subjects, and privileges. And,

I. What we are to understand by the word church, as we find it applied in scripture.

1. It is sometimes used to signify any assembly that is met together, whatever be the design of their meeting. Though, indeed, it is very seldom taken in this sense in scripture; nevertheless, there are two or three places in which it is so understood: thus the multitude that met together at Ephesus, who made a riot, crying out, Great is Diana of the Ephesians, are called a church; for the word is the same, which we generally so render, in Acts xix. 32. Our translators, indeed, render it, The assembly was confused, and, in ver. 39. it is said, This matter ought to be determined in a lawful assembly, that being an unlawful one; and, in ver. 41. The town-clerk dismissed the assembly; in all which places, the word, in the Greek[257], is the same which we, in other places, render church; and the reason why our translators have rendered it assembly, is, because the word church is used, in a very uncommon sense, in these places: and we do not find it taken in that sense in any other part of scripture.

2. It is frequently used, by the Fathers, metonymically, for the place in which the church met together for religious worship, and so it is often taken among us, and some other reformed churches, as well as the Papists; but it does not sufficiently appear that it is ever so understood in scripture. It is true, some suppose, that it is taken in this sense in 1 Cor. xi. 28. where it is said, When ye come together in the church, I hear that there are divisions among you; and, they think, it is farther explained, and proved to be taken in this sense, from what the apostle adds, in ver. 20. When ye come together in one place; and also from what is said in ver. 22. Have ye not houses to eat and drink in, or despise ye the church of God? From whence they conclude that the apostle means nothing else but the place where they were convened together, and, more especially, because it is here opposed to their own houses.

But to this it may be replied, that, in the first of these verses but now mentioned, viz. when ye come together in the church, it may be very easily understood of particular persons met together with the rest of the church; and when it is said, in ver. 20. that when ye come together into one place, this does not refer to the place in which they were assembled[258]; but to their meeting together with one design, or accord. And when it is said, in ver. 32. Have ye not houses to eat and drink in, or despise ye the church of God? the opposition is not between their own houses and the place where they were together; but the meaning is, that by your not eating and drinking in your own houses, but doing it in the presence of the church, or the assembly of God’s people that are met together, you are not only chargeable with indecency and interrupting them in the work which they are come about, but you make a kind of schism among them, as doing that which they cannot, in conscience, approve of, or join with you in; and this you are ready to call caprice, or humour, in them, and hereby you despise them. And, indeed, the place of worship cannot properly speaking, be said to be the object of contempt; therefore the apostle does not use the word, in this metonymical sense, for the place of worship, but for the worshipping assembly.

Object. The word synagogue is often taken metonymically, in scripture, for the place where persons were assembled to worship: thus our Saviour is said sometimes to teach in the synagogue of the Jews, Matt. iv. 23. and elsewhere we read of one, concerning whom the Jews say, He loveth our nation, and hath built us a synagogue, Luke xii. 5. and elsewhere the Psalmist speaking of the church’s enemies, says, they have burnt up all the synagogues of God in the land, Psal. lxxiv. 8. and the apostle James, adapting his mode of speaking to that which was used among the Jews, calls the church of God a synagogue, If there come unto your assembly, or synagogue, as it is in the margin, a man with a gold ring, &c. James ii. 2. where the word is taken for the place where they were assembled; therefore we have as much reason to understand the word church for the place where the church meets together.

Answ. It is true, the word synagogue, in most of these scriptures, is taken for the place where persons meet together on a religious account, though it is very much to be doubted whether it be to be understood so in the last of the scriptures referred to, and therefore our translators render it assembly; and so the meaning is, when you are met together, if a poor man come into your assembly, you despise him: but suppose the word synagogue were to be taken in this, as it is in the other scriptures, for the place of worship, and that, by a parity of reason, the word church may be taken in the same sense; all that can be inferred from hence is, that they, who call the places of worship churches, speak agreeable to the sense, though it may be not the express words of scripture: but this is so trifling a controversy, that it is not worth our while to say any thing more to it.

The learned Mede[259] insists largely on it, in a discourse, founded on those words of the apostle before-mentioned, Have ye not houses to eat and drink in, or despise ye the church of God? in which he attempts to prove, that the apostle, by the church, means the place of worship, from the opposition that there is between their own houses and the church of God, the inconclusiveness of which argument has been before considered. What he farther says, to prove that there were places in the apostle’s days, appropriated, or set apart, for divine worship; and, in particular, that the room in which they met together, on the days of our Saviour’s resurrection, and eight days after, in which they were honoured with his presence, was the same in which he eat his last Passover with them, and instituted the Lord’s Supper, and that it was in that place that they constantly met together for worship, and that therein the seven deacons were afterwards chosen, mentioned in Acts vi. and that after this a goodly church was erected on the same spot of ground; these are no other than uncertain conjectures. That they met together in an apartment, or convenient room, in the dwelling-house of some pious disciple, is very probable; but his observations from its being an upper room, as freest from disturbance, and nearest to heaven, seems to be too trifling for so great a man. And what he says farther, in defence of it, as supposing that this is what is intended by their breaking bread from house to house, in Acts ii, 46. is not so agreeable to the sense of the Greek words[260], as our translation, which he militates against, and supposes, that it ought to be rendered in the house, that is, in this house appointed for the same purpose.

What he farther adds, to prove that there were particular places appropriate for worship, in the three first Centuries, by referring to several quotations out of the Fathers, who lived in these ages, is not to be contested; though the objection he brings against this being universally true, taken from what Origen, Minutius, Felix, Arnobius, and Lactantius say, concerning the Christians, in their time, declining to build them, after they had been disturbed and harrassed, by various persecutions, seems to have some weight in it, and is not sufficiently answered by him. What he says on this subject, may be consulted in the place before-mentioned.

All that we shall say, as to this matter, is, that it is beyond dispute, that, since the church was obliged to convene together for religious worship, it was necessary that the usual place, in which this was performed, should be known by them. But it still remains uncertain, whether, (though, at some times, in the more peaceable state of the church, they met constantly in one place) they did not, at other times, adjourn from place to place, or sometimes convene in the open air, in places where they might meet with less disturbance from their enemies. All, who are conversant in the history of the church in those ages, know, that they often met, especially in times of persecution, in caves, and other subterraneous places, near the graves of those who had suffered martyrdom, in which their end was not only to encourage them to bear the like testimony to Christianity, that they had done, but that they might be more retired and undisturbed in their worship.

But, to add nothing more on this subject, as being of less moment, that which I would principally militate against is, what that excellent writer, but now mentioned, attempts to prove, in his following Dissertation[261], concerning the reverence that is due to these churches; not only whilst divine duties are performed therein, but at other times, as supposing that they retain a relative sanctity, which calls for veneration at all times. The main stress of his argument is taken from the sanctity of those places, which, by divine appointment, were consecrated for worship, under the ceremonial law; and the reverence that was expressed by persons when they entered into them, which, by a supposed parity of reason, he applies to those places which are erected for worship under the gospel-dispensation.

To which it may be replied, that it does not follow, that because the tabernacle and temple had a relative holiness in them, and therefore the same thing is applicable to the places of worship under the gospel-dispensation. For the temple was a type of God’s presence among men, and in particular of the incarnation of Christ, which was a glorious instance thereof; and it was an ordinance for their faith in this matter, and therefore holy. And besides, there was a visible external symbol of God’s presence in these places, whose throne was upon the mercy seat, between the cherubims, in the holy of holies; and therefore this might well be called a holy place, even, when worship was not performed in it: but it is certain, that other places of worship, and, in particular, the synagogues were not then reckoned so, when no worship was performed in them, though they were erected for that purpose; and our Saviour seems to insinuate, that the holiness of places is taken away under the gospel-dispensation, as appears by his reply to the woman of Samaria, when speaking concerning their fathers worshipping in that mountain, viz. in the temple that was erected on mount Gerizzim, he says, that the hour cometh when ye shall neither in this mountain, nor yet at Jerusalem, worship the Father, John iv. 20, 21. that is, no place shall be so consecrated for religious worship, as that it shall be more acceptable there than elsewhere, and consequently no veneration is to be paid to any such place more than another, where the same worship may be performed[262]. But this is little other than a digression from our present design, which is to shew, that the word church, in scripture, is, for the most part, if not always, taken for an assembly of Christians met together for religious worship, according to the rules which Christ has given for their direction herein.

The Hebrew word, in the Old Testament, by which the church of the Jews is signified, is generally rendered the congregation[263], or assembly; so that in our translation, we never meet with the word church in the Old Testament; yet what is there called the congregation, or assembly of the Israelites, might, very properly, be called a church, inasmuch as it is so styled in the New Testament: thus it is said, concerning Moses, that he was in the church in the wilderness, Acts vii. 38. But it is certain the word church is peculiarly adapted, in the New Testament, to signify the Christian church worshipping God, according to the rules prescribed by our Saviour, and others, delivered by his apostles, under the Spirit’s direction; which is the sense in which we are to understand it, in speaking to these answers.[264] And this leads us to consider,

II. That the church is distinguished into visible and invisible, each of which are particularly defined, and will be farther insisted on, under some following heads; but before this, we may offer something by way of premisal, concerning the reason of this distinction. The word church, according to the grammatical construction thereof, signifies a number of persons that are called; and, in its application to this present subject, every one, who is a member thereof, may be said to be called to be made partaker of that salvation which is in Christ. Now, as there is a twofold calling spoken of in scripture, to wit, one visible and external, whereby some are made partakers of the external privileges of the gospel, and all the ordinances thereof; the other internal, and saving, whereby others are made partakers of those special and distinguishing blessings, which God bestows on the heirs of salvation: the former of these our Saviour intends, when he says, Many are called, but few are chosen, Matt. xx. 16. the latter is what the apostle speaks of, when he connects it with justification and glorification, Rom. viii. 30. Now they who are called in the former of these senses, are included in that branch of the distinction which respects the visible church; the latter are members of that church which is styled invisible; the former are members of Christ by profession; the latter are united to him, as their Head and Husband, who are made partakers of spiritual life from him, and shall live for ever with him. The members of the visible church are the children of God, as made partakers of the external dispensation of the covenant of grace; such God speaks of, when he says, I have nourished and brought up children, Isa. i. 2. and elsewhere he says, concerning the church of the Jews, who were externally in covenant with him, Israel is my son, even my first-born, Exod. iv. 22. But the members of the invisible church, are the children of God by faith, Gal. iii. 16. and because children, in this sense, therefore heirs; heirs of God, and joint-heirs with Christ, Rom. viii. 17. These things must particularly be insisted on; and accordingly,

I. We shall speak something concerning the invisible church, which is described, in one of the answers we are explaining, as containing the whole number of the elect, that have been, are, or shall be gathered into one, under Christ their Head.

1. They are said to be elect, and subject to Christ their Head; upon which account, some have included, in this number, the holy angels, inasmuch as they are styled, by the apostle, elect angels, 1 Tim. v. 21. and Christ is, in some respects, their Head, as the apostle calls him, The Head of all principality and power, Coloss. ii. 10. and elsewhere the church is said to come to an innumerable company of angels, Heb. xii. 22. But though they are, indeed, elected, it may be questioned, whether they were chosen in Christ, as the elect among the children of men are said to be; and, though Christ be styled their Head: yet his Headship over them doth not include in it those things that are implied in his being the Head of his chosen people, as he is the Head of the covenant of grace, on which their salvation is founded; or the Captain of their salvation, as he is styled, chap. ii. 10. who, having purchased them by his blood, brings them into a state of grace, and then to glory. For these and such-like reasons, I would not assert that angels are properly a part of Christ’s invisible church, and therefore it only includes those that are elected to salvation among the children of men.

2. They are farther described as such, who have been, are, or shall be gathered into one, under Christ the Head; therefore there is a part of them that are not actually brought into him. These our Saviour speaks of under the metaphor of sheep, who were not of this fold, concerning whom he says, Them also I must bring, and they shall hear my voice, John x. 16. And there is another part of them, who are triumphant in heaven, as well as those that are actually called by the grace of God, who are in their way to heaven, struggling, at present, with many difficulties, through the prevalency of corruption, and conflicting with many temptations, and exposed to many evils that attend this present state. These different circumstances of those who are brought in to Christ, give occasion to that known distinction between the church triumphant and militant.

Object. To that part of this description of the invisible church, which includes in it those that shall be gathered unto Christ, it is objected, that no one can be said to be a member of this church, who is not actually brought in unto him; for that would be to suppose, that unconverted persons might be members thereof, and consequently that Christ is their Head, Shepherd and Saviour; though they be characterized, in scripture, as children of wrath, running in all excess of riot, refusing to submit to him, and neglecting that great salvation which is offered in the gospel: How can such be members of Christ’s church, and that in the highest sense thereof?

And it is farther objected, against the account given of the invisible church in this answer, that a part of those who are said, to be the members thereof, are considered at present as not existing; and therefore it must be a very improper, if not absurd, way of speaking, to say, that such are members of Christ’s church.

Answ. I am not inclined to extenuate those expressions of scripture, which represent unconverted persons as children of wrath, in open rebellion against God, and refusing to submit to him; nor would I say any thing from whence such might have the least ground to conclude that they have a right to any of the privileges of God’s elect, or Christ’s invisible church, or that they are included in that number; for that would be to expose the doctrine of election to one of the main objections that is brought against it, as though it led to licentiousness: nevertheless, let it be considered, that this answer treats of the invisible church; therefore whatever privileges are reserved for them, who, though elected, are in an unconverted state, these are altogether unknown to them; and it would be an unwarrantable presumption for them to lay claim to them. However, we must not deny that God knows who are his, who are redeemed by Christ, and what blessings, pursuant thereunto, shall be applied to them: he knows the time when they shall be made a willing people, in the day of his power, and what grace he designs to work in them: he considers the elect in general, as given to Christ, and Christ as having undertaken to do all that is necessary to fit them for the heavenly blessedness.

Moreover, we must not suppose but that God knows, without the least doubt and uncertainty, the whole number of those who shall appear with Christ, in glory, at his second coming; for things that are future to us, are present, with respect to him, as with one single view, he knows all things, past and to come, as well as present; and therefore, if the expression made use of be thus qualified, which is agreeable to the design of this answer, I cannot see that the objection has sufficient force to overthrow it, any more than those arguments that are usually brought against the doctrine of election, can render it less worthy to be received by us.

As for the other branch of the objection, that they, who are not in being, cannot be denominated members of Christ’s church in any sense: though it be allowed, that such cannot be, at present, the subjects of any privileges; yet we must consider, that, since God seeth not as man seeth, they may, in his eternal purpose to save them, be considered as the objects thereof, and therefore in his account, be reckoned members of Christ’s invisible church, that is, such as he designs to bring into being, and afterwards to make them meet to partake of the inheritance of the saints in light. Therefore I see no reason to except against this mode of speaking, in which they are described as such, who shall be gathered under Christ, their Head: however, if the objection only respected the propriety, or impropriety, of a word, provided it had not a tendency to overthrow the doctrine of God’s certain and peremptory election, I would not militate against it.

3. This church, which is said to consist of the whole number of the elect, is styled invisible; by which we are not to understand, that their election of God cannot be known by themselves, since we have sufficient ground, from scripture, to conclude, that believers may attain the assurance thereof in this life: but it is so called, because many of them have finished their course in this world, and are entered into that state, in which they are, with respect to those that live here, no more seen.

Moreover, the number of those who are styled the members of this church, cannot be determined by any creature. It is only known to God; and that grace, which any of them experience, how far soever they may arrive to the knowledge of it themselves, cannot be said to be certainly and infallibly known by others; and therefore the apostle says, concerning them, that their life is hid with Christ in God, Col. iii. 3.

However, though this church be, at present, invisible, yet when the whole number of the elect shall be brought in to Christ, and, as the apostle speaks, Gathered together unto him, 2 Thess. ii. 1. then it shall no longer remain invisible; for when Christ, who is their life, shall appear, they also shall appear with him in glory, Col. iii. 4. We may farther observe concerning the church, as thus described,

(1.) That it has many glorious characters given of it: thus it is frequently called Christ’s spouse, in the Song of Solomon, by which he seems to intend more than what could well be said concerning the Jewish church; for the description there given of it, as being all fair, and without spot, Cant. iv. 7. and is rather applicable to the state in which the saints shall be hereafter, than that in which they are at present; and therefore I am inclined to think, that he speaks of the invisible church, or the election of grace. And this character, given of them, is taken from that conjugal union which there is between Christ and believers; on which account it is said elsewhere, Thy Maker is thine Husband, the Lord of hosts is his name; and thy Redeemer the Holy One of Israel, Isa. liv. 5. and the Psalmist describes it, in a very elegant manner, as thus related to Christ, when he says, upon thy right-hand did stand the queen in gold of Ophir, Psal. xlv. 9. and then speaks of it, as arrived to the highest pitch of honour and happiness, when introduced into the king’s presence in raiment of needlework, with gladness and rejoicing, being brought into his palace, ver. 14, 15. and the apostle calls it, The General Assembly and church of the first-born, which are written, Heb. xii. 23. or, as it is in the margin, enrolled in heaven; and it is also considered, when presented by Christ to himself, or to his own view at last, being brought to perfection, as a glorious church; not having spot or wrinkle, or any such thing; but holy, and without blemish, Eph. v. 27. In this respect it may be called, The holy catholic church, though many, without sufficient ground, understand those words of the creed, in which it is so called, in a sense very different from, and inferior to it.

(2.) This invisible church is but one body, and therefore not divided, like the visible church, into many particular bodies, as will be observed under a following head. This seems to be the meaning of that expression, in which it is said, My dove, my undefiled is but one, Cant. vi. 9.

(3.) It is not the seat of human government, as the visible church is; nor are persons said to be received into its communion. And whatever officers Christ has appointed, to secure the order, and to promote the edification of his churches, these have nothing to do in the church, considered as invisible; however, it is eminently under Christ’s special government, who is the Head, as well as the Saviour thereof.

(4.) There are many special privileges, which belong to it, that include in them all the graces and comforts, which are applied to them by the Holy Spirit: and so they are considered, as enjoying union and communion with Christ, in grace and glory, as being called, justified, sanctified, and many of them assured of their interest in Christ here and all of them shall be glorified with him hereafter. These privileges are insisted on, in several following answers; for which reason we pass them over at present, and proceed to consider another of the answers, which we are to explain: And accordingly,

II. We have an account of the visible church, which is described as a society, made up of all such, who, in all ages, and places of the world, profess the true religion, and of their children. In this description of the church, we may observe,

1. That it is called visible, not only because the worship performed therein, and the laws given to those particular churches, of which it consists, are visible; but its members are so, or known to the world: and the profession they make of the true religion, or subjection to Christ, as their Head and Sovereign, is open, free, and undisguised, whereby they are distinguished from the rest of the world.

