ON IMPORTANT THEOLOGICAL CONTROVERSIES.

CHAPTER CONCERNING GODS MORAL GOVERNMENT. A FUTURE STATE, AND THE IMMORTALITY OF THE SOUL. 1. The Creator of the world is doubtless also the Governor of it. He that had power to give being to the world, and set all the parts of it in order, has doubtless power to dispose of the world, to continue the order he has constituted, or to alter it. He that first gave the laws of nature, must have all nature in his hands; so that it is evident God has the world in his hands, to dispose of as he pleases. And, as God is able, so he is inclined, to govern the world. For, as he is an intelligent being, he had some end in what he did, otherwise he did not act as a voluntary agent in making the world.

That being never acts voluntarily that has no end in what he does, and aims at nothing at all in it. Neither God nor man is properly said to make any thing that necessarily or accidentally proceeds from them, but that only which is voluntarily produced. Besides, we see in the particular parts of the world, that God had a particular end in their formation. They are fitted for such an end. By which it appears, that the Creator did act as a voluntary agent, proposing final causes in the work of creation; and is that made the particular parts for certain ends, doubtless made the whole for a certain end. And, if God made the world for some end, doubtless he will choose to have this world disposed of to answer that end. For his proposing the end, supposes, that he chooses it should be obtained. Therefore, it follows, that God will choose to take care that the world be disposed of to the obtaining of his own ends, which is the same thing as his choosing to have the government of the world, And it is manifest, in fact, that God is not careless how the affairs and concerns of the world he has made proceed, because he was not careless of this matter in the creation itself; as it is apparent, by the manner and order in which things were created, that God, in creating, took care of the future progress and state of things in the world. This being established, I now proceed to show, that it must be, that God maintains a moral government over the world of mankind. 2. If it be certain, that God is concerned, and does take care, how things proceed in the state of the world he has made, then he will be especially concerned how things proceed in the state of the world of mankind.

Mankind are the principal part of the visible creation. They have understanding, are voluntary agents, and can produce works of their own will, design, and contrivance, as God does. And the Creator looks upon them as the principal part of his visible creation, as is manifest, because he hath set them at the head of his creation. The world is evidently made to be a habitation for man, and all things about him are surbordinated to his use.

Now, if God be careful how the world that he has made be regulated, that His end may be answered, and that it may not be in vain, He will be especially careful of this concerning the principal part of it, and in the same proportion that it is principal or superior in his own account to the rest.

The more God has respect to any part of the world he has made, the more concerned he will be about the state of that part. But, it is manifest by the creation itself, that God has more respect or regard to man, than to any other part of the visible creation; because he has evidently made and fitted other parts to man’s use. And therefore God will not leave the world of mankind to themselves, without taking any care to govern and order their state. It is evident, by the manner in which God has formed and constituted other things, that he has respect to beauty, good order and regulation, proportion and harmony; so, in the system of the world, in the seasons of the year, in the formation of plants, and of the various parts of the human body. Surely, therefore, he will not leave the principal part of the creation, about the state of which he is evidently, in fact, chiefly concerned, without making any proper provision for its being in any other than a state of deformity, discord, and the most hateful and dreadful confusion. 3. By what has been already said, God is most concerned about the state and government of that which is highest in his creation, and which He values most; and so he is principally concerned about the ordering the state of mankind, which is a part of the creation that he has made superior, and that he values most: and therefore, in like manner, it follows, that He is principally concerned about the regulation of that which he values most in men, viz. what appertains to his intelligence and voluntary acts. If there be any thing in the principal part of the creation, that the Creator values more than other parts, it must be that wherein it is above them, or, at least, something wherein it differs from them. But the only thing wherein men differ from the inferior creation, is intelligent perception and action. This is that in which the Creator has made-man to differ from the rest of the creation, and by which he has set him over it, and by which he governs the inferior creatures, and uses them for himself; and therefore it must needs be, that the Creator should be chiefly concerned that the state of mankind should be regulated according to his will, with respect to what appertains to him as an intelligent, voluntary creature. Hence it must be, that God does take care that a good moral government should be maintained over men; that his intelligent, voluntary acts should be all subject to rules; and that with respect to them all, he should be the subject of judicial proceeding. For unless this be, there is no care taken that the state of mankind, with respect to their intelligent, voluntary acts, should be regulated at all; but all things will be remedilessly in the utmost deformity, confusion, and ruin. The world of mankind, instead of being superior, will be the worse, and the more hateful, and the more vile and miserable, for having the faculties of reasons and will; and this highest part of the creation will be the lowest, and infinitely the most confused, deformed, and detestable, without any provision for rectifying its evils. And the God of order, peace, and harmony, that constituted the inferior parts of the world, which he has subjected to man, and made subservient to him, in such decency, beauty, and harmony, will appear to have left this chief part of his work, and the end of all the rest, to the reign of everlasting discord, confusion, and ruin; contradicting and conflicting with its own nature and faculties; having reason, and yet acting in all things contradictory to it; being men, but yet beasts; setting sense above reason; improving reason only as a weapon of mischief and destruction of God’s workmanship. 4. I would again argue, that God must maintain a moral government over mankind, thus: — It is evident, that it was agreeable to the Creator’s design, that there should be some moral government maintained amongst men; because, without any, either in nations, provinces, towns, or families, and also without any divine government over the whole, the world of mankind could not subsist, but would destroy itself. Men would be not only much more destructive to each other, than any kind of animals are to their own species, but a thousand times more than any kind of beasts are to those of any other species. Therefore, the nature that God has given all mankind, and the circumstances in which he has placed them, lead all, in all ages throughout the habitable world, into moral government. And the Creator doubtless intended this for the preservation of this highest species of creatures; otherwise he has made much less provision for the defence and preservation of this species, than of any other. There is no kind of creature that he has left without proper means for its own preservation.