2. It is called a society, which denomination it takes from the communion which its members have with one another: but, inasmuch as the word is in the singular number, denoting but one body of men, it is to be enquired whether this be a proper mode of speaking, though frequently used.

(1.) It is allowed, by all Protestants, that there are, and have been, ever since the preaching of the gospel by the apostles, many particular churches in the world[265]; and this is agreeable to what we often read of in the New Testament, as the apostle Paul directs his epistles to particular churches; such as that at Ephesus, Corinth, Philippi, &c. Some of these were larger, others smaller, as denoting, that no regard is to be had to the number of persons of which each of them consists: thus we read of churches in particular houses, 1 Cor. xvi. 19. and these may each of them, without the least impropriety of expression, be styled a visible church, for the reasons above mentioned.

(2.) It must also be allowed, on the other hand, that the church is spoken of in the singular number, in scripture, as though it were but one: thus it is said that Saul made havoc of the church, entering into every house, and haling men and women, committed them to prison, Acts viii. 3. and, speaking of himself, he says, Concerning zeal, persecuting the church, Phil. iii. 6. and elsewhere, that, beyond measure, he persecuted the church of God, and wasted it, Gal. i. 13. Now it is certain, that it was not one particular church that he directed his persecuting rage against, but all the churches of Christ, wherever he came, especially those in Judea, which he speaks of in the plural number, ver. 22. by which he explains what he means, by his persecuting the church of God; for it is said, He which persecuted us in times past, now preacheth the faith which once he destroyed, ver. 23. and elsewhere it is said, God hath set some in the church; first, apostles; secondarily, prophets; thirdly, teachers, 1 Cor. xii. 28. by which we are to understand all the churches; for the apostles were not pastors of any particular church, but acted as pastors in all the churches wherever they came, though every church had its own respective pastor set over it, who was, in a peculiar manner, related to it; yet all these churches are called, in this place, the church. Therefore we are not to contend about the use of a word, provided it be rightly explained, whether persons speak of the church in the singular, or churches in the plural number. If we speak of the church, as though it were but one, the word is to be taken collectively for all the churches of Christ in the world: this the apostle explains, when he speaks of them all, as though they were one body, under the influence of the same Spirit, called in one hope of their calling, one Lord, one faith, one baptism, one God and Father of all, who is above all, and through all, and in them all, Eph. iv. 4-6. this is that unity of the Spirit which they were to endeavour to keep, and so to act agreeably to their faith herein; and, in this respect, we freely allow that all the churches of Christ are one; there is but one foundation on which they are built, one rule of faith, one way to heaven, in which they all professedly walk. Moreover, the churches of Christ have not only communion with one another, in their particular societies, but there is a communion of churches, whereby they own one another, as walking in the same fellowship with themselves, express a sympathy with each other in afflictive circumstances, and rejoice in the edification and flourishing state of each other. In these respects we consider the churches as one, and so call them all the church of Christ.

Nevertheless, this is to be understood with certain limitations; and therefore we are not to suppose that the church, as the seat of government, is one; or that there is one set of men, who have a warrant to bear rule over the whole, that is, over all the churches of Christ; for none suppose that there is one universal pastor of the church, except the Papists. All Protestants, however they explain their sentiments about the catholic visible church, allow, that the seat of government is in each particular church, of which no one has any right to give pastors to other churches, or to appoint who shall be admitted into their respective communion.

(3.) There is another thing in this description of the visible church, which stands in need of being explained and defended, when it is said, that it consists of all such as, in all ages, and places, of the world, do profess the true religion: if nothing be intended hereby, but that no one has a right to the privilege of communion of saints, or fit to be received into any church of Christ, but those who profess the true religion, namely, the faith on which it is built; this I am far from denying; for that would be to suppose that the church professes one faith, and some of its members another; or that it builds up what it allows others to throw down.

But I am a little at a loss to account for the propriety of the expression, when the church is said to be a society, professing the true religion, in all ages. It cannot be supposed that the church, or churches, that are now in being, are any part of that society which professed the true religion in Moses’s time, or in the apostolic age; but it is principally the propriety of expression that is to be excepted against; for I suppose, nothing is intended hereby, but that as the church, in every respective foregoing age, consisted of those who embraced the true religion, it consists of no other in our age.

There is one thing more which I would take leave to observe in this description of the church, which renders it incomplete, inasmuch as it speaks of it as consisting of those who profess the true religion; but makes no mention of that bond of union which constitutes every particular branch of this universal church of Christ. It speaks, indeed of those qualifications which belong to every one as a Christian, which is a remote, though necessary condition of being received into church communion; but takes no notice of that mutual consent, which is the more immediate bond by which the members of every church coalesce together: but this we may have occasion to speak of under a following head.

The last thing I observe, in this description of the visible church, is, that it consists not only of the professors of the true religion, but of their children; this is rather to be explained, than denied: however, I cannot but observe, that many have run too great lengths in what they have asserted concerning the right of children to this privilege. Some of the Fathers have not only considered them as members of the church, but brought them to the Lord’s table, and given them the bread dipped in the wine, the same way as food is applied to infants, when they were too young to discover any thing of the design thereof: that which led them into this mistake, was their misunderstanding the sense of our Saviour’s words, Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of Man, and drink his blood, ye have no life in you, John vi. 53. supposing that this was meant of their eating bread, and drinking wine in the Lord’s supper, though they might easily have known that this was not our Saviour’s meaning; inasmuch as the Lord’s supper was not instituted, till some time after, and, when instituted, it was not designed to be reckoned so necessary to salvation, as that the bare not partaking thereof should exclude from it. Cyprian gives an account of his administering it to an infant brought by her mother; and relates a circumstance attending it, that savours so much of superstition, in that grave and pious Father, that I forbear to mention it.[266] And this was not only practised by him, but by several others in some following ages. And many in later ages speak of children as incomplete members of the church; and some suppose that this is the result of their baptismal dedication; others that it is their birth-right, and as the consequence hereof they have maintained, that when they come to be adult, they rather claim their right to church-communion than are admitted to it, as those are, who are not the children of church-members, and as a farther consequence deduced from this supposition, they assert, that if they are guilty of vile enormities, and thereby forfeit this privilege, they are in a formal way to be excommunicated, and that it is a defect in the government of the churches in our day, that this is not practised by them.

This is not what is intended by children’s being members of churches, together with their parents, in this answer; but that which I think all will allow of, viz. that children being the property of parents, they are obliged to dedicate them, together with themselves, to God, and pursuant thereunto to endeavour to bring them up in the nurture and admonition of the Lord, hoping that through his blessing on education, they may, in his own time and way, be qualified for church communion, and then admitted to it, that hereby the churches of Christ may have an addition of members to fill up the places of those who are called off the stage.

As to the concern of the church in this matter, which in some respects redounds to the advantage of the children of those who are members of it, they are obliged to shew their regard to them, so far as to exhort their parents, if there be occasion, to express a due concern for their spiritual welfare; or, if they are defective herein, to extend their censure rather to the parents, than to the children, as neglecting a moral duty, and so acting unbecoming the relation they stand in to them. Thus concerning the description given of the visible church in this answer; we shall now proceed to speak more particularly of it, and accordingly shall consider the former and present constitution and government thereof. And,

I. As to what concerns the state of the Jewish church before the gospel-dispensation; this was erected in the wilderness, and the laws by which it was governed, were given by God, and transmitted to Israel by the hand of Moses. There was a very remarkable occurrence preceding their being settled as a church, that we read of, Exod. xix. 7, 8. in which God demanded an explicit consent from the whole congregation, to be his people, and to be governed by those laws he should give them, upon which they made a public declaration, that all that the Lord hath spoken we will do. And Moses returns the words of the people unto the Lord. And soon after this there was another covenant-transaction between God and them, mentioned in a following chapter, when Moses came and told the people all the words of the Lord, and all his judgments; and the people answered with one voice, saying, All the words which the Lord hath said will we do. And this was confirmed by sacrifice, and he took half the blood thereof and put it in basons, and half of the blood he sprinkled on the altar, and he took the book of the covenant and read it in the audience of the people; upon which they repeat their engagement, all that the Lord hath said will we do, and be obedient. And then he took the blood and sprinkled it on the people, and said, behold the blood of the covenant which the Lord hath made with you, concerning all these words, Exod. xxiv. 3, 5-9. and then we have an account of an extraordinary display which they had of the divine glory, They saw the God of Israel, and did eat and drink, ver. 11. which was a farther confirming this covenant. And upon some important occasions they renewed this covenant with God, avouched him to be their God, and he condescended at the same time to avouch them to be his peculiar people, Deut. xxvi. 17, 18. Thus they were settled in a church-relation by God’s appointment, and their solemn covenant and consent to be his people.

After this we read of God’s settling the form of their church-government, appointing those various ordinances and institutions which are contained in the ceremonial law, and settling a ministry among them, and giving directions concerning every branch of the work that was to be performed by them. Aaron and his sons had the priesthood committed to them, who were to offer gifts and sacrifices; the High-Priest was to be chief minister in holy things, the other priests assistants to him in most branches of his office; and when the temple was built, and the service to be performed therein established, the priests attended in their respective courses, each course entering on their ministry every Sabbath, 2 Chron, xxiii. 4. and there being twenty-four courses, 1 Chron. xxiv. it came to their respective turns twice every year. The porters also, who were to wait continually at the avenues of the temple day and night, to prevent any unclean person or thing from coming into it, as well as its being plundered of the treasures that were laid up in chambers adjoining to it; these also ministered in their courses, the number whereof was the same with that of the priests, 1 Chron. xxiii. 5. compared with chap. xxvi. And the singers, who attended some parts of the worship, ministered in their courses, 1 Chron. xxiii. 5. compared with chap. xxv.

And besides these, there were some appointed to represent the people, who were chosen to come up from their respective places of abode with the priests when they ministered in their courses; these are called stationary men. Dr. Lightfoot[267] gives an account of them from some Jewish writers who treat on this subject; not that we have any mention of them in scripture; but they suppose that it took its rise from that law in Lev. i. 3, 4. where they who brought an offering to the Lord were obliged to be present, and to put their hands on the head thereof, as well as the priests, who had the main concern in this service. From hence it is inferred, that since, besides the sacrifices that were offered for particular persons, there were daily sacrifices offered in the behalf of the whole congregation; and because it was impossible for them to be present to bear a part in this service, it was necessary that some should be deputed to represent the whole body of the people, that so there might be a number present to assist in this service, that these acts of worship might be performed in the most public manner; and inasmuch as this was to be performed daily, it was necessary that some should be deputed, whose proper business it was to attend; and he thinks that as there were priests deputed to minister in their courses, so there was a number deputed to represent the people, who went up to Jerusalem with the priests of the respective course. And he farther adds, that at the same time that these were ministering in the temple, the people met together, and spent that week in those synagogues which were near the place of their abode, in fasting, and other acts of religious worship, in which, though at a distance, they implored a blessing on the service that their brethren were performing.

As for the rest of the people, they were obliged to be present at Jerusalem, at the solemn and public festival, performed three times a year; and others of them, who had committed any sin that was to be expiated by sacrifice, were to come up thither to the temple at other times, and bring their sacrifices to atone for the guilt which they had contracted.

If it be said, that this was, indeed, a solemn method of worship, exceeding beautiful, and also had a circumstance in it, which was its glory, viz. that the temple-service was typical of Christ, and the way of salvation by him: but what methods were there to instruct the people in the doctrines of religion? It would not much conduce thereunto for them to come up to Jerusalem, to worship at the three yearly festivals: how did they spend their Sabbaths? or, what acts of worship were they engaged in, in their respective places of abode?

To this we answer, that God also appointed a sufficient number to be their ministers in holy things, helpers of their faith as to this matter, viz. not only the priests, but the whole tribe of Levi, whose place of residence was conveniently situated: they had forty-eight cities in various parts of the land; some of which were not far distant from any of the people. These instructed them in the way of God, the people sought the knowledge hereof from their mouths, Mal. ii. 7. And there were, besides the temple, several other places appointed for religious worship: these were of two sorts, namely,

1. The synagogues, which were generally built in cities, of which hardly any were without them, if they consisted of a number of persons who were able to erect them, and had leisure, from their secular employments, to preside over, and set forward, the work to be performed therein;[268] and that was of a different nature from the temple-service, in which gifts and sacrifices were to be offered, God having expressly forbidden the erecting any altars elsewhere; therefore the worship performed in them was prayers, reading and expounding the law and the prophets, and instructing the people in all other duties of religion, which were necessary to be performed in the conduct of their lives.

The manner of doing this, was not only by delivering set discourses, agreeable to our common methods of preaching, Acts xiii. 15. and seq. but holding disputations and conferences together about some important matters of religion: thus the apostle Paul disputed in the synagogues, chap. xvii. 17, 19, 8. This was done occasionally; but the Jews met constantly in them for religious worship; and our Saviour encouraged them herein with his presence and instructions: thus it is said, not only that he taught in their synagogues, but that this was his constant practice; for it is said, He came to Nazareth; and, as his custom was, he went into the synagogue on the Sabbath-day, and stood up for to read, Luke iv. 15, 16.

And there were also certain officers appointed over every synagogue: thus we read sometimes of the rulers of the synagogues, Mark v. 22. Luke viii. 41, 49. whose business was to prevent the doing any thing that was indecent and disorderly; and there were some persons from whom a word of exhortation was expected, who were called, chap. iv. 20. ministers thereof.[269] And we are not to suppose that this method of promoting religion in the synagogues, was only practised in the last and most degenerate age of the Jewish church, but that they had their synagogues in the more early and purer ages thereof, which, if we had no express account of in the Old Testament, yet it might be inferred from this account thereof in our Saviour’s time; for certainly there were no methods used then by the Jews to instruct the people in matters of religion, that were not as necessary, and consequently in use, in foregoing ages. It is true, we do not oftentimes read of synagogues in the Old Testament; notwithstanding there is mention of them in that scripture, before referred to, in Psal. lxxiv. 8. in which the Psalmist complains, that they had burnt up all the synagogues of God in the land; where the word being in the plural number, it cannot be meant, as the Chaldee Paraphrast renders it, of the temple. This appears from the context, in which he speaks of the enemies of God roaring in the midst of the congregations; and, besides this, he expressly mentions their burning the temple, by casting fire into the sanctuary of God, and casting down the dwelling-place of his name to the ground, in ver. 3, 7.

2. Besides these synagogues, there were other places, in which public worship was performed, called, Places of prayer,[270] Mr. Mede gives an account, from Epiphanius, of the difference that there was between these and the synagogues, when he says, that a proseucha, or a place appointed for prayer, was a plot of ground, encompassed with a wall, or some other like mound, or inclosure, open above, much like to our courts; whereas a synagogue was a covered edifice as our houses and churches are. He also adds, that the former of these were generally fixed in places without the cities, in the fields, in places of retirement; and that they were generally rendered more private, and fit for the work that was to be performed in them, by being surrounded with a plantation of trees; and he supposes, that these were not only made use of in our Saviour’s and the apostles time, but in foregoing ages; and that the grove that Abraham is said to have planted, in which he called on the name of the Lord, Gen. xxi. 33. was nothing else but one of these convenient places, planted for that purpose, in which public worship was performed, which seems very probable.[271]

And we read, in scripture concerning high places. These, as Lightfoot observes,[272] are sometimes used in scripture, in a commendable sense: thus Samuel is said to go up to one of these high places, 1 Sam. ix. 19. to perform some acts of religious worship; and we read of another high place, in which there was a company of prophets, with a psaltery, and a tabret, and a pipe, and a harp before them, and they did prophesy, chap. x. 5. It is true, in other scriptures, we read of them as abused by that idolatry that was performed in them, 1 Kings xi. 7. chap. xii. 31. These the pious kings of Judah, who reformed religion, took away; and when it is said, in some of their reigns, that how much soever they destroyed idolatrous worship, yet the high places were not taken away, 2 Kings xii. 3. xiv. 4. xv. 4. that learned writer thinks, that they should not have been destroyed, as places of worship, or public assemblies, and therefore that this is not reckoned as a blemish in the reign of these kings, that the high places were not taken away; for whatever abuse there was, it consisted in that sacrifice and incense were offered there, which were parts of worship confined to the temple; so that if they had not only reformed them from the abuse of those that exercised their idolatry therein; but had also proceeded to reform this abuse of sacrificing there, they might lawfully have met there to perform religious worship, which, it is supposed, they did in synagogues, high places, and groves, that were appointed for that purpose: thus then they met together for religious worship in other places besides the synagogues.

Again, we read, in the New Testament, that Paul went, on the Sabbath day, out of the city of Philippi, by a river-side, where prayer was wont to be made, Acts xvi. 13. where he also preached the word by which Lydia was converted; this some think to be one of those places where they resorted for prayer, and other public worship: and others suppose, that the place mentioned in the gospel, which our Saviour resorted to, when it is said, that he went out into a mountain to pray, and continued all night in prayer to God, Luke vi. 12. ought to be rendered, in that particular place where prayer was wont to be made to God.[273] But the Greek words may as well be rendered as they are in our translation; and then it has no respect to any particular place of prayer, but imports his retirement to perform this duty. Thus we have endeavoured to prove, that the church of the Jews had other places in which worship was performed, besides the temple, which was of very great advantage for the propagating religion among them. We might have farther proceeded to consider their church-censures, ordained by God for crimes committed, whereby persons were cut off from among their people, by excommunication, when the crimes they were guilty of did not deserve death: but I shall not enlarge any farther on this head, but proceed to speak concerning the gospel-church, and so consider,

II. The methods taken, in order to the first planting and increase thereof, by the apostles. When our Saviour had finished the work of redemption, after his resurrection, he altered the form of the church, and appointed his apostles not only to signify this to the world, but to be instruments in erecting this new church. We have before considered these apostles as qualified to be witnesses to Christ’s resurrection, and also as having received a commission from him to preach the gospel to all nations, and an order to tarry at Jerusalem till they received those extraordinary gifts from the Holy Ghost, that were necessary for their performing the work they were to engage in. Now, pursuant hereunto, they all of them resided at Jerusalem; and, a few days after Christ’s ascension into heaven, the Holy Ghost was poured upon them on the day of Pentecost, Acts ii. 1, 2. upon which, they immediately began to exercise their public ministry in that city, in which they had the advantage of publishing the gospel to a numerous concourse of people, who resorted thither, from various parts of the world, in which the Jews were dispersed, to celebrate that festival. Some suppose, that there was a greater number gathered together in that city, than was usual, it being one of those three feasts to which the Jews resorted from all parts of the land: though a learned writer[274] supposes, that the Jews were not obliged to come to this feast from other nations; neither were they, that came there, said, as these are, to dwell at Jerusalem; therefore he thinks that that which brought them here from the several parts of the world, was the expectation which the Jews, generally had, that the Messiah would appear, and erect a temporal kingdom, and that Jerusalem was the place where he would fix his throne, and therefore they would be there to wait on him, and share the honours they expected from him.

But, whatever occasion brought them here, it was a seasonable opportunity for the gospel first to be preached; and accordingly Peter preached his first sermon to a multitude that were gathered together, and therein exercised the gift of tongues, by which means his discourse was not only understood by men of different languages; but they had herein a plain proof that he was under the inspiration of the Holy Ghost; and he takes occasion to improve this amazing dispensation of providence, by telling them that it was an accomplishment of what had been before predicted by the prophet Joel; and then he preached Christ to them, declaring that he, and the rest of the apostles, were all witnesses that God raised him from the dead, and exalted him by his right-hand, and that, pursuant hereunto, this extraordinary gift of the Holy Ghost was conferred on them.

The success of his first sermon was very remarkable; for there were added to the church, as the first-fruits of his ministry, three thousand souls, ver. 41, 47. We also read, that the Lord added daily to the church such as should be saved; and, soon after this it is said, that the number of the men, of whom the church consisted, was about five thousand, chap. iv. 4. a very large and numerous church, meeting, as is more than probable, in the same city, where we must conclude, that they fixed their abode, rather than that they returned to the respective places from whence they came, that they might have an opportunity to sit under the sound of the gospel, which was, at that time, preached no where else; and that which makes this more probable, may be inferred from the method taken for their subsistence in the world; there would have been no occasion for those who had possessions to sell them, and dispose of the price thereof to supply the exigences of their fellow-members, had they not removed their habitations, and forsook all for the sake of the gospel.

This church had wonderful instances of the presence of God among them, which did more than compensate for the loss they must be supposed to sustain, as to their secular affairs. We read, for some after this, of little else but success attending the gospel, and persecutions raised by the Jews against it, which rather tended to their own shame and confusion, than the extirpating of it; and when they so far prevailed, at length, that, after the death of Stephen, the first martyr, a new persecution was begun, by the instigation of Saul, (as yet not converted to the faith) the consequence hereof being the scattering of this church throughout the regions of Judea and Samaria, chap. viii. 1. this was ordered for the furtherance of the gospel, for wherever they came, they preached, and many believed: but the apostles, at the same time, obeying the order that was before given them, continued at Jerusalem, chap. i. 4. and there still remained a church in that city sitting under their ministry. This was wisely ordered, by the providence of God, not only as an accomplishment of those predictions that respected the gospel’s first being sounded from thence, but that, in this church, a sufficient number might be trained up for the exercise of the ministry in other places, when there should be occasion for it; and, in order hereto, they had some advantages which no schools of learning could afford them, for they had the extraordinary gifts of the Holy Ghost. Here it was that the prophets and evangelists were first raised up, being immediately taught by God. This was the first scene of the gospel-church. Here it continued till the apostles were ordered, by the Holy Ghost, to travel into those parts of the world, in which, by his direction, their ministry was to be exercised: the greatest part of them were ordered to those places, where some of the Jews resided; but Paul was ordained to exercise his ministry among the Gentiles. Accordingly we read, that the Holy Ghost said, Separate me Barnabas and Saul, for the work whereunto I have called them, Acts xiii. 2. This divine command they immediately obeyed; and then we read of churches erected in various parts of the world by his ministry, who is styled, The apostles of the Gentiles.

There are several things observable in the exercise of his ministry:

1. Wherever he came he preached the gospel, and confirmed it by miracles, as occasion served; and this was attended with such wonderful success and expedition, that, without a remarkable hand of providence going along with him, the multitudes that were converted by his ministry, exceeded not only what might be done by one man, in the compass of his life, but several ages of men. At one time we read of him exercising his ministry from Jerusalem, round about to Illyricum, Rom. xv. 19. at other times, in several parts of Asia Minor; then in Spain, and at Rome, and some parts of Greece, ver. 28. so that, wherever he came, his ministry was attended with wonderful success, as the Roman emperor says, I came, I saw, I conquered.

2. When the apostle had, by the success of his ministry, prepared fit materials for a church, inasmuch as it would take up too much of his time to reside among them till they were provided with a pastor, and other officers, which were necessary to carry on the work that was begun in it, he sent for one of the Evangelists, who, as was before observed, were fitted for this service, by those extraordinary gifts, which they had received, while they continued in the church at Jerusalem. The office of these evangelists seems to have been principally this; that they were to set in order the things that were wanting, or left, by the apostles to be done, and ordain elders in every city, as the apostle Paul intimates, when giving this charge to Titus, Titus i. 5. who appears to have been an Evangelist, particularly ordained to minister to him, to build upon the foundation he had laid. These evangelists appear to have had all the qualifications for the ministry that the apostles had, excepting what respected their having seen Jesus, whereby they were qualified to be witnesses of his resurrection; and they continued till they had performed that part of their work, in settling pastors, and other officers in churches; and then they were ready to obey another call, to succeed the apostles in some other places, and so perform the same work there.

3. While the apostles were thus concerned for the gathering and building up of churches, and were assisted herein by the evangelists, there was a continual intercourse between them and those churches, whose first rise was owing to the success of their ministry. Accordingly they conversed with them by epistles; some of which they received by the inspiration of the Holy Ghost, as designed to be a rule of the churches faith in all succeeding ages. Some of these epistles were written by other apostles, but most of them by Paul, Phil. ii. 19. who sometimes desires to know their state; at other times, he informs them of his own, and the opposition he met with; or the success of his ministry, the persecution he was exposed to for it, Coloss. iv. 7. 2 Cor. i. 8. 1 Cor. xvi. 9. and the necessity of the churches, which required their contribution for their support; and therein he often enlarges on those important truths, which, had he been among them, would have been the subject of his ministry. This was necessary to strengthen their hands and encourage them to persevere in that faith which they made profession of.

And to this we may add, that there were, upon several occasions, messengers sent from the churches to the apostle, to inform him of their state, to transmit to him those contributions which were necessary for the relief of other churches, and to give him that countenance, encouragement, and assistance, that his necessities required; and some of these were very excellent persons, the best that could be chosen out of the church for that service. The apostle calls some of them, The messengers of the churches, and the glory of Christ, 2 Cor. viii. 23. which is an extraordinary character. Some think, he intends hereby that they were the messengers of those churches, which churches are the glory of Christ, that is, the seat in which he displays his glory; others suppose, that he calls these messengers, the glory of Christ, as they, by their wise and faithful conduct, promoted his glory, which was not dependent on it, but illustrated thereby. Sometimes they were ministers of churches, sent occasionally on these errands: thus Epaphroditus was a messenger and minister of the church at Philippi, Phil. ii. 25. and Onesiphorus was sent to strengthen and encourage the hands of the apostle, when he was a prisoner at Rome, whom he speaks of with great affection, when he says, He sought me out diligently, and found me, and was not ashamed of my chain, 2 Tim. i. 16, 17. These were very useful persons to promote the interest of Christ, which was carrying on by the apostle, though it does not appear that this was a standing office in the church, their service being only occasional. Thus we have considered the apostle, as engaged in gathering and building up churches, in such a way, as was peculiar to them in the first age of the gospel.

III. We shall now proceed to speak concerning that state and government of the church, that was designed to continue longer than the apostolic age, and is a rule to the churches of Christ in our day. We have before considered the evangelists as succeeding the apostles, in appointing officers over churches, directing them to fit persons, that might be called to this service, and instructing them how they should behave themselves in that relation; which was necessary, in that they were not to expect such extraordinary assistances from the Spirit of God, as the apostles and the evangelists had received, any more than pastors, and other church-officers are to expect them in our day; which leads us to consider the nature, constitution, and government of the churches of Christ, in all the ages thereof. And,

1. What we are to understand by a particular church, and what is the foundation thereof. A church is a number of visible professors, called to be saints, or, at least, denominated, and, by a judgment of charity, esteemed to be saints; united together by consent, in order to their having communion with one another; and testifying their subjection to Christ, and hope of his presence in all his ordinances; designing hereby to glorify his name, propagate his gospel and interest in the world, and promote their mutual edification in that holy faith, which is founded on the scripture revelation; and in order hereunto they are obliged to call and set over them such pastors, and other officers, as God has qualified for that service, to be helpers of their faith, and to endeavour to promote their order, whereby the great and valuable ends of the church-communion may be answered, and God therein be glorified. This description of a particular church is agreeable to, and founded on scripture, as may be easily made appear, by referring to several scriptures in the New Testament, relating to this matter. Accordingly we read that the members of Christ are characterized as saints by calling, or called to be saints, Rom. i. 7. and the churches in Macedonia are said to give their own selves to the Lord and to the apostles, by the will of God, 2 Cor. viii. 5. to sit under their ministry, and follow their directions, so far as they imparted to them the mind of Christ, and might be helpers of their faith and order, to his glory; and we read of their professed subjection unto the gospel of Christ, chap. ix. 13. and the church at Ephesus is farther described, as built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, namely, the doctrines laid down by them, as the only rule of faith and obedience, Jesus Christ himself being the chief corner-stone. And as to what respects their duty towards one another, they are farther said to build up themselves in their most holy faith, and to keep themselves in the love of God, that is, to do every thing by the divine assistance, that is necessary in order thereunto, looking for the mercy of our Lord Jesus Christ unto eternal life, Jude, ver. 20, 21. or, as it is said elsewhere, to consider one another, to provoke unto love, and to good works, not forsaking the assembling of themselves together, Heb. x. 24, 25. inasmuch as this is an instituted means for the answering of that great end. Many other scriptures might have been brought to the same purpose, tending to prove and illustrate the description of a gospel-church, as above-mentioned.

But this may be also evinced, in a method of reasoning from the laws of society, as founded on the law of nature, and applied to a religious society, which takes its rise from, and is built on divine revelation; and, in order hereunto, we shall lay down the following propositions.

(1.) It is agreeable to the law of nature, and the whole tenor of scripture, that God should be glorified by social worship, and that all the members of these worshipping societies should endeavour to promote the spiritual interest of one another. Man is, by the excellency of his nature, fitted for conversation, and, by his relation to others, who have the same capacities and qualifications, obliged hereunto; and, as the glory of God is the end of his being, it ought to be the end of all those intercourses, which we have with one another; and, as divine worship is the highest instance of our glorifying God, so we are, as intelligent creatures, obliged to worship him in a social way.

(2.) It is the great design of Christianity to direct us how this social worship should be performed by us as Christians, paying a due regard to the gospel, and the glory of the divine perfections, as displayed therein, which is the subject-matter of divine revelation, especially that part thereof from whence the laws of Christian society are taken.

(3.) They who have been made partakers of the grace of God, are obliged, out of gratitude to him, the Author thereof, to proclaim his glory to the world; and as the experience thereof, and the obligations persons are laid under hereby, is extended to others, as well as ourselves; so all, who are under like engagements, ought to be helpers of the faith and joy of each other, and to promote their mutual edification and salvation; and, that this may be done,

(4.) It is necessary that they consent, or agree, to have communion with one another in those duties in which they express their subjection to Christ, and desire to wait on him together in all his holy institutions.

(5.) The rule for their direction herein, is contained in scripture, which sets forth the Mediator’s glory, as King of saints; gives a perfect directory for gospel worship, and encouragement to hope for his presence therein, whereby it may be attended with its desired success.

(6.) Since Christ, in scripture, has described some persons as qualified to assist and direct us in this matter, as well as called them to this service, it is necessary that these religious societies should choose and appoint such to preside over them, who are styled pastors, after his own heart, that may feed them with knowledge and understanding, whereby his ordinances may be rightly administered, and the ends of church-communion answered, to his glory, and their mutual advantage.

In this method of reasoning, the constitution of churches appears to be agreeable to the law of nature: nevertheless, we are not to suppose with the Erastians, and others, that the church is wholly founded on the laws of civil society, as though Christ had left no certain rule by which it was to be governed, besides those that are common to all societies, as an expedient to maintain peace and order among them; for there are other ends to be answered by church-communion, which are more immediately conducive to the glory of Christ and the promoting revealed religion, which the law of nature, and those laws of society, which are founded thereon, can give us no direction in. It is a great dishonour to Christ, the King and Head of his church, to suppose that he has left it without a rule to direct them, in what respects the communion of saints; as much as it would be to assert that he has left it without a rule of faith. If God was so particular in giving directions concerning every part of that worship that was to be performed in the church before Christ’s coming, so that they are not, on pain of his highest displeasure, to deviate from it, certainly we must not think that our Saviour has neglected to give these laws, by which the gospel-church is to be governed, which are distinct from what are contained in the law of nature.

And, from hence, it may be inferred, that no church, or religious society of Christians, has power to make laws for its own government, in those things that appertain to, or are to be deemed a part of religious worship: I don’t say a church has no power to appoint some discretionary rules to be observed by those who are of the same communion, provided they are kept within due bounds, and Christ’s Kingly office be not hereby invaded. There is a very great controversy in the world, about the church’s power to decree some things that are styled indifferent; but persons are not generally agreed in determining what they mean by indifferent things. Some hereby understand those rites and ceremonies that are used in religious matters, which they call indifferent, because they are of less importance; whereas, by being made terms of communion, they cease to be indifferent; and whether they are of greater or less importance, yet if they respect a necessary mode of worship, conducive to the glory of God, so that hereby he is more honoured than he would be, by the neglect of it, this is to carry the idea of indifference too far, and to extend the power of the church beyond its due bounds: for as the terms of communion are only to be fixed by Christ, and the means by which he is to be glorified, (which have in them the nature of ordinances, wherein we hope for his presence and blessing) must be sought for from him; so the church has not power to ordain, or give a sanction to them, without his warrant; therefore, when we speak of those indifferent matters, which the church has power to appoint, we mean those things which are no part of religious worship, but merely discretionary, which may be observed, or not, without any guilt contracted, or censure ensuing hereupon; which leads us to consider,

2. The matter of a church, or the character of those persons who are qualified for church-communion. We have already considered the church as a religious society; it is therefore necessary that all the members thereof embrace the true religion, and, in particular, that they deny none of those fundamental articles of faith, which are necessary to salvation. It is not to be supposed that the members of any society have a perfect unanimity in their sentiments about all religious matters, for that is hardly to be expected in this world; but they are obliged, as the apostles says, to hold the head, from which all the body, by joints and bands, having nourishment ministered, and knit together, increaseth with the increase of God, Col. ii. 19. and publicly to avow, or maintain, no doctrine subversive of the foundation on which the church is built. Revealed religion centres in Christ, and is referred to his glory, as Mediator; therefore every member of a church ought to profess their faith in him, and willingness to own him, as their Lord and Law-giver, and to give him the glory that is due to him, as a divine Person, and as one who is appointed to execute the offices of Prophet, Priest, and King. The apostle gives a short, but very comprehensive description of those who are fit matter for a church, when he says, We are the circumcision which worship God in the Spirit, and rejoice in Christ Jesus, and have no confidence in the flesh, Phil. iii. 3. It follows, from hence, that every religious society is not a church; for false religions have been propagated among the Heathen, and others, in distinct societies of those who performed religious worship; but yet they had no relation to Christ, and therefore not reckoned among his churches.

On the other hand, we cannot determine concerning every member of a particular church, that his heart is right with God; for that is a prerogative that belongs only to the Searcher of hearts; it is the external profession that is our rule of judging All are not in a state of salvation, who are church-members; as the apostle says, They are not all Israel which are of Israel, Rom. ix. 6. He makes a distinction between a real subjection unto Christ by faith, and a professed subjection to him: as he says, concerning the church of the Jews, He is not a Jew which is one outwardly, neither is that circumcision which is outward in the flesh; but he is a Jew which is one inwardly, and circumcision is that of the heart in the Spirit, and not in the letter, whose praise is not of men, but of God, chap. ii. 28, 29. nevertheless, they were all church-members, professedly or apparently devoted to God. Concerning such, we are bound, by a judgment of charity, to conclude, that they are what they profess themselves to be, till their conversation plainly gives the lye to their profession. The visible church is compared to the net, that had good and bad fish in it, Matt. xiii. 47. or to the great house, in which are vessels of various kinds; some to honour, and some to dishonour, 2 Tim. ii. 20. some fit for the master’s use, others to be broken, as vessels wherein is no pleasure, Jer. xxii. 28. some are sincere, others hypocrites: nevertheless, till their hypocrisy is made manifest, they are supposed to be fit matter for a church.

3. We are now to consider the form, or bond of union, whereby they are incorporated into a society, and so denominated a church of Christ. It is neither the profession of faith, nor a conversation agreeable thereunto, that constitutes a person a member of a particular church; for, according to the laws of society, there must be a mutual consent to walk together, to have communion one with another in all the ordinances which Christ has established. As the materials, of which a building consists, do not constitute that building, unless they are cemented and joined together; so the union of professing Christians, whereby they are joined together, and become one body, by mutual consent, is necessary to constitute them a church, as much as their professed subjection to Christ to denominate them a church of Christ. Hereby they become a confederate body; and as every one, in a private capacity, was before engaged to perform those duties which are incumbent on all men, as Christians, now they bring themselves, pursuant to Christ’s appointment, under an obligation to endeavour, by the assistance of divine grace, to walk becoming the relation they stand in to each other; or, as the apostle expresses himself, Building up themselves on their most holy faith, Jude, ver. 20. whereby the ends of Christian society may be answered, and the glory of Christ secured; and they have ground to expect his presence in waiting on him in all his holy institutions. By this means they, who were before considered as fit matter for it, are said to be united together, as a church of Christ. But, inasmuch as this principally respects the foundation, or erection of churches, there are other things necessary for their increase, and the maintaining that purity, which is the glory thereof, and thereby preventing their contracting that guilt which would otherwise ensue; which leads us to consider,

4. The power which he has given them, and the rules which he has laid down, which are to be observed by them in the admission to, and exclusion of persons from church-communion. And,

(1.) As to what respects the admission of members, that may fill up the places of those, whose relation to them is dissolved by death. Here we must consider, that it is highly reasonable that they should have all the satisfaction that is necessary, concerning the fitness of those for it, who are to be admitted into church-communion; and also enquire what terms, or conditions, are to be insisted on, and complied with, in order thereunto. We must not suppose that these are arbitrary, or such as a church shall please to impose; for it is no more in their power to make terms of communion, than it is to make a rule of faith, or worship. In this, a church differs from a civil society, where the terms of admission into it are arbitrary, provided they do not interfere with any of the laws of God, or man: but the terms of Christian communion are fixed by Christ, the Head of his church; and therefore no society of men have a right to make the door of admission into their own communion straighter or wider than Christ has made it.

This is a matter in which some of the reformed churches differ among themselves, though the dissention ought not to arise so high as to cause any alienation of affection, or any degree of uncharitableness, so as to occasion any to think, that because they do not, in all things, agree, as to this matter, therefore they ought to treat one another as those who hold the head, and are designing to advance the interest of Christ, in the various methods they are pursuing, in order thereunto. I think it is allowed, by most of the churches of Christ, at least those who suppose that persons have no right to church-communion, without the consent of that particular society, of which any one is to be made a member, that nothing short of a professed subjection to Christ, and a desire to adhere to him in all his offices, as well as worship him in all his ordinances, can be reckoned a term of church-communion. For we suppose the church to be built upon this foundation; and nothing short of it can sufficiently set forth the glory of Christ, as the Head thereof, or to answer the valuable ends of church-communion. Therefore it follows from hence, that as ignorance of the way of salvation by Jesus Christ, disqualifies for church-communion; so do immoralities in conversation, both of which denominate a person to be alienated from the life of God, a stranger to the covenant of promise, and in subjection to Satan, the god of this world, which is inconsistent with a professed subjection to Christ. Therefore a mind rightly informed in the great doctrines of the gospel, with a conduct of life answerable thereunto, is to be insisted on, as a term of church-communion.

But that in which the sentiments of men are different, is with respect to the way and manner in which this is to be rendered visible, and whether some things that are merely circumstantial, are to be insisted on, as terms of communion.

1st, As to the former of these. That those qualifications, which are necessary to church-communion, ought to be, some way or other, made visible, this is taken for granted by many on both sides; and, indeed, without it the church could not be called visible, or a society of such as profess the true religion, and, together with it, their subjection to Christ. And, this, in a more especial manner, must be made known to them, who are to hold communion with them, as called to be saints; which cannot, from the nature of the thing, be done, unless it be, some way or other made to appear. If it be said, that there is no occasion for this to be explicit, or the profession hereof to be made any otherwise, than as their relation to a church denominates them to be visible professors; this is only a presumptive evidence that they are so, and does not sufficiently distinguish them from the world, especially from that part of it, which makes an outward shew of religion, and attend on several branches of public worship. This is certainly very remote from the character given of all those churches which we have an account of in the New Testament, concerning some of whom the apostle says, that their faith was not only known to that particular society to which they belonged, but it was spread abroad, or spoken of throughout the whole world, 1 Thes. i. 8. compared with Rom. i. 8. This it could never have been, if they, who were more immediately concerned to know it, had received no other conviction than what is the result of their joining with them in some external acts of worship.

And it may also be inferred, from what is generally allowed, by those who explain the nature of the Lord’s supper, which is a church-ordinance, and lay down the qualifications of those who are deemed fit to partake of it; particularly that they are under an obligation to examine themselves, not only concerning their knowledge to discern the Lord’s body, but their faith to feed on him, their repentance, love, and new obedience, trusting in his mercy, and rejoicing in his love; and they assent the necessity of their renewing the exercise of those graces, which may render them meet for this ordinance.[275] And this is consonant to the practice of many of the reformed churches, who will not admit any into their communion, without receiving satisfaction, as to their having these qualifications for this ordinance. And, since the matter in controversy with them principally respects the manner in which this is to be given, and the concern of the church herein, we may take occasion to infer, from hence, that there is the highest reason that the church should receive satisfaction, as well as those who preside over it; inasmuch as they are obliged, in conscience, to have communion with them, and reckon them among the number of those who have been made partakers of the grace of Christ, which they cannot well be said to do, unless this be, some way or other, made visible to them; which leads us to consider,

2dly, The manner in which this profession is to be made visible, namely, whether it is to be done by every one in his own person; or a report hereof by another in his name, may be deemed sufficient. This I can reckon no other than a circumstance; and therefore one of these ways is not so far to be insisted on, as that a person should be denied this privilege, (whose qualifications for it are not be questioned) because he is unwilling to comply with it, as thinking that the main end designed thereby may be as effectually answered by the other. If a person be duly qualified, as the apostle says concerning Timothy, to make a good profession before many witnesses, 1 Tim. vi. 12. and this may not only have a tendency to answer the end of giving satisfaction to them, but be an expedient, in an uncommon degree, to promote their edification; if he have something remarkable to impart, and desire to bear his testimony to the grace of God, which he has experienced, in his own person, and thereby to induce others to join with him in giving him the glory of it, there is no law of God, or nature that prohibits, or forbids him to do it; nor ought this to be censured, as though it could not be done, without its being liable to the common imputation, as though pride must be the necessary inducement leading him thereunto; for that is such an instance of censure and reproach, as is unbecoming Christians, especially when it is alleged as an universal exception against it. Nevertheless, I am far from pleading for this, as a necessary term of communion; nor do I think that a person’s desire to give the church satisfaction, in such a way, ought always to be complied with; since whatever occasion some may suppose they have for it, all are not fit to do it, in such a way, as may tend to the church’s edification. There are various other ways by which a church may know, that those who are proposed to its communion have a right to it, which I forbear to mention; but one of them is not to be so far insisted on, as that a bare refusal to comply with it rather than another, provided the general end be answered, should debar a person otherwise qualified for it, from church-communion. The church being thus satisfied, he is joined to it by their consent, and is hereby laid under equal engagements with them, to walk in all the ordinances and commandments of the Lord blameless. And this leads us to consider,

(2.) The exclusion of members from church-communion. This is agreeable to the laws of society, as well as their admission into it; and hereby a becoming zeal is expressed for the glory of God, and a public testimony given against those who discover the insincerity of their professed subjection to Christ, which was the ground and reason of their being admitted into that relation, which now they appear to have forfeited, this leads us to consider,

First, That the church has a right to exclude those from its communion who appear to be unqualified for it, or a reproach to it; under which head, I cannot but take notice of the opinion of the Erastians, that a church has no power, distinct from the civil government, to exclude persons from its communion. This was advanced by Erastus, a physician in Germany, soon after the beginning of the reformation: and that, which seems to have given occasion hereunto, was the just prejudice which he entertained against the Popish doctrine, concerning the independency of the church upon the state; which was then, and is at this day, maintained, and abused to such a degree, that if a clergyman insults the government, and sets himself at the head of a rebellion against his lawful prince, or is guilty of any other enormous crimes, he flies to the church for protection, and generally finds it there, especially if the king should, in any respect, disoblige them, or refuse to lay his crown at their feet, if they desire it: this, I say, was a just prejudice, which gave the first rise to this opinion, in which, opposing one extreme the first founder of it ran into another.

The argument, by which it is generally supported, is, that this tends to erect, or set up one government in another:[276] but this is not contrary to the law of nature and nations, when a smaller government is not co-ordinate with the other, but allowed and protected by it: the government of a family or corporation, must be acknowledged, by all, to be a smaller government included in a greater; but will any one deny that these are inconsistent with it? May not a master admit into, or exclude, whom he pleases from being members of his family? or a corporation make those by-laws, by which it is governed, without being supposed to interfere with the civil government? And, by a parity of reason, may not a church, pursuant not only to the laws of society, but the rule which Christ has given, exclude members from its communion, without being supposed to subvert the fundamental laws of civil government? We do not deny, but that if the church should pretend to inflict corporal punishments on its members, or make use of the civil sword which is committed into the hand of the magistrate; or if it should act contrary to the laws of Christ, by defending, encouraging, or abetting those who are enemies to the civil government, or excluding them from those privileges, which the laws of the land give them a right to; this would be a notoriously unwarrantable instance of erecting one government in another, subversive of it: but this is not the design of excommunication, as it is one of those ordinances which Christ has given to his church.

Secondly, We are now to consider the causes of inflicting this censure on persons; and these are no other than those things which, had they been before known, would have been a bar to their being admitted to church-communion. And therefore when a person is guilty of those crimes, which, had they been known before, he ought not to have been received; when these are made to appear, he is deemed unqualified for that privilege which he was before admitted to partake of; on which account we generally say, that every one first excludes himself, by being guilty of those crimes that disqualify him for church-communion, before he is to be excluded from it, by the sentence of the church. But that we may be a little more particular on this subject, let us consider,

1st, That they who disturb the tranquillity of the church, by the uneasiness of their temper, or who are not only unwilling to comply with the method of its government, but endeavour to make others so: or who are restless in their attempt to bring innovations into it, or propagate doctrines which are contrary to scripture, and the general faith of the church, founded thereon; though these be not directly subversive of the gospel, yet, inasmuch as the persons are not satisfied in retaining their own sentiments, without giving disturbance to others, who cannot adhere to them; such, I think, ought to be separated from the communion of the church, purely out of a principle of self-preservation, though it be not their immediate duty to judge the state, so much as the temper of persons, whom they withdraw from.

2dly, If a person propagate a doctrine subversive of the gospel, or that faith on which the church is founded, he is to be excluded. It is such an one, as I humbly conceive, whom the apostle styles an heretic, and advises Titus to reject him, and speaks of him as one that is subverted, and sinneth, being condemned of himself, Tit. iii. 10, 11. Some think, that the person here spoken of, is one who pretends to believe one doctrine, but really believes another which is of a most pernicious tendency, and therefore is to be rejected, not for his sentiments, but his insincerity, and, upon this account, he is said to be self-condemned[277]. But I cannot acquiesce in this sense of the text; for, though there may be some in the world who think, to find their account, gain popular applause, or, some way or other, serve their worldly interest, by pretending to believe those doctrines which they really deny; yet this cannot be truly said of the person, whom the apostle, in this scripture, describes as an heretic: he is, indeed, represented as inconsistent with himself; and this is supposed to be known, and alleged, as an aggravation of the charge on which his expulsion from that religious society, of which he was a member, is founded: but did ever any man propagate one doctrine, and tell the world that he believed another, so that he might, for this, be convicted as an hypocrite? And certainly this could not be known without his own confession, and the church could not censure him for it, but upon sufficient evidence. If it be said, that they might know this by divine inspiration, which, it is true, they were favoured with in that age, in which, among other extraordinary gifts, they had that of discerning of spirits; it is greatly to be questioned, whether ever they proceeded against any one upon such extraordinary intimations, without some apparent matter of accusation, which was known by those who had not this extraordinary gift; for, if they had a liberty to proceed against persons in such a way, why did not our Saviour reject Judas, who was one of that society that attended on his ministry, when he knew him to be an hypocrite, or self-condemned, in a most notorious degree, yet he did not; and the reason, doubtless, was, because he designed that his churches, in succeeding ages, should, in all their judicial proceedings, go upon other evidence, which might easily be known by all, when they expelled any one from their communion.

Besides, if this be the sense of the text, and the ground on which persons are to be rejected, then no one can be known to be self-condemned now; for we have no such extraordinary intimations thereof, since miraculous gifts are ceased: and is there any thing instituted as essential to the church’s proceedings, in the methods of their government, which could not be put in practice, except in the apostolic age? and, if so, then having recourse to extraordinary discerning of spirits, as a foundation of this procedure, will not serve the purpose for which it is alleged.

It must therefore be concluded, that the person here said to be self-condemned, was not deemed so, because he pretended to hold that faith which he really denied; but because his present professed sentiments were the reverse of what he had before pretended to hold, which was a term on which he was admitted into the church; and in this sense he is said to be self-condemned, as his present errors contained a contradiction to that faith which he then professed, in common with the rest of that society, of which he was admitted a member.

3dly, Persons are to be excluded from church-communion for immoral practices, which not only contradict their professed subjection to Christ, but argue them to be in an unconverted state. When they were first received into the church, they were supposed, by a judgment of charity, to be Christ’s subjects and servants: their own profession, which was not then contradicted by any apparant blemishes in their conversation, was the foundation of this opinion, which the church was then bound to entertain concerning them; but, when they are guilty of any crimes, which are contrary to their professed subjection to Christ, the church is to take away the privilege which they had before granted them; for hereby they appear to be disqualified for their communion; and this is necessary, inasmuch as, by it, they express a just detestation of every thing that would be a reproach to them, or an instance of disloyalty to, or rebellion against Christ, their Head and Saviour.

(3.) We are now to speak concerning the method of proceeding in excluding persons from church-communion. We must consider this as a judicial act, and therefore not to be done without trying and judging impartially the merits of the cause. A crime committed is supposed to be first known by particular persons, who are members of the church; or if any injury be done, whereby another has received just matter of offence, he is supposed to be first apprised of it, before it be brought before the church. In this case, our Saviour has expressly given direction concerning the method in which he is to proceed when he says, If thy brother shall trespass against thee, go and tell him his fault, between thee and him alone. If he shall hear thee, thou hast gained thy brother: but if he will not hear thee, then take with thee one or two more, that, in the mouth of two or three witnesses, every word may be established. And if he shall neglect to hear them, tell it unto the church: but if he neglect to hear the church, let him be unto thee as an Heathen-man, and a Publican, Matt. xviii. 15-17. If this scripture be rightly understood, it will give great light to the method of proceeding in this matter.

And here we must consider, that the crime is called a trespass, and accordingly is, in some respects, injurious to others, whereby the offender contracts some degree of guilt, which he is to be reproved for, otherwise there would be no room for a private rebuke, or admonition, in order to bring him to repentance; nor, upon his obstinate refusal thereof, would the church have ground to proceed in excluding him from its communion: nevertheless, we are not to suppose the crime to be of such a nature, as is, in itself, inconsistent with a state of grace, or affords matter of open scandal to the Christian name; as if a person were guilty of adultery, theft, or some other notorious crime; for, in this case, it would not be sufficient for the person, who is apprised of it, to give him a friendly and gentle reproof; so that, upon his confessing his fault, and repenting of it, all farther proceedings against him ought to be stopped; for herein, I humbly conceive, that he that has received information concerning it, ought to make it known to the church, that so the matter might not only be fully charged upon him, but his repentance be as visible, as the scandal he has brought to religion, by his crime, has been. If I know a person to be a traitor to his Prince, a murderer, or guilty of any other crime, whereby he has forfeited his life, it is not sufficient for me to reprove him privately for it, in order to bring him to repentance; but I must discover it to proper persons, that he may be brought to condign punishment: So, in this case, if a person be guilty of a crime, that in itself disqualifies for church-communion, and brings a reproach on the ways of God, the church ought to express their public resentment against it, which will tend to secure the honour of religion; and therefore it ought to be brought before them immediately, and they to proceed against him, by excluding him from their communion; though, for the present, he seem to express some degree of sorrow for his crime, as being made public; and if they judge that his repentance is sincere, and the world has sufficient ground to conclude it to be so, then they may express their forgiveness thereof, and so withdraw the censure they have passed upon him.

But, in crimes of a lesser nature than these, a private admonition ought to be given; and if this be to no purpose, but the person go on in sin, whereby it appears to be habitual, and his repentance not sincere, after this, the cause is to be brought before the church; but, in order hereunto, the person that first reproved him, must take one or two more, that they may join in the second reproof; and, if all this be to no purpose, then they are to appear as evidences against him, and the church is to give him a public admonition; and, if this solemn ordinance prove ineffectual, then he is to be excluded, and his exclusion is styled his being to them as an Heathen-man, or Publican, that is, they have no farther relation to him any more than they have to the Heathen or Publicans, or no immediate care of him, any otherwise than as they are to desire to know whether this censure be blessed for his advantage. And this leads us,

(4.) To consider the temper with which this censure ought to be denounced, and the consequences thereof, with respect to him that falls under it. The same frame of spirit ought to discover itself in this, as in all other reproofs, for sin committed, in which there ought to be a zeal expressed for the glory of God, and, at the same time, compassion to the souls of them, who have rendered themselves obnoxious to it, without the least degree of hatred redounding to their persons. The crime is to be aggravated in proportion to the nature thereof, that so he that has committed it may be brought under conviction, and be humbled for his sin, and yet he is to be made sensible that his spiritual advantage is intended thereby.

This is very contrary to those methods which were taken in the corrupt state of the Jewish church, who, when they excommunicated persons, denounced several curses against them; and their behaviour consequent thereupon, was altogether unjustifiable. We have an account, in some of their writings, of two degrees of excommunication practised among them, one of which only deprived them of some privileges which that church enjoyed, but not of all. Another carried in it more terror, by reason of several anathemas annexed to it, which contained a great abuse and perversion of the design of that law relating to the curses that were to be denounced on mount Ebal, mentioned in Deut. xxvii. which was not given as a form, to be used in excommunication, but to shew them what sin deserved, and that this might be an expedient to prevent those sins, which would expose them to the divine wrath and curse[278]. And though they pretend to have a warrant for this from Deborah, and Barak’s cursing Meroz, Judges v. 23. or Joshua’s denouncing a curse upon him that should rebuild Jericho, Joshua vi. 26. yet this does not give countenance to their proceedings herein; for we must distinguish between those anathemas, which were denounced by immediate divine direction, by some that had the spirit of prophecy, and those curses which were denounced by others who were altogether destitute thereof[279].

Moreover, as the Jews, in the degenerate ages of that church, abused the ordinance of excommunication, as above-mentioned; so they discovered such a degree of hatred to those whom they excommunicated, as ought not to be expressed to the vilest of men. An instance of this we have in their behaviour towards the Samaritans, who, according to the account we have from Jewish writers, were excommunicated in Ezra’s time, for building a temple on mount Gerizzim, and setting up corrupt worship there, in opposition to that which ought to have been performed in the temple at Jerusalem. For this they were justly excluded from the Jewish church[280]; but their morose behaviour towards them was unwarrantable. That there was an irreconcilable enmity between them, appears from the woman of Samaria’s answer to our Saviour, when desiring her to give him water; from whence it is evident that he was far from approving of this behaviour of the Jews towards them: the woman was amazed that he should ask water of her, and hereupon says to him, How is it, that thou, being a Jew, askest drink of me, which am a woman of Samaria? for the Jews have no dealings with the Samaritans, John iv. 9. that is, they retain that old rancour and prejudice against them, that they will not have any dealings with them which contain the least obligation on either side. These things were consequences of excommunication which they had no ground for in scripture.

As for the Christian church, they seem to have followed the Jews too much in that, in which they are not to be imitated. Hence arose the distinction between the greater and the lesser excommunication, which is agreeable, though expressed in other words, to that which was before mentioned; and those anathemas, which were denounced against persons excommunicated by them, how much soever it might have argued their zeal against the crimes they committed, yet it is no example for us to follow. It is beyond dispute, that they endeavour to make this censure as much dreaded as was possible, to deter men from committing those crimes that might deserve it. Tertullian calls it, An anticipation of the future judgment[281]; and Cyprian supposes such an one to be far from a state of salvation[282].

And some have supposed, that persons, when excommunicated, were possessed by the devil, which they conclude to be the sense of the apostle, 1 Cor. v. 5. when he speaks of delivering such unto Satan[283]; and that Satan actually seized, and took possession of them; and that God granted this as an expedient, to strike a terror into the minds of men, to prevent many sins being committed; and that this was more necessary at that time, when they were destitute of the assistance of the civil magistrate, who took no care to defend the church, or to punish those crimes that were committed by its members: but I cannot think that there was ever such a power granted to the church, how much soever the necessity of affairs be supposed to require it. We read nothing of it in the writings of those Fathers, who lived in the early ages thereof; such as Justin Martyr, Tertullian, Origen, or Cyprian, who would, doubtless, have taken some notice of this extraordinary miraculous punishment attending excommunication, had there been any such thing. Some of them, indeed, speak of the church’s being favoured, in some instances, with the extraordinary gift of miracles, and particularly that of casting out devils, after the apostles’ time;[284] but we have no account of the devil’s possessing any, upon their being cast out of the church.

We read, in scripture, of delivering a person excommunicated to Satan, 1 Cor. v. 5. but I cannot think that the apostle intends any more by it, than his being declared to be in Satan’s kingdom, that is in the world, where he rules over the children of disobedience; and, if his crime be so great, as is inconsistent with a state of grace, he must, without doubt, be reckoned a servant of Satan, and, in this sense, be delivered to him. And there is a particular end thereof, mentioned by the apostle, namely, The destruction of the flesh, that the spirit may be saved in the day of the Lord Jesus; so that the person’s good is to be intended by it, that he may be humbled, brought to repentance, and afterwards received again into the bosom of the church.

Thus we have considered the general description of a church, the matter and form thereof, and the power granted them of receiving persons into, or excluding them from communion. Now from hence we may infer,

1st, That nearness of habitation, how much soever it may contribute to answer some ends of church-communion, which cannot be attained by those who live many miles distant from each other, is not sufficient to constitute persons church-members, or to give them a right to the privileges that attend such a relation. Parochial churches have no foundation in scripture, for they want both the matter and form of a church; nor are they any other than a human constitution.

2dly, The scripture gives no account of the church, as National or Provincial; and therefore, though persons have a right to many civil privileges, as born in particular nations, or provinces, it does not follow from thence, that they are professedly subjects to Christ, or united together in the bonds of the gospel. Therefore if a church, that styles itself National, excludes persons from its communion, whether it be for real or supposed crimes, it takes away that right which it had no power to confer, but what is founded on the laws of men, which are very distinct from those which Christ has given to his churches. And this leads us,

5. To consider the government of the church, by those officers which Christ has appointed therein. Tyranny and anarchy are extremes, inconsistent with the good of civil society, and contrary to the law of nature, and are sufficiently fenced against by the government which Christ has established in his church: he has appointed officers to secure the peace and order thereof, and has limited their power, and given directions that concern the exercise thereof, that so it may be governed without oppression, its religious rights maintained, the glory of God, and the mutual edification of its members hereby promoted.

We have already considered those extraordinary officers which Christ set over the gospel-church, when it was first constituted, namely, the apostles and evangelists:[285] But, besides these, there are others which he has given to his churches; and these either such as are appointed to bear rule, more especially, in what respects the promoting their faith and order, who are styled Pastors and Elders; of others, who have the oversight of the secular affairs of the church, and the trust of providing for the necessities of the poor committed to them, who are called Deacons.

Concerning the former of these, to wit, Pastors and Elders, we often read of them in the New Testament: nevertheless, all are not agreed in their sentiments, as to one particular relating hereunto, namely, whether the Elders spoken of in scripture are distinct officers from Pastors; or, whether Christ has appointed two sorts of them, to wit, preaching and ruling Elders? Some think the apostle distinguishes between them, when he says, Let the elders that rule well be counted worthy of double honour, especially those who labour in the word and doctrine, 1 Tim. v. 17. the double honour here intended seems to be not only civil respect, but maintenance, as appears from the following words, Thou shalt not muzzle the ox that treadeth out the corn; and the labourer is worthy of his reward. Now these suppose that this maintenance belongs only to such as labour in word and doctrine, and not to those other Elders, who are said to rule well; therefore there are elders that rule well, distinct from those that labour in word and doctrine.

Others, indeed, think, that the apostle, in this text speaks only of the latter sort, and then the stress of his argument is laid principally on the word Labouring, q. d. Let every one who preaches the gospel, and presides over the church, have that honour conferred on him that is his due; but let this be greater in proportion to the pains and diligence that he expresses for the church’s edification.

Nevertheless, I cannot but think, since it is agreeable to the laws of society, and not in the least repugnant to any thing we read, in scripture, concerning the office of an Elder, that, in case of emergency, when the necessity of the church requires it, or when the work of preaching and ruling is too much for a Pastor, the church being very numerous, it is advisable that some should be chosen from among themselves to assist him in managing the affairs of government and performing some branches of his office, distinct from that of preaching, which these are not called to do, as not being qualified for it: these are helpers or assistants in government; and their office may have in it a very great expediency, as in the multitude of counsellers there is safety, and the direction and advice of those who are men of prudence and esteem in the church, will be very conducive to maintain its peace and order: but I cannot think that this office is necessary in smaller churches, in which the Pastors need not their assistance. And this leads us to speak concerning the office of a Pastor, which consists of two branches, namely, preaching the word, and administring the sacraments on the one hand; and performing the office of a ruling Elder on the other.

1st, We may consider him as qualified and called to preach the gospel. This is an honourable and important work, and has always been reckoned so, by those who have had any concern for the promoting the glory of God in the world. The apostle Paul was very thankful to Christ that he conferred this honour upon him, or, as he expresses it, that he counted him faithful and put him into the ministry, chap. i. 12. and elsewhere he concludes, that it is necessary, that they, who engage in this work, be sent by God; How shall they preach except they be sent? Rom. x. 15. This is a necessary pre-requisite to the pastoral-office, as much as speech is necessary to an orator, or conduct to a governor: nevertheless, a person may be employed, in the work of the ministry, who is not a pastor; these may be reckoned, if they discharge the work they are called to, faithfully, a blessing to the world, and a valuable part of the church’s treasure; yet considered as distinct from Pastors, they are not reckoned among its officers. This is a subject that very well deserves our consideration: but, inasmuch as we have an account elsewhere[286] of the qualifications and call of ministers to preach the gospel, and the manner in which this is to be done, we pass it over, at present, and proceed,

2dly, To consider a minister, as invested in the pastoral office, and so related to a particular church. The characters by which such, who are called to it, are described, in the New Testament, besides that of a Pastor, are a Bishop or Overseer, a Presbyter or Elder, who labours in word and doctrine.

The world, it is certain, is very much divided in their sentiments about this matter, some concluding that a Bishop is not only distinct from, but superior, both in order and degree to those who are styled Presbyters or Elders; whereas, others think, that there is either no difference between them, or, at least, that it is not so great, as that they should be reckoned distinct officers in a church. The account we have, in scripture, of this matter seems to be somewhat different from what were the sentiments of the church in following ages. Sometimes we read of several Bishops in one church: thus the apostle, writing to the church at Philippi, directs his epistle to the Bishops and Deacons, Phil. i. 1. and elsewhere he seems to call the same persons Bishops and Elders, or Presbyters; for it is said, that he sent to Ephesus, and called together the Elders of the church, Acts xx. 17. and advises them to take heed to themselves, and to all the flock over whom the Holy Ghost had made them Overseers, or Bishops, ver. 28. and, at another time, he charges Titus to ordain elders, or Presbyters, in every city; and then gives the character of those whom he was to ordain, bidding him take care that they were blameless, and had other qualifications, necessary for this office; and, in assigning a reason for this, he adds, For a Bishop must be blameless, &c. where, it is plain, the word Elder and Bishop are indifferently used by him, as respecting the same person. And the apostle Peter 1 Pet. v. 1. addresses himself to the Elders of the churches, to whom he writes, styling himself an Elder together with them;[287] and, besides this, a witness of the sufferings of Christ, which was his character, as an apostle. And he exhorts them to perform the office of Bishops, or Overseers,[288] as the word, which we render Taking the Oversight, signifies; from whence it is evident, that Elders and Presbyters had the character of Bishops, from the work they were to perform.

Moreover, that venerable assembly, that met at Jerusalem, to discuss an important question brought before them by Paul and Barnabas, is said to consist of the Apostles and Elders, Acts xv. 6. Now, if Bishops had been, not only distinct from, but a superior order to that of Elders, they would have been here mentioned as such, and, doubtless, have met together with them; but it seems probable that they are included in the general character of Elders. Some think, that the same persons are called Bishops, because they had the oversight of their respective churches; and Elders, because they were qualified for this work, by that age and experience which they had, for the most part arrived to; as the word Elder signifies not only one that is invested in an office,[289] but one who, by reason of his age, and that wisdom that often attends it, is fitted to discharge it, 1 Tim. v. 1.

We read nothing in scripture, of Diocesan churches, or Bishops over them, how much soever this was pleaded for in many following ages; and they, who maintain this argument, generally have recourse to the writings of the Fathers, and church-historians, which, were the proofs, taken from thence, more strong and conclusive than they are, would not be sufficient to support the divine right thereof. I shall not enlarge on this particular branch of the controversy, inasmuch as it has been handled with a great deal of learning and judgment, by many others,[290] who refer to the writings of the Fathers of the three first centuries, to prove that churches were no larger in those times than one person could have the oversight of, and that these chose their own Bishops. Some think, indeed, that there is ground to conclude, from what we find in the writings of Ignatius, Tertullian, Cyprian, and other Fathers in these ages, that there was a superiority of Bishops to Presbyters, at least, in degree, though not in order; and that the Presbyter performed all the branches of that work, that properly belonged to Bishops, only with this difference, that it was done with their leave, or by their order, or in their absence; and there being several Elders in the same church, when a Bishop died, one of those were ready to succeed him in that office.

Some, indeed, speak of the church as Parochial, and contradistinguished from Diocesan; but, inasmuch as it does not appear, by their writings, that these Parochial churches had any other bond of union, but nearness of habitation, I cannot so readily conclude, that their church-state depended principally on this political circumstance; but rather that Christians thought it most convenient for such to enter into a church-relation, who, by reason of the nearness of their situation to each other, could better perform the duties that were incumbent on them, pursuant hereunto.

But, notwithstanding this, it appears from several things occasionally mentioned by the Fathers, that the church admitted none into its communion, but those whom they judged qualified for it, and that not only by understanding the doctrines of Christianity, but by a conversation becoming their profession thereof; and it was a considerable time that they remained in a state of probation, being admitted to attend on the prayers and instructions of the church, but ordered to withdraw before the Lord’s supper was administered: these are sometimes called Hearers by Cyprian; at other times, Candidates, but most commonly Catechumens. And there were persons appointed not only to instruct them but to examine what proficiency they made in religion, in order to their being received into the church. In this state of trial they continued generally two or three years[291]; such care they took that persons might not deceive themselves, and the church, by joining in communion with it, without having those qualifications that are necessary thereunto. This is very different from parochial churches, as understood and defended by many in our day. Therefore when churches were called parishes, in the three first centuries, it was only a circumstantial description thereof.

In every one of these churches there was one who was called a bishop, or overseer, with a convenient number of elders or presbyters; and it is observed, by that learned writer but now referred to, that these churches, at first, were comparatively small, and not exceeding the limits of the city, or village, in which they were situate, each of which was under the care, or oversight, of its respective pastor, or bishop.

This was the state of the church, more especially, in the three first centuries: but, if we descend a little lower to the fourth century, we shall find that the government thereof was very much altered, when it arrived to a peaceable and flourishing state; then, indeed, the bishops had the oversight of of larger dioceses, than they had before, which proceeded from the aspiring temper of particular persons[292], who were not content till they had added some neighbouring parishes to their own, and so their churches became very large, till they extended themselves over whole provinces. But even this was complained of by some, as an abuse; which occasioned Chrysostom so frequently to insist on the inconvenience of bishops having churches too large for them to take the oversight of, and not so much regarding the qualifications as the number of those over whom they presided; and he signifies his earnest desire, that those under his care might rather excel in piety, than in number, as it would be an expedient for his better discharging the work committed to him[293].

Thus concerning the character and distinction of the pastors of churches, together with the form of the church in the first ages of Christianity; and what is observed, by many, concerning the agreement and difference which there was between bishops and presbyters: but this has been so largely insisted on, by many who have written on both sides the question, and the controversy turning very much on critical remarks made on some occasional passages, taken out of the writings of the Fathers, without recourse to scripture; it is therefore less necessary, or agreeable to our present design, to enlarge on that head: however, we may observe, that some of those who have written in defence of Diocesan Episcopacy, have been forced to acknowledge, that Jerom, Augustin, Ambrose, Chrysostom, in the Fourth Century; and, in some following ages, Sedulius, Primatius, Theodoret, and Theophylact, have all held the identity of both name and order of bishops and presbyters in the primitive church[294]. Jerom, in particular, is more express on this subject than any of them, and proves it from some arguments taken from scripture, which speak of the distinction that there was between them, as being the result of those divisions, by which the peace and order of the church was broken, and that it was no other than an human constitution.[295] This opinion of Jerom is largely defended by a learned writer, who shews that it is agreeable to the sentiments of other Fathers, who lived before and after him. Thus concerning a pastor, as styled a bishop or presbyter; we shall now consider him as invested in his office, whereby he becomes related to a particular church of Christ. That no one is pastor of the catholic church, has been observed, under a foregoing head[301], wherein we shewed, that the church, when styled catholic, is not to be reckoned the seat of government; and therefore we must consider a pastor as presiding over a particular church; and, in order hereunto, it is necessary that he should be called, or chosen, to take the oversight of it, on their part, and comply with the invitation on his own, and, after that be solemnly invested in, or set apart, to this office.

(1.) We are to consider what more especially respects the church, who have a right to choose, or call those, who are qualified for the work, to engage in this service, and to perform the two branches of the pastoral office, namely, instructing and governing. This is not only agreeable to the laws of society, but is plainly contained in scripture, and appears to have been the sentiment and practice of the church, in the three first centuries thereof. The church’s power of choosing their own officers, is sufficiently evident from scripture. If there were any exception hereunto, it must be in those instances in which there was an extraordinary hand of providence in the appointment of officers over them; but, even then, God sometimes referred the matter to their own choice: thus, when Moses made several persons rulers over Israel, to bear a part of the burden, which before was wholly laid on him, he refers this to their own election, when he says, Take ye wise men, and understanding, and known among your tribes, and I will make them rulers over you, Deut. i. 13. And in the gospel-church, which, at first, consisted of about an hundred and twenty members, Acts i. 15. when an apostle was to be chosen to succeed Judas, they appointed two out of their number, and prayed, that God would signify which of them he had chosen; and, when they had given forth their lots, the lot fell upon Matthias, and he was numbered with the eleven apostles, ver. 23. so we render the words: but if they had been rendered, he was numbered among the eleven apostles, by common suffrage or vote, it would have been more expressive of the sense thereof[302]. Soon after this, we read of the choice of other officers, to wit, deacons in the church, chap. vi. 3. and the apostles say to them, Look ye out among you seven men, whom ye may appoint over this business. And afterwards, in their appointing elders, or pastors, over particular churches, we read of their choosing them by vote or suffrage: thus it is said, in Acts xiv. 23. When they had ordained them elders in every church; so we translate the words[303]; but they might be better rendered, When they had chosen elders in every church by lifting up of the hand. This was, and is, at this day, a common mode of electing persons, either to civil or religious offices.[304] And it might be easily proved from the Fathers, that this was the universal practice of the church in the three first centuries, and not wholly laid aside in following ages, till civil policy, and secular interest usurped and invaded the rights thereof: but this argument having been judiciously managed by Dr. Owen[305], I pass it over, and proceed to consider,

(2.) That a pastor being thus chosen, by the church, and having confirmed his election by his own consent; then follows his being separated, or publicly set apart to this office, with fasting and prayer, which is generally called ordination. This does not, indeed, constitute a person a pastor of a church, so that his election, confirmed by his consent, would not have been valid without it; yet it is not only agreeable to the scripture-rule, but highly expedient, that, as his ministerial acts are to be public, his first entering into his office should be so likewise, and, in order thereunto, that other pastors, or elders, should join in this solemnity; for, though they do not confer this office upon him, yet thereby they testify their approbation of the person, chosen to it; and a foundation is laid for that harmony of pastors and churches, that tends to the glory of God, and the promoting of the common interest. This also fences against several inconveniences which might ensue; since it is possible that a church may chuse a person to be their pastor, whose call to, and qualification for this office may be questioned; and it is natural to suppose, that they would expect that their proceedings herein should be justified and defended by other pastors and churches, and the communion of churches maintained: but how can this be done if no expedient be used to render this matter public and visible, which this way of ordaining or setting apart to the pastoral office does? And they who join herein testify their approbation thereof, as what is agreeable to the rule of the gospel.

This public inauguration, or investiture in the pastoral office, is, for the most part, performed with imposition of hands, which, because it is so frequently mentioned in scripture, and appears to have been practised by the church in all succeeding ages, it will be reckoned, by many, to be no other than a fruitless attempt, if not an offending against the generation of God’s people, to call in question the warrantableness thereof. It is certain, this ceremony was used in the early ages of the church, particularly in public and solemn benedictions: thus Jacob laid his hands on Ephraim and Manasseh, when he blessed them; and also in conferring political offices, Numb. xxvii. 18. Deut. xxiv. 9. It was also used in healing diseases in a miraculous way, 2 Kings v. 11. Mark vii. 32. and it was sometimes used when persons were eminently converted to the Christian faith and baptized, Acts ix. 17. These things are very evident from scripture: nevertheless, it may be observed, that, in several of these instances, it is, and has, for some ages past, been laid aside, by reason of the discontinuance of those extraordinary gifts, which were signified thereby. There was, doubtless, something extraordinary in the patriarchal benediction; as Jacob did not only pray for a blessing on the sons of Joseph, but as a prophet he foretold that the divine blessing, which he spake of, should descend on their posterity; and therefore we don’t read of this ceremony’s being used in the more common instances, when persons, who were not endowed with the spirit of prophecy, put up prayers or supplications to God for others. And though it was sometimes used, as in the instances before-mentioned, in the designation of persons to political offices; yet it was not in those times in which the church of the Jews was under the divine theocracy, and extraordinary gifts were expected to qualify them for the office they were called to perform.

And whereas we frequently read, in scripture of imposition of hands, in the ordination, or setting apart of ministers to the pastoral office, while extraordinary gifts were conferred, and of these gifts being also bestowed on persons who were converted to the Christian faith, and baptized; in these, and other instances of the like nature, this ceremony was used, as a significant sign and ordinance for their faith: but it is certain, that the conferring extraordinary gifts to qualify for the pastoral office, is not now to be expected; therefore it must either be proved, that, besides this, something else was signified, which may be now expected, or else the use thereof, as a significant sign, or an ordinance for our faith, cannot be well defended. And if it be said, that the conferring this office is signified thereby, it must be proved, that they who use the sign, have a right to confer the office, or to constitute a person a pastor of a particular church. If these things cannot easily be proved, then we must suppose that the external action is used, without having in it the nature of a sign, and then it is to be included among those things that are indifferent; and a person’s right to exercise the pastoral office, does not depend on the use; nor, on the other hand, is it to be called in question, by reason of the neglect thereof. But, to conclude this head, if the only thing intended hereby be what Augustin understood to be the meaning of imposition of hands, on those who were baptized in his day, namely, that it was nothing else but a praying over persons[306], I have nothing to object against it: but if more be intended hereby, and especially if it be reckoned so necessary to the pastoral office, that it cannot be acceptably performed without it; this may give just reason for many to except against it.

(3.) We shall now consider the pastor, as discharging his office. This more immediately respects the church to which he stands related, especially in what concerns that branch thereof, which consists in presiding or ruling over them. If there be more elders joined with him, with whom he is to act in concert, this is generally called a consistory, which I cannot think essential to the exercise of that government, which Christ has appointed; though sometimes it may be expedient, as was before observed: but whether there be one, or more, that bear rule in the church, their power is subjected to certain limitations, agreeable to the laws of society, and those in particular which Christ has given to his church. As the nature of the office we are speaking of, does not argue that the church is without any government, or under such a democracy as infers confusion, or supposes that every one has a right to give laws to the whole body; so it has not those ingredients of absolute and unlimited monarchy or aristocracy, as are inconsistent with liberty; and therefore we suppose, that a pastor, and other elders, if such be joined with him, are not to rule according to their own will, or to act separately from the church in the affairs of government, but in their name, and with their consent; and therefore they are generally styled, the instruments by which the church exerts that power which Christ has given it; and accordingly a church, when officers are set over it, is said to be organized. This is called, in scripture, the power of the keys, which, agreeably to the laws of society, is originally in them, and is to be exercised in their name, and with their consent, by their officers; and therefore a pastor, or other elders with him, have no power to act without the consent of the church, in receiving members into, or excluding them from its communion. This I cannot but think to be agreeable to the law of nature, on which the laws of society are founded, as well as the gospel-rule.

I am sensible that many of the reformed churches, who allow that this power is originally in them, conclude notwithstanding, and their practice is consonant hereunto, that it may be consigned over to the pastor and elders, and that this is actually done by them when they chuse them into that office. The principal argument, by which this is generally defended, is, that because they are fit to teach, they are fit to govern, without being directed in any thing that relates thereunto. But the question is not concerning the fitness of persons for it, which is not to be denied; but whether the church ought to divest itself of that power which Christ has given it, especially when it may be exerted without anarchy or confusion; which it certainly may, if this power be not abused, or the due exercise thereof neglected. And, in order hereunto, a church-officer is to prepare matters for the church, that nothing trifling, vain, or contentious may be brought before them; and to communicate them to it, to desire to know their sentiments about them, and to declare, improve, and act pursuant thereunto.

There are, indeed, some branches of the pastoral office, which are to be performed without the church’s immediate direction; such as preaching the word, administring the sacraments, visiting the sick, comforting the afflicted, endeavouring to satisfy them that are under doubts, or scruples of conscience, and excite and encourage them to perform those duties, which their professed subjection to Christ, and their relation to his church, oblige them to.

(4.) We shall now consider pastors, or elders of churches, as employed occasionally in using their best endeavours to assist others in some difficulties, in which their direction is needed or desired. This is what we call a synod, which word is very much disrelished by some in our age; and it were to be wished, that there had been no occasion for this prejudice, from the account we have of the abuses practised by synods and councils in former ages. This gave great uneasiness to Gregory Nazianzen, who complains of confusions, and want of temper which were too notorious in some synods in the age in which he lived[307]. And afterwards we find, that almost all the corruptions that were brought into the church, were countenanced by some synod or other; and many of them assumed to themselves a power of making laws, which were to be received with equal obligation, as though they had been delivered by the immediate inspiration of the Holy Ghost; and a door was opened by them to persecution, so that they have in many instances, taken away not only the religious, but civil rights of mankind. It will therefore be thought strange that I should so much as mention the word; but though I equally detest every thing of this nature, that has been practised by them; yet it is not impossible to treat on this subject in an unexceptionable manner: It is certainly a warrantable practice, founded in the law of nature, for persons who cannot compromise a matter in debate, to desire the advice of others. The same is, doubtless, true in religious matters; therefore we suppose that there may be some matters debated in a church, which cannot be issued among themselves. And in this case, provided it be an affair of importance, it is expedient for them to apply themselves to other churches, to give their advice in this matter by their pastors and elders: If it be some corruption in doctrine that has insinuated itself into it, they may desire to know the sense of others about it, still reserving to themselves a judgment of discretion, without reckoning their decrees infallible; or if it be in matters of conduct, which, through the perverseness of some, and ignorance of others, may be of pernicious tendency, if suitable advice be not given; then it ought to be desired and complied with, so far as it appears to be agreeable to the mind of Christ. This is therefore not only allowable, but very expedient.

I have nothing to say as to the number of persons, to whom this matter may be referred: A multitude of counsellors may sometimes be mistaken, when a smaller number have given better advice; neither have I any thing to allege in defence of œcumenical councils, much less such as have been convened by the usurped power of the bishop of Rome. But we are speaking of a particular church under some difficulties, desiring the advice of as many as they think meet to refer the matter to: or if a Christian magistrate demands the advice of the pastors or elders of churches, in his dominions, in those religious affairs that are subservient to his government, they ought to obey him. These things are altogether unexceptionable: But when ministers give vent to their own passions, and pretend to give a sanction to doctrines that are unscriptural; or if they annex anathemas to their decrees, or enforce them by excommunication, or put the civil magistrate on methods of persecution; this is going beyond the rule, and offering prejudice rather than doing service to the interest of Christ: But when they only signify what is their judgment about some important articles of faith, or church-discipline, or some intricate cases of conscience, in which it is desired; and endeavour to give conviction rather by arguments, than barely their authority, this is not only their duty, but an advantage to the church, as the synod that met at Jerusalem was to the church at Antioch, Acts xv. 31-33.

Thus we have considered the office of a Pastor. It might be expected that we should consider that of a Teacher, which many think to be a distinct officer in the church, as the apostle says, He gave some pastors and teachers, Eph. iv. 11. There are many, who treat on this matter, that suppose a teacher to be a distinct officer from a pastor; but yet when they call him a teaching elder, and allow him to have a part of the government of the church, as well as to be employed in the work of preaching, their method of explaining the nature of this office supposes it to differ little or nothing from that of a pastor, except in name. If they say that the difference consists in that the pastor is superior in honour and degree, to a teacher, and make the latter no more than a provisionary officer in the church, appointed to perform what properly belongs to the pastor, when he is absent, or indisposed, or, for any other reason, desires him to officiate for him; I cannot see reason to conclude that this is the meaning of the word teacher, as mentioned by the apostle; so that whilst they plead for its being a distinct office in the church, and, at the same time, explain it in such a way, there seems to be little else but a distinction without a difference.

As for the opinion of those who think that it was, indeed, a distinct office, but that a teacher was called, by the church, to some other branches of teaching, which the pastor could not well attend to, and that these were such as were styled, by the primitive church, Catechists; this deserves our consideration. We read, in the early ages of the church, of persons who had this office and character: Their work was such as needed those gifts, which our blessed Saviour was pleased to bestow on men, for the propagating his interest in the world, as much as any other; for, whether they preached publicly or no, as the pastor was called to do, their business was not only to instruct the catechumens, who were disposed to embrace the Christian doctrine, but all who were willing to be taught by them; for which end there were public schools erected, which were under the direction, care, and countenance of the church, in which the method of instruction was, by explaining the scriptures, and, in public and set disputations, defending the Christian religion against those who opposed it, by which means many were converted to the Christian faith from among the heathen; and others, who were initiated therein, were, by this means, as well as by public preaching, established and confirmed therein, and thereby qualified for church-communion, and then baptized and joined to the church. Thus we read, in the writings of the Fathers, and church-historians, of several who performed this office with very great reputation and usefulness[308]; and it is thought, by some, to have been not only agreeable to the practice of the church in the apostle’s days, but derived from it; and though it be not so plainly mentioned in scripture, as some other officers are, yet that the apostle refers to it, when he says, Let him that is taught in the word, communicate unto him that teacheth, Gal. vi. 6. that is, Let him that is catechized communicate to the catechist[309]. But this is, at best, but a probable sense of the word, and therefore not sufficient of itself to give ground to conclude, that the apostle intends this when he speaks of teachers, as distinct officers from pastors. However, though, doubtless, the practice of the church, as above-mentioned, in appointing such officers was commendable; yet it does not fully appear, that this is what the apostle intends, though I will not deny it to be a probable conjecture; and I should acquiesce in it, rather than in any other sense of the text that I have hitherto met with, did I not think that the words pastors and teachers might not be as well, if not better, understood, as signifying one and the same office; and therefore I had rather understand them as Jerom and Augustin do[310], q. d. He gave some pastors, to wit, teachers, or pastors that are teachers, or engaged in preaching the gospel, which is the principal branch of their office. And that which gives me farther ground to understand the words in this sense, is, because the apostle, when he enumerates the officers of a church elsewhere, speaks of teachers without any mention of pastors, as it is said, God has set some in the church; first, apostles; secondarily, prophets; thirdly, teachers, 1 Cor. xii. 28. where no mention is made of pastors, as being included in the word teachers; and this is agreeable to what we observed elsewhere,[311] which is all we shall add on this head.

The next officer in a church is a deacon, whose work and business is described as serving tables, Acts vi. 2. that is, the Lord’s table, by providing what is necessary for the Lord’s supper, and assisting in the distribution of the elements. He is also to supply the poor with necessaries, and to take care that the minister may be maintained, and other expenses defrayed; and, in order hereunto, he is to receive the contributions raised by the church for those ends; so that the office is properly secular, though necessary and useful, as subservient to others that are of a spiritual nature. The apostle gives an account of the qualifications of those who are to engage in this office, in 1 Tim. iii. 8-13. in which he speaks of them as persons of an unblemished character, of great gravity and sobriety, and other endowments, which may render them faithful in the discharge of their trust, and exemplary and useful in their station.

In the first age of the church, after the apostles’ days, when it was under persecution, it was the deacon’s work to visit and give necessary relief to the martyrs and confessors: but we do not find that they performed any other branches of service besides this, and those above mentioned; though Tertullian speaks of them, in his time, as being permitted to baptize in the absence of bishops and presbyters,[312] in which they went beyond the scripture-rule, and, after this, they preached; and this practice has been defended by all who plead for diocesan episcopacy unto this day. But the arguments they bring for it, from scripture, are not sufficiently conclusive, when they say, that Stephen and Philip, who were the first deacons, preached; for this they did as evangelists, not as deacons. These indeed, as it is said of the bishop, in 1 Tim. iii. 2. ought to be apt to teach: thus they are described, ver. 9. as holding the mystery of faith in a pure conscience; yet this extends no farther than that they should be fit to edify those, by their instructions, whom they relieved, by giving them a part of the church’s contributions, that, by their conversation, they may do good to their souls, as well as, by what they give them, to their bodies. And when it is farther said, that they who have used the office of a deacon well, purchase to themselves a good degree, and great boldness in the faith, ver. 13. this does not sufficiently prove, as many ancient and modern writers suppose, that this qualifies them for the office of presbyters, since there is no affinity between these two offices; and one cannot, properly speaking, be a qualification for the other: but the good degree is, probably, to be understood of their having great honour in the church, as persons eminently useful to it; and great boldness in the faith, is not boldness in preaching the gospel, but resolution and stedfastness in adhering to the faith, and, in their proper station, defending, and being ready, when called to it, to suffer for it. Thus we have considered the government of the church, and the officers which Christ has appointed in it.[313]

6. The last thing to be considered, is the privileges of the visible church, particularly as the members thereof are said to be under God’s special care and government, and, as the consequence hereof, have safe protection and preservation, whatever opposition they may meet with from their enemies; and they also enjoy communion of saints, and the ordinary means of salvation.

(1.) We shall consider the church, as under the care of Christ. This is the result of his propriety in them, and his having undertaken to do all things for them, as Mediator, that are necessary to their salvation. This care, extended towards them, is called special, and so differs from, and contains in it many privileges, distinct from, and superior to that which is expressed in the methods of his common providence in the world. There are several metaphorical expressions used, in scripture, to denote Christ’s care of, and the particular relation he stands in to his church: thus he is described as their Shepherd, performing those things for them that such a relation imports, Psal. xxiii. 1, 2. and lxxx. 1. Isa. xl. 11. Jer. xxxi. 10. namely, his giving them, in a spiritual sense, rest and safety, gathering, leading, and defending them; and as such he does more for his people, than the shepherd, who, being faithful to his trust, hazards his life; for Christ is expressly said to give his life for his sheep, John x. 11.

Moreover, his care of his church is set forth, by his standing in the relation of a Father to them; which argues his tender and compassionate concern for their welfare, as well as safety, Deut. xxxii. 7. Psal. ciii. 13. Isa. lxiii. 16. Jer. xxxi. 9. Now the care of Christ, extended to his Church, consists,

1st, In his separating them from, and, as it were, gathering them out of the world, or that part of it that lieth in wickedness, as the apostle says, The whole world lieth in wickedness, 1 John v. 19. or, as the word may be rendered, in the wicked one; upon which account it is called, Satan’s kingdom. He gives them restraining grace, brings them under conviction of sin, and humbles them for it; and, by the preaching of the gospel, not only informs them of the way of salvation, but brings them into it.

2dly, By raising up, and spiriting some amongst them for extraordinary service and usefulness in their station, adorning them with those graces, whereby their conversation is exemplary, and they made to shine as lights in the world; and not only in some particular instances, but by a constant succession, filling up the places of those who are removed to a better world, with others, who are added to the church daily, of such as shall be saved.

3dly, His care is farther extended, by fatherly correction, to prevent their ruin and apostacy, which, as the apostle says, is an instance of his love to them Heb. xii. 6, 7. and also of his keeping them from, and in the hour of temptation, Rev. iii, 10. and bruising Satan under their feet, Rom. xvi. 20. and in supporting them under, and fortifying them against the many difficulties, reproaches, and persecutions, they are exposed to in this world, as Moses says, in the blessing of Asher, As thy days, so shall thy strength be; the eternal God is thy refuge, and underneath are the everlasting arms, Deut. xxxiii. 25, 27.

(2.) The visible church is under Christ’s special government. It is a part of his glory, as Mediator, that he is the supreme Head and Lord thereof; and this cannot but redound to the advantage of his subjects, as these we are speaking of are said to be, who profess subjection to him, which is not only their duty, but their peculiar glory, as they are thereby distinguished from the world, and entitled to his special regard. He is their King; and accordingly,

1st, He gives them laws, by which they are visibly governed, so that they are not destitute of a rule of government, any more than of a rule of faith, whereby their peace, order, edification, and salvation, are promoted, and all the advantages, which they receive from the wisdom and conduct of pastors, or other officers, whom he has appointed to go in and out before them, to feed them with knowledge and understanding, Jer. iii. 15. to watch for their souls, Heb. xiii. 17. are all Christ’s gifts, and therefore privileges which the church enjoys, as under his government.

2dly, He protects and preserves them, notwithstanding the opposition of all their enemies; so that whatever attempts have been hitherto made to extirpate or ruin them, have been ineffectual. The church has weathered many a tempest, and had safety, as well as various marks of the divine honour and favour, under all the persecutions, which it has been exposed to; so that, according to our Saviour’s prediction, The gates of hell have not prevailed against it, Matt. xvi. 18. and all these afflictive dispensations of providence are over-ruled for the promoting his own glory, and their spiritual advantage.

(3.) Another privilege, which the church enjoys, is communion of saints. Communion is the consequence of union, and therefore since they are united together as visible saints, they enjoy that communion, which is the result thereof. The apostle speaks of a two-fold fellowship which the church enjoys, their attaining whereof he reckoned the great end and design of his ministry, when he says, That which we have seen and heard declare we unto you, that ye also may have fellowship with us; and truly our fellowship is with the Father, and with his Son Jesus Christ, 1 John i. 3. The former of these is included in church communion; the latter is an honour which God is pleased sometimes to confer on those who are brought into this relation: It is what all are to hope for, though none but they, who are Christ’s subjects by faith, are made partakers of it. However, the communion of saints is, in itself, a great privilege, inasmuch as that a common profession, which they make of subjection to Christ, and the hope of the gospel, which they are favoured with, is a strong motive and inducement to holiness.

And it is not the smallest part of the advantage, which arises from hence, that they are interested in the prayers of all the faithful that are daily put up to God for those blessings on all his churches which may tend to their edification and salvation.

And as to what concerns the members of particular churches, who have communion with one another; there is a great advantage arising from mutual conversation about divine things, and the endeavour, which they are obliged to use to build up themselves in their holy faith, Jude ver. 20. and to consider one another to provoke unto love, and to good works, not forsaking the assembling of themselves together, but exhorting one another, Heb. x. 24, 25. and also the obligations they are under to bear one another’s burdens, and so fulfil the law of Christ, Gal. vi. 2. and to express that sympathy and compassion to each other, under the various afflictions and trials which they are exposed to.

And to this we may add another privilege which they are made partakers of, in that they have communion with one another in the ordinance of the Lord’s supper, in which they hope for and enjoy communion with him, whose death is shewed forth therein, and the benefits thereof applied to them that believe.

(4.) The church is farther said to enjoy the ordinary means of salvation, and the offers of grace to all the members thereof in the ministry of the gospel, by which we are to understand the word preached, and prayer. These are called the ordinary means of salvation, as distinguished from the powerful influences of the Spirit, which are the internal and efficacious means of grace, producing such effects, as infer the right which such have to eternal life. These ordinary means of grace the church is said to partake of. It is for their sake that the gospel is continued to be preached, and a public testimony to the truth thereof is given by them to the world; and, in the preaching thereof, Christ is offered to sinners, and, pursuant thereunto, grace given, whereby the church is increased, and built up by those who are taken out of the world, as God makes these ordinances effectual to answer that end. The duty of waiting on him therein is ours, the success thereof is intirely owing to the divine blessing attending it. These are the privileges that the visible church enjoys.

We might have proceeded to consider those which the members of the invisible church are made partakers of, namely, union and communion with Christ in grace and glory; but these are particularly insisted on in some following answers.

Footnote 257:

εκκλησια.

Footnote 258:

The words επι το αυτο, when used elsewhere, cannot be understood of the place where persons were met, but of the unanimity of those who were engaged in the same action; and therefore it is rendered Simul, in Acts iii. 1. and chap. iv. 26.

Footnote 259:

See his works, Vol. I. Book II. Page 405, & seq.

Footnote 260:

Κατ οικον.

Footnote 261:

See page 432, & seq.

Footnote 262:

It may be observed, that though the learned author before-mentioned gives sufficient evidence, from the Fathers, that there were several places appropriated, and some erected, for divine worship, during the three first Centuries; and he thinks, that whether they were consecrated or no, there was a great degree of reverence paid to them, even at such times, when divine service was not performed in them: Yet he does not produce any proof for this out of the writings of the Fathers, in those Centuries; and it is impossible that he should, for from Eusebius’s account of this matter, it appears that the consecration of churches was first practised in the Fourth Century, [Vid. ejusd. Hist. Eccl. Lib. X. cap. 3.] As for the quotations that Mr. Mede brings from Chrysostom and Ambrose, to prove that reverence was paid to the churches in their times it must be observed, that they lived in the Fourth Century, in which churches being not only appropriated, but consecrated for public worship, it is no wonder to find the Fathers of that age expressing a reverence for them. Nevertheless, it is very evident, from the words of these Fathers here cited, that they intend thereby nothing else but a reverent behaviour, which ought to be expressed by those who come into the church to perform any act of divine worship; and this we are far from denying, whether the external rites of consecration be used or no. As for his quotation taken from Tertulian, who lived in the end of the Second Century it don’t prove that he thought that reverence ought to be expressed to the places of worship, but that the highest reverence ought to be used in the acts of worship, and particularly in prayer, which is an undoubted truth, whether we worship God in the church, or any where else.

Footnote 263:

ערה.

Footnote 264:

The word Church is of Greek derivation. Κυριακον is used by ancient authors for the place of public worship. The old word Kyroike, contracted into Kirk, and softened into church, is a compound of Κυριου οικος. It is of very extensive signification. Church is used generally in our version of the New Testament, for the Greek Εκκλησια.——

The words Εκκλησια in the New, and קהל in the Old Testament, are synonymous. They both proceed from the same root קל, the voice. The meaning of each is assembly—any number of persons met, by previous appointment. The verb, in each language, from which the noun immediately proceeds, is, to call out, to call together, and the noun is that which is so called.

It is, of course, no abuse of language to apply the word to any assembly, great or small, which meets for social or judiciary purposes. The character of the assembly is known from the connexion in which the word is used, and not from the word itself. In this latitude of application, the inspired writers of both Testaments made use of the words קהל and Εκκλησια.

In the Old Testament, the former of these words is applied to a number of idolatrous women—bands of soldiers—the commonwealth of Israel—distinct worshipping congregations—a representative assembly—a council, and, I may add, to other assemblies of every description.

1. The word קהל is used in Jer. xliv. 15. It is applied to a great number of idolatrous women, who, together with their husbands, persisted in their opposition to the command of God by the prophet Jeremiah. It is worthy of being remarked, that the Septuagint, in this instance, renders the word by Συναγωγη. Our translation renders it multitude.

2. It signifies bands of soldiers. Ezek. xxvi. 7. These marched against Tyrus, under the direction of the tyrant Nebuchadnezzar king of Babylon. The Septuagint renders it, as above, synagogues, and the English translators, companies.

3. The word (which, for the sake of the English reader, I shall write KEL,) is used for the whole commonwealth of Israel. That people, called by God, were bound together by a sacred ritual, and all were commanded to keep the passover. Exod. xii. 6. Our translation renders it the whole assembly, and in the Septuagint it is Παν το πληθος.

4. It signifies distinct worshipping societies. Ps. xxvi. 12. In this verse, the Psalmist professes his resolution to honour the institutions of social worship. He had rather accompany the saints to the congregation, than sit in the society of the wicked, ver. 5. In both cases the same Hebrew word is used; the Septuagint use Εκκλησια, and the English translators, congregation. KEL, and Ecclesia, are, with equal propriety, applied to the hateful clubs of the wicked, and to the worshipping assemblies of the saints.

5. The word is also applied to a representative assembly.——

—After the regular organization of the Israelitish commonwealth, although Moses transacted all public business with the chiefs, he is uniformly represented as speaking unto all Israel. This form of speech was not to be misunderstood by the Jews. They had not learned to deny that principle upon which the represented identify with the representative. Deut. xxix. 14, 15, 25. When Moses was about to give his last advice to the Hebrews, he summoned the KEL before him. Deut. xxxi. 30. In this instance, the word unquestionably signifies a representative body. My reasons for considering it so, are,

1. The obvious meaning of the passage. Ver. 29. “Gather unto me all the elders of your tribes—that I may speak these words in their ears.”—ver. 30. “And Moses spake in the ears of all the קהל—the words of this song.” The KEL of Israel are the elders and officers met together.

2. It is impossible it can be otherwise. Moses could not speak in the ears of all Israel, except by representation. No human voice can extend over two millions of men.

3. Upon the principle of representation Moses uniformly acted. He instructed the elders, and the elders commanded the people. Deut. xxvii. 1. “And Moses, with the elders of Israel, commanded the people.” Without multiplying texts, I refer the reader to Exod. xii. 3. “Speak unto all the congregation of Israel”—verse 21. “Then Moses called for all the elders of Israel.” Even in the most solemn acts of religion, the elders represented the whole congregation. Their hands were placed upon the head of the bullock which was offered to make atonement for the whole congregation. Lev. iv. 15. And that the reader may not be without an instance of the use of the word KEL, in the most abstract form which can exist upon the representative principle itself, I refer him to Gen. xxviii. 3. Here it is applied to a single individual. Higher than this, representation cannot be carried. Ver. 1. “Isaac called Jacob, and blessed him”—ver. 3. “That thou mayest be a KEL.” Jacob was a KEL, as the representative@ of a very numerous posterity.

6. The word is used to signify a council—an assembly for deliberation and judgment. Gen. xlix. 6. The patriarch speaks of Simeon and Levi, these two are a KEL. It is, indeed, a representative one. Verse 7. “I will divide them in Jacob, and scatter them in Israel.” This could have been said of the two sons of Jacob, only as including their posterity.

This KEL was however a council. They consulted and determined to destroy the Schechemites. The assembly was a conspiracy. The Septuagint renders the word by Συστασις.

The KEL in which Job cried for redress, could not have been the church of Israel, but a court of Judicature. Job xxx. 28.

Solomon, acquainted with the laws of Israel, must have referred to the power of Judicatures, in detecting crimes, when he spoke of the KEL, in Prov. xxvi. 26. and v. 14.

The KEL, to which Ezekiel refers, xvi. 40. and xxiii. 45-47. cannot be mistaken. The prophet himself expressly says this KEL would sit in judgment, try, and decide, and execute the sentence, upon those who came before them, In these verses, the Septuagint renders the word by Οχλος, and our translation of it is company.

By the law of God, regular courts of jurisprudence were established among the Israelites. In no instance was the whole body of the people to be judges. Deut. xvi. 18. The rulers in each city, the officers of justice, are uniformly called elders, and unto these elders met in council, is every case referred. He must be, indeed, little acquainted with the law given by Moses, who is ignorant of this fact. See Deut. xxi. xxii. and xxv. chapters.

These elders met in council. To them the name Presbytery was applied in latter times. Moses and the prophets use the names KEL and OD-EH. These words are used indiscriminately in the Old Testament. It is to be observed, that they are translated in the Septuagint, generally by ecclesia and synagoga. This phraseology is adopted in the New Testament. The New Testament writers use the Septuagint translation of the scriptures in their quotations from the Old Testament.

Nehemiah summoned before the council the nobles and rulers who transgressed the law. Neh. v. 7. They exacted usury for their money, and are to be tried by the competent authorities. The word קהל, in this verse, we translate assembly, and the Septuagint reads Εκκλησια. Compare Numb. xxxv. 24, with Deut. xix. 12, and it will appear, that the congregation which judicially tried the man-slayer, is the Ecclesia of elders. See also Josh. xx. 4. “He shall declare his cause in the ears of the elders”—ver. 6. “And stand before the congregation for judgment.”

The word Εκκλησια, in the New Testament, is not, any more than its correspondents in the Old, confined in its application to a popular assembly. It signifies a tumultuous mob, Acts xix. 32. and the city council, Acts xix. 39. This sense of the word is justified by the best Greek authors. Consult Passor, who quotes Demosthenes and Suidas, in defence of this application. Hence, the verb Επικαλεο is, in the middle and passive voices, to appeal from an inferior to a superior Judicatory. “Plutarch,” says Parkhurst, “several times applies the verb in the same view.” Acts xxv. 11, 12, 21, 25. See also Chap. xxvi. 32. and xxviii. 19.

In the application of Ecclesia to the christian church, which is the most common use of it in the New Testament, it signifies the whole church militant—all the elect of God—private societies of believers—single organized congregations—several congregations united under a Presbytery—and church rulers met in Judicatory.

1. The church militant is an Ecclesia. Matt. xvi. 18. and Acts ii. 47. “The Lord added to the church daily.”

2. The whole body of elect and redeemed sinners. Eph. v. 25. “Christ also loved the church, and gave himself for it”—ver. 27. “That he might present it to himself a glorious church.”

3. Two or three private Christians, met for prayer and conference, or living together in a family, are an Εκκλησια. Acts xiv. 23. “They had ordained them elders in every church.” The Ecclesia, or Church, existed prior to its organization, by the election and ordination of rulers. It existed, in this sense, even in private houses. Rom. xvi. 5. and Col. iv. 15.

4. The word signifies an organized congregation. Acts xiv. 23. The Ecclesia did not cease to be one, when presbyters were ordained to teach and to rule in the congregation.

5. The word is applied to several congregations regularly presbyterated. There is nothing to render this application improper. It is no abuse, in any language, of a generic term, to apply it to any collection of the individuals belonging to that genus, in a connexion which manifests the restriction. The church of Christ in Philadelphia, is all Christians in that city, although there should be one hundred congregations in it. The church in Corinth, is as intelligible a phrase as the church in the house of Nymphas—The church on earth, or, the church in glory. This application is not only just, but scriptural. The saints in Corinth were one Ecclesia. 1 Cor. i. 2. But in Corinth were several congregations. There were more Ecclesias than one, xiv. 34. Corinth was a city of great extent, wealth, and population. In it were several heathen temples, dedicated to different pagan divinities. There were upwards of a thousand prostitutes attending at the temple of Venus. In this city, Paul met with uncommon success in preaching the gospel. Here he abode nearly two years. Considering the rapidity with which the gospel was then spreading, attended with miraculous power, is it reasonable, that in Corinth there was yet but one congregation of professed Christians? In the present day, without any supernatural, or even uncommon success, it is not singular for a preacher, in a large city, to collect in a few years a congregation of religious professors. At the first sermon of Paul, numbers were converted. After this, the Lord informs him, he has “much people in this city.” Here were several pastors—public officers with a diversity of tongues, suited to the wants of the church; yet, when Paul wrote his epistle, all the congregations, although differing about the merits of their respective founders, are called one Ecclesia. In a similar sense is the word applied to the church at Ephesus, at Antioch, and Jerusalem.

6. Εκκλησια is applied to an assembly of elders. Matt. xviii. 17. The constitution of the Jewish courts is known. Each synagogue had its elders and officers. The inferior courts were subordinate to the Sanhedrim. Never were cases decided by the populace. Our Redeemer spoke in the common language of Judea. He referred to the synagogue court. When translated into Greek, what other name should be given to this Judicatory, than the one given, Ecclesia? There is no misunderstanding of this text, by one who impartially considers the connexion. There are in the church authorized rulers, distinct from the ruled. The rulers, and not the ruled, must ultimately determine controversies. To officers, was committed the power of the keys—the power of binding and loosing; and this Ecclesia, ver. 17., has the power of binding and loosing, ver. 18.—and it may consist even of two or three persons, ver. 20. The whole passage is a directory for the application of ecclesiastic power conferred upon church officers. Ch. xvi. 19. I shall close this note, by a quotation from the lectures of Dr. Campbell, of Aberdeen. It must appear extraordinary from the pen of such a scholar. “But in any intermediate sense between a single congregation and the whole community of Christians, not one instance can be brought of the application of the word Εκκλησια, in sacred writ. If any impartial hearer is not satisfied on this point, let him examine every passage in the New Testament, wherein the word we render church is to be found; let him canvas in the writings of the Old Testament every sentence wherein the correspondent word occurs, and if he find a single passage, wherein it clearly means either the priest-hood, or the rulers of the nation, or any thing that can be called a church representative, let him fairly admit the distinction as scriptural and proper.”

MC’LEOD’S CATECHISM.

Footnote 265:

The Papists, indeed, pretend that there is no other church in the world, but that which they style catholic and visible, of which the bishop of Rome is the head; but we may say, in answer to this vain boast, as it is said concerning the church in Sardis, in Rev. iii. 1. Thou hast a name that thou livest, and art dead. Protestants, though they speak oftentimes of the visible church as one, yet they don’t deny but that there are many particular churches contained in it. See the assembly’s Confession of faith, chap. 25. § 4.

Footnote 266:

Vid. Cypr. de Laps. cap. 1. § 13.

Footnote 267:

See his Works, Vol. I. page 924, 925.

Footnote 268:

These were called בטלנים Otiosi. See Lightfoot’s Works, Vol. I. page 610-613. & Vitring. de Synag. Vet. page 530, & seq. And Lightfoot says, from one of the Talmuds, that there were no less than 460 synagogues in Jerusalem, Vol. I page 363, 370. and that the land was full of them; in which they met every Sabbath, and some other days of the week.

Footnote 269:

See more of this in those pages of Lightfoot before referred to.

Footnote 270:

Προσευχαι, Proseuchæ. Ευκτηρια, προσευκτηρια, Oratoria.

Footnote 271:

See Mede’s Works, Vol. I. Book I. Disc. 8.

Footnote 272:

See Vol. I. page 608.

Footnote 273:

Εν τη προσυεχη του Θεου, in proseucha Dei.

Footnote 274:

See Lightfoot on Acts ii. 5. Vol. I. page 751, 752.

Footnote 275:

See Quest. CLXX. CLXXIV.

Footnote 276:

Imperium in imperio.

Footnote 277:

Αυτοκατακριτος.

Footnote 278:

The former of these Jewish writers call נדוי Niddui; the latter they call חרם Cherem, or שמתא Scammatha, and was performed with several execrations, by which they, as it were, bound them over to suffer both temporal and eternal punishments. See Lightfoot’s Horæ Hebr. & Talmud. in 1 Cor. v. 5.

Footnote 279:

See more on this subject in Vitringa de Synagog. Vet. Pag. 745. and also the form used, and the instrument drawn up, when a person was excommunicated and anathematized, in Selden de jure Nat. & Gent. Lib. IV. cap. 7. and Buxt. Lex. Talm. in voce CHEREM.

Footnote 280:

See an account of the manner of their excommunication, and the curse denounced against them at that time, and the first cause of it, taken from Josephus, and other Jewish writers, in Lightfoot’s Works, Vol. II. Pag. 538-540. and Vol. I. Pag. 599.

Footnote 281:

Vid. Tert. Apol. cap. 39. Summum futuri judicii præjudicium.

Footnote 282:

Vid. Cypr. de Orat. Dom. Timendum est, & orandum, ne dum quis abstentus separatur a Christi corpore, procul remaneat a salute.

Footnote 283:

Vid. Cave’s Prim. Christ. Part. III. cap. 5.

Footnote 284:

Justin Martyr tells the Jews, (Vid. ejusd. Colloq. cum Tryph.) that the church, in his time, had the gift of prophecy; which Eusebius (in Hist. Eccles. Lib. IV. cap. 17.) takes notice of, and, doubtless believed it to be true in fact, though it be very much questioned whether there were any such thing in the fourth century, in which he lived. Gregory Nyssen, and Basil, who lived a little after Eusebius, assert, that there were many miracles wrought in the third century, by Gregory of Neo-cesarea, for which reason he is called Thaumaturgus; though it is not improbable that they might be imposed on in some things, which they relate concerning him, especially when they compare him with the apostles, and ancient prophets, not excepting Moses himself in this respect; and, it is certain, many things are related, of his miracles, which seem too fabulous to obtain credit; yet there is ground enough, from all that they say, to suppose that he wrought some, and that therefore, in his time, they were not wholly ceased. (Vid. Greg. Nyss. in cit. Greg. Thaum. and Basil de Sp. Sanct. cap. 29.) And Origen affirms, that, in his time, the Christians had a power to perform many miraculous cures, and to foretell things to come, (Vid. Lib. I. contr. Cels.) Και ετι ιχνη του αγιου εκεινου Πνευματος παρα χριστιανοις σωζεται εξεπαδουσι δαιμονας και πολλας ιασεισ επιτελουσι και ορωσι τινα κατα το βουλημα του λογου περι μελλοτνων.. If this had not been true, Celsus, who wanted neither malice, nor a will to oppose, would certainly have detected the fallacy. And Tertullian, (Vid. Apologet. cap. 23.) appeals to it for the proof of the Christian religion, offering to lay his life and reputation at stake, if the Christians, when publicly calling upon God, did not cure those who were possessed with devils.

Footnote 285:

“The Αποστολος is an extraordinary ambassador of Christ. He was commissioned for extraordinary purposes. Like the generals of a victorious army, the apostles exercised, in the name of their King, authority throughout all parts of the vanquished empire, until the regular magistracy was organized and fully settled. They have no successors in this respect. The presbyter is fully competent to all ordinary administrations. In relation to such cases, the apostles themselves are no more than presbyters. 1 Pet. v. 1.

Church government is subordinate to evangelic doctrine. The power given to the apostles, was intended solely for subserviency to their preaching. 2 Cor. xiii. 8. Teaching is the highest dignity in the church, because it is the most useful and laborious service. Preaching was the principal work of the apostles. The ambition of prelates has inverted this divine order. Preaching is the meanest service in the popish and episcopal churches. It is merely subservient to the government of bishops and of popes. The bishops exalt the mean above the end. Government is, with them, the principal part of religion. To be in power is more dignified than to edify.

Apostolic authority was founded upon apostolic gifts. God was the author of both, and both were subservient to teaching. None can pretend to a succession of apostolic power, without a succession of the gifts which qualified for it.

The evangelists were extraordinary ministers. As ordained presbyters, they exercised the ordinary power of the pastor. 1 Tim. iv. 14. Their principal work was teaching, and organizing churches, by apostolic direction. The ordinary ministers stood in need of this assistance. They had not, as yet, the New Testament revelation in writing. The evangelists, in part, supplied this defect. Timothy would have been, to the churches which he visited, what the epistles sent to him by Paul, are to us—a directory upon which we may depend.

Επισκοπος is a name of office. It is borrowed from the synagogue חזן, (Chazan, overseer.) Maimonides de Sanhed. Cap. 4. describes him, as ‘the presbyter who labours in word and doctrine.’ Bishop and presbyter, or, as our translation sometimes reads, overseers and elders, are different names of the same officer. Acts xx. 17-28. Presbyter is expressive of the authority, and episcopos, of the duty, of the pastor.

The angel of the church is analogous to the SELIH-JEBUR of the synagogue. The שליח צבור was the minister whose office it was publicly to read and explain the law and the prophets. The duties of the christian minister may be known, by the names given to him in the scriptures. The names which are divinely given to men, are always expressive of some important article of their conduct and character. Presbyter is a term of power, and points out the ruler; pastor points out a public purveyor of spiritual provisions for the church; bishop, the spiritual inspector of the state of the congregation; teacher, the public instructor of the congregation; and angel, the messenger of God to men. All these characters unite in the minister of the gospel. By each of these names is he known in the scriptures.

Διακοηος, and its parent Greek verb, are derived from the Hebrew כהן, to minister. Diaconos, is one who renders a service. It is applied, in the New Testament, to the Redeemer himself. Rom. xv. 8.—To any religious worshipper. John xii. 26.—To women useful in religious concerns. Rom. xvi. 1.—To civil rulers. Rom. xiii. 4.—To all ministers of religion, whether extraordinary as apostles, or ordinary pastors. 1 Cor. iii. 5. Acts i. 14. Col. i. 7.

Every person, public or private, male or female, who renders any service to another, is a deacon. But, besides this general use of the word, it is a term of office, in the church.”

M’LEOD’S ECCL. CAT.

Footnote 286:

See Quest. clviii. clix.

Footnote 287:

συμπρεσβυτερας.

Footnote 288:

επισκοπουντες.

Footnote 289:

Legatus.

Footnote 290:

See Calderwood Altar. Damsc. Jameson’s fundamentals of the hierarchy examined; Forrester’s hierarchical bishop’s claim, &c. and Clarkson’s no evidence for diocesan churches; and his diocesan churches not yet discovered, &c.

Footnote 291:

See Clarkson’s primitive episcopacy, chap. 7. in which he observes, that it was decreed, by some councils, that they should continue in this state of probation, at least, two or three years; and that Augustin continued so long a Catechumen, as appears from the account that Father gives of his age, when converted to Christianity, and afterwards received into the church by Ambrose.

Footnote 292:

See Primitive Episcopacy, Page 189-197.

Footnote 293:

See Clarkson’s Primitive Episcopacy, chap. 8. in which he refers to several places, in the writings of that excellent Father, to the same purpose.

Footnote 294:

See Stillingfleet Iren. Page 276.

Footnote 295:

“More than fourteen hundred years ago the superiority of the Prelates to Presbyters was attacked, in the most direct and open manner, as having no authority from our Lord Jesus Christ. The banner of opposition was raised not by a mean and obscure declaimer; but by a most consummate Theologian. ‘By one who, in the judgment of Erasmus, was, without controversy by far the most learned and most eloquent of all the Christians; and the prince of Christian Divines.’[296]—By the illustrious Jerome.[297]

Thus he lays down both doctrine and fact relative to the government of the church, in his commentary on Titus i. 5.

That thou shouldest ordain Presbyters in every city, as I had appointed thee.[298]—What sort of Presbyters ought to be ordained he shows afterwards,—If any be blameless, the husband of one wife, &c. and then adds, for a bishop must be blameless as the steward of God, &c. A Presbyter, therefore, is the same as a Bishop: and before there were, by the instigation of the devil, parties in religion; and it was said among different people, I am of Paul, and I of Apollos, and I of Cephas, the churches were governed by the joint counsel of the Presbyters. But afterwards, when every one accounted those whom he baptized as belonging to himself and not to Christ, it was decreed throughout the whole world, that one, chosen from among the Presbyters, should be put over the rest, and that the whole care of the church should be committed to him, and the seeds of schisms taken away.

“Should any one think that this is my private opinion, and not the doctrine of the scriptures, let him read the words of the apostles in his epistle to the Philippians; ‘Paul and Timotheus, the servants of Jesus Christ, to all the saints in Christ Jesus which are at Philippi, with the bishops and deacons,’ &c. Philippi, is a single city of Macedonia; and certainly in one city there could not be several bishops as they are now styled; but as they, at that time, called the very same persons bishops whom they called Presbyters, the Apostle has spoken without distinction of bishops as Presbyters.

“Should this matter yet appear doubtful to any one, unless it be proved by an additional testimony; it is written in the acts of the Apostles, that when Paul had come to Miletum, he sent to Ephesus and called the Presbyters of that church, and among other things said to them, ‘take heed to yourselves and to all the flock in which the Holy Spirit hath made you Bishops.’ Take particular notice, that calling the PRESBYTERS of the single city of Ephesus, he afterwards names the same persons BISHOPS.” After further quotations from the epistle to the Hebrews, and from Peter, he proceeds: “Our intention in these remarks is to show that, among the ancients, Presbyters and Bishops were THE VERY SAME. But that BY LITTLE AND LITTLE, that the plants of dissensions might be plucked up, the whole concern was devolved upon an individual. As the Presbyters, therefore, KNOW that they are subjected, BY THE CUSTOM OF THE CHURCH, to him who is set over them; so let the Bishops know, that they are greater than Presbyters MORE BY CUSTOM, than by ANY REAL APPOINTMENT of CHRIST.”

He pursues the same argument, with great point, in his famous Epistle to Evagrius, asserting and proving from the Scriptures, that in the beginning and during the Apostles’ days, a Bishop and a Presbyter were the same thing. He then goes on: “As to the fact, that AFTERWARDS, one was ELECTED to preside over the rest, this was done as a remedy against schism; lest every one drawing his proselytes to himself, should rend the church of Christ. For even at Alexandria, from the Evangelist Mark to the Bishops Heraclas and Dionysius, the Presbyters always chose one of their number, placed him in a superior station, and gave him the title of Bishop: in the same manner as if an army should MAKE an emperor; or the deacons should choose from among themselves, one whom they knew to be particularly active, and should call him ARCH-DEACON. For, excepting ordination, what is done by a Bishop, which may not be done by a Presbyter? Nor is it to be supposed, that the church should be one thing at Rome, and another in all the world besides. Both France and Britain, and Africa, and Persia, and the East, and India, and all the barbarous nations worship one Christ, observe one rule of truth. If you demand authority, the globe is greater than a city. Wherever a Bishop shall be found, whether a Rome, or Eugubium, or Constantinople, or Rhegium, or Alexandria, or Tanis, he has the same pretensions, the same priesthood.”[299]

Here is an account of the origin and progress of Episcopacy, by a Father whom the Episcopalians themselves admit to have been the most able and learned man of his age; and how contradictory it is to their own account, the reader will be at no loss to perceive, when he shall have followed us through an analysis of its several parts.

1. JEROME expressly denies the superiority of Bishops to Presbyters, by divine right. To prove his assertion on this head, he goes directly to the scriptures; and argues, as the advocates of parity do, from the interchangeable titles of Bishop and Presbyters; from the directions given to them without the least intimation of difference in their authority; and from the powers of Presbyters, undisputed in his day.

2. JEROME states it as an historical fact, that, in the original constitution of the church, before the devil had as much influence as he acquired afterwards, the churches were governed by the joint counsels of the Presbyters.

3. JEROME states it as an historical fact, that this government of the churches, by Presbyters alone, continued until, for the avoiding of scandalous quarrels and schisms, it was thought expedient to alter it. “Afterwards,” says he, “when every one accounted those whom he baptized as belonging to himself, and not to Christ, it was decreed throughout the whole world, that one, chosen from among the Presbyters, should be put over the rest, and that the whole care of the church should be committed to him.”

4. JEROME states it as an historical fact, that this change in the government of the church—this creation of a superior order of ministers, took place, not at once, but by degrees—“Paulatim,” says he, “by little and little.” The precise date on which this innovation upon primitive order commenced, he does not mention; but he says positively, that it did not take place till the factious spirit of the Corinthians had spread itself in different countries, to an alarming extent. “In populis,” is his expression. Assuredly, this was not the work of a day. It had not been accomplished when the apostolic epistles were written, because Jerome appeals to these for proof that the churches were then governed by the joint counsels of Presbyters; and it is incredible that such ruinous dissensions, had they existed, should not have been noticed in letters to others beside the Corinthians. The disease indeed, was of a nature to spread rapidly; but still it must have time to travel. With all the zeal of Satan himself, and of a parcel of wicked or foolish clergymen to help him, it could not march from people to people, and clime to clime, but in a course of years. If Episcopacy was the apostolic cure for schism, the contagion must have smitten the nations like a flash of lightning. This would have been quite as extraordinary as an instantaneous change of government:—No: the progress of the mischief was gradual, and so, according to Jerome, was the progress of the remedy which the wisdom of the times devised.[300] We agree with them, who think that the experiment introduced more evil than it banished.

5. JEROME states as historical facts, that the elevation of one Presbyter over the others, was a human contrivance; was not imposed by authority, but crept in by custom;—and that the Presbyters of his day, knew this very well. As, therefore, says he, the Presbyters KNOW that they are subjected to their superior by CUSTOM, so let the bishops know that they are above the Presbyters, rather by the CUSTOM OF THE CHURCH, than by the Lord’s appointment.

6. JEROME states it as an historical fact, that the first bishops were made by the Presbyters themselves; and consequently they could neither have, nor communicate any authority above that of Presbyters. “Afterwards,” says he, “to prevent schism, one was elected to preside over the rest.” Elected and commissioned by whom? By the Presbyters: for he immediately gives you a broad fact which it is impossible to explain away. “At Alexandria,” he tells you, “from the evangelist Mark to the Bishops Heraclas and Dionysius,” i.e. till about the middle of the third century, “the Presbyters always chose one of their number, ”placed him in a superior station, and gave him the title of Bishop.“

CHRISTIAN’S MAGAZINE.

Footnote 296:

We quote the words of one who was assuredly no friend to our cause, vid. Cave, His. Litt. Script: Eccles. p 171. Ed 1720. Fol.

Footnote 297:

Prosper, who was nearly his cotemporary, calls him magister mundi: i. e. the teacher of the world. Ib.

Footnote 298:

“Qui qualis Presbyter debeat ordinari, in consequentibus disserens hoc ait: Si quis est sine crimine, unius uxoris vir,” et cætera: postea intulit, “Oportet. n. Episcopum sine crimine esse, tanquam Dei dispensatorem.” Idem est ergo Presbyter, qui et Episcopus, et antequam diaboli instinctu, studia in religione fierent, et diceretur in populis: “Ego sum Pauli, ego Apollo, ego autem Cephæ:” communi Presbyterorum consilio ecclesiæ gubernabantur. Postquam vero unusquisque eos, quos baptizaverat, suos putabat esse, non Christi: in toto orbe decretum est, ut unus de Presbyteris electus superponeretur cœteris, ad quem omnis ecclesiaœ cura pertineret et schismatum semina tollerentur. Putet aliquis non scripturarum, sed nostram, esse sententiam Episcopum et Presbyterum unum esse; et aliud ætatis, aliud esse nomen officii: relegat Apostoli ad Philipponses verba dicentis: Paulus et Timotheus servi Jesu Christi, omnibus sanctis in Christo Jesu, qui sunt Philippis, cum Episcopis et Diaconis, gratia vobis et pax, et reliqua. Philippi una est urbs Macedoniæ, et certe in una civitate plures ut nuncupantur, Episcopi esse non poterant. Sed quia eosdem Episcopos illo tempore quos et Presbyteros appellabant, propterea indifferenter de Episcopis quasi de Presbyteris est locutus. Adhuc hoc alicui videatur ambiguum, nisi altero testimonio comprobetur. In Actibus Apostolorum scriptum est, quod cum venisset Apostolus Miletum, miserit Ephesum, et vocaverit Presbyteros eccslesiæ ejusdem, quibus postea inter cætera sit locutus: attendite vobis, et omni gregi in quo vos Spiritus sanctus posuit Episcopos, pascere ecclesiam Domini quam acquisivit per sanguinem suum. Et hoc diligentius observate, quo modo unius civitatis Ephesi Presbyteros vocans, postea eosdem Episcopos dixerit—Hæc propterea, ut ostenderemus apud veteres eosdem fuisse Presbyteros quos et Episcopos. Paulatim vero, ut dissensionum plantaria evellerentur, ad unum omnem solicitudinem esse delatam.—Sicut ergo Presbyteri sciunt se ex ecclesiœ consuetudine ei, qui sibi propositus fuerit, esse subjectos, ita Episcopi noverint se magis consuetudine quam dispositionis dominicœ veritate, Presbyteris esse majores. Hieronymi Com: in Tit: I. 1. Opp. Tom. VI. p. 168, ed. Victorii, Paris, 1623. Fol.

Footnote 299:

Vid. Blondel. Apol. pro Sent. Hieron.

Footnote 300:

Our opponents, who contend that nothing can be concluded from the promiscuous use of the scriptural titles of office, are yet compelled to acknowledge that Bishop and Presbyter were afterwards separated and restricted, the former to the superior, and the latter to the inferior order of ministers. We would ask them when and why this was done? If it was not necessary to distinguish these officers by specific titles in the apostles’ day, what necessity was there for such a distinction afterwards? The church might have gone on, as she began, to this very hour; and what would have been the harm? Nay, there was a necessity for the distinction; and Jerome has blown the secret. When one of the Presbyters was set over the heads of the others, there was a new officer and he wanted a name. So they appropriated the term Bishop to him; and thus avoided the odium of inventing a title unknown to the scripture. The people, no doubt, were told that there was no material alteration in the scriptural order; and hearing nothing but a name to which they had always been accustomed, they were the less startled.

Footnote 301:

See Page 522, ante. Some, indeed, choose to say, that persons that stand more immediately related to their respective churches, are pastors in the catholic church, though not of it; which, if the words be rightly understood, does not militate against what we assert. Ο που δι ο ποιμην εστιν εκει ως προβατα ακολουθειτε. Ignat. epist. ad Philad. p. 42.

Footnote 302:

Συνκατεψηφισθη μετα των ενδεκα αποστολων, which Beza renders, Communibus calculis allectus est cum undecem Apostolis.

Footnote 303:

Χειροτονησαντες αυτοις πρεσβυτερους κατ εκκλησιαν, Cum ipsi per suffragia creassent per singulas ecclesias Presbyteros. The learned Dr. Owen, in his True Nature of a Gospel-church, &c. Page 68-71. proves that the word χειροτονεω, in several Greek writers, is used to signify the choice of a person to office by suffrage, or vote, which was done by lifting up the hand. And he observes, that all our old English translations render the words, in this text, ordaining or creating elders by the suffrage of the disciples. And he farther observes, that the word is but once more used in the New Testament, viz. in 2 Cor. viii. 19. where it is rendered, he was chosen, &c. See more to this purpose in the place but now mentioned.

Footnote 304:

Χειροτονεω signifies, to hold out the hand. It is compounded of Χειρ, the hand, and Τεινω, to extend. The action, holding out the hand, is expressive of choice and resolution. It marks a decision of the will, whether intimated or executed.

The word προχειροτονεω, is used to signify divine appointment. Acts x. 41. χειροτονεω, Human choice, however expressed. 2 Cor. viii. 19. And 3dly, it signifies to elect to office, by holding up the right hand. “At Athens, some of the magistrates were called Χειροτονητοι, because they were elected by the people in this manner.” Parkhurst.

The right of choosing spiritual rulers, is in the christian people; the power of ordination, in those who are already ordained. Χειροτονησαντες, Acts xiv. 23, embraces election and consequent ordination of elders in the church.

The hand is the instrument of power. Χειρ is used in scripture for ministerial action. Acts xiv. 3. Luke iv. 11.

Hence, imposition of hands is a communication of power. This significant action was known to the patriarchs. Gen. xlviii. 14.

The presbyters of the synagogue were ordained by the laying on of hands. In its scriptural usage, this action is universally expressive of some communication from him who lays on the hand, to him upon whom it is laid. In any other sense, it is a common, and not a religious action.

1. It is a mean of communicating bodily vigour. Mark vi. 5.

2. It is a communication of special blessing. Gen. xlviii. 14. Mark x. 16.

3. It is a mean of imparting the power of miracles—the gifts of the Holy Ghost. Acts viii. 17.

4. And it is a communication of ministerial authority. Numb. xxvii. 18. 23. Deut. xxxiv. 9. 1 Tim. v. 22. Physical strength, special blessing, miraculous power, and moral authority, have, according to divine appointment, been communicated by the laying on of hands. These things have also been otherwise communicated. God selects means adequate to the end.

All the communications mentioned in scripture as made by the imposition of hands, are of an extraordinary kind, except one—that of authority. This is alone capable of being regulated by ordinary agency.

M’LEOD’S ECCL. CAT.

Footnote 305:

See the True Nature of a Gospel church, Page 78-83. where it appears, from Ignatius, Tertullian, Origen, and Cyprian, that this was practised in the three first centuries; and from Blondel’s Apology, which he refers to, that it was continued in some following ages.

Footnote 306:

Vid. Aug. de Bapt. contr. Donat. Lib. III. cap. 6. Quid est aliud manus impositio quam oratio super hominem?

Footnote 307:

Vid. Greg. Naz. Epist. 42. ad Procop.

Footnote 308:

Near the latter end of the second century, Pantænus was a celebrated catechist, in the school supported by the church at Alexandria; and Clemens Alexandrinus was his first scholar, and afterwards succeeded him in the work of a teacher; and Origen was Clement’s scholar, and was afterwards employed in the same work in that school. And, in the fourth century, Athanasius, who strenuously defended the faith, in the council of Nice, against Arius, had his education in the same school; and Didymus, who flourished about the middle of that century, was a catechist therein, and Jerom and Ruffinus were his scholars.

Footnote 309:

So the vulgar Latin translation renders the word Κατηκουντι, Ei qui se catechizat.

Footnote 310:

Vid. Hieron. in Ephes. iv. 11. Non ait alios pastores, and alios magistros; sed alios pastores, et Magistros, ut qui pastor est, esse debeat & magister; nec in ecclesiis pastoris sibi nomen assumere, nisi posset docere quos pascit. & Aug. epist. 59. pastores & doctores eosdem puto esse, ut non alios pastores alios doctores intelligamus, sed ideo cum prædixisset pastores subjunxisse doctores ut intelligerent pastores ad officium suum pertinere doctrinam.

Footnote 311:

The particle και seems to be exegetical, and ought to be rendered even. See the note in Vol. I, page 318. The words are, εδωκε τους ποιμηνας και διδασκαλους.

Footnote 312:

Vid. Tertull. de bapt. baptizandi habet jus episcopus, doctrinæ presbyteri & diaconi.

Footnote 313:

Spotted a typo or a problem in this chapter? Tell us