But unless man’s own reason, to be improved in moral rule and order, be the means he has provided for the preservation of man, he has provided him with no means at all. Therefore, it is doubtless the original design of the Creator, that there should be moral subordination amongst men, and that he designed there should be heads, princes, or governors, to whom honour, subjection, and obedience should be paid. Now, this strongly argues, that the Creator himself will maintain a moral government over the whole. For, without this, the preservation of the species is bunt very imperfectly provided for. If men have nothing but human government to be a restraint upon their lusts, and have no rule or judgment of an universal omniscient governor to be a restraint upon their consciences, still they are left in a most woeful condition; and the preservation and common benefit of the species, according to its necessities, and the exigencies of its place, nature, and circumstances in the creation, is in nowise provided for, as the preservation and necessities of other species are.

Now, is it reasonable to think, that the Creator would so constitute the circumstances of mankind, that some particular persons, that have only a little image and shadow of his greatness and power over men, should exercise it in giving forth edicts, and executing judgment; and that he who is above all, and the original of all, should exercise no power in this way himself, when mankind stand in so much more need of such an exercise of his power, than of the power of human governors? — He has infinitely the greatest right to exercise the power of a moral governor, if he pleases. His relation to man as his Creator, most naturally leads to it. He is infinitely the most worthy of that respect, honour, and subjection that is due to a moral governor. He has infinitely the best qualifications of a governor, being infinitely wise, powerful, and holy, and his government will be infinitely the most effectual to answer the ends of government. 5. It is manifest, that the Creator of the world, in constituting human moral governments among men, has, in that constitution, had great respect to those qualifications, that relation, and those rights and obligations, in those whom he has appointed to be rulers, and in putting others under their moral government, which he has in himself in a vastly more eminent degree. As particularly, in the government of parents over their children, which of all other kinds of human moral government is most evidently founded in nature, and which the preservation of the species doth most immediately require. Here God hath set those to be moral rulers, who are the wiser and stronger, and has appointed those to be in subjection who are less knowing, and weaker, and have received being from their rulers, and are dependent, preserved, and maintained. Would not he therefore maintain moral government himself over mankind, who is their universal father, their universal preserver, who maintains all, and provides all with food and raiment, and all the necessaries and enjoyments of life, and is infinitely wiser and stronger than they? Would not he maintain a moral government over men, who need his government, as children need the government of their parents, and who are no more fit to be left to themselves in the world without his rules, directions, authority, promises, threatenings, and judgment, than children are fit to be left to themselves in a house? 6. As man is made capable of knowing his Creator, so he is capable of a high esteem of his perfections, his power, wisdom, and goodness. He is capable of a proper esteem of God for his wise, excellent, and wonderful works, which he beholds; and for their admirable contrivance, which appears in so excellently ordering all things; and of gratitude to him for all the goodness of which he himself is the subject: or, on the contrary, of slighting and despising him, and hating him, finding fault with his works, reproaching him for them, slighting all his goodness which he receives from him; yea, hating him or ordering things in his providence to him us he has done, and cursing and blaspheming him for it.

Now, it is unreasonable to suppose, that God should be an indifferent spectator of those things in his creature made in his own image, and made superior to all other creatures; and in a creature that he values above all the rest of the creation. It cannot be equally agreeable to him, whether man gives him proper esteem, love, honour, and gratitude; or, on the contrary, unreasonably despises, hates, and curses him. And if he be not an indifferent spectator of these things, then he will not act us a perfectly indifferent spectator, and wholly let men alone, and order things in no respect differently for those ends one way or other. But so it must be, of God maintains no moral government over mankind. 7. As man is made capable of knowing his Creator, so he is capable of knowing his will in many things, i.e. he is capable of knowing his ends in this and the other works which he beholds. For it is this way principally that he comes to know there is a God, even by seeing the final causes of things; by seeing that such and such things are plainly designed and contrived for such and such ends; and therefore he is capable of either complying with the will of his Creator, or opposing it. He is capable of falling in with God’s ends, and what he sees his Creator aim at, and cooperating with him, or of setting himself against the Creator’s designs. It is manifest, that it is the Creator’s design, that parents should nourish their children, and that children should be subject to their parents. If a man therefore should murder his children, or if children should rise up and murder their parents, they would oppose the Creator’s aims. So if men use the several bodily organs to quite contrary purposes to those for which they were given, and if they use the faculties of their own minds to ends quite contrary to those for which they were fitted, (for doubtless they were given and fitted for some end or other,) he may perversely use his dominion over the creatures against the ends to which they were given.

For, however far we suppose man may be from being capable of properly frustrating his Creator, yet he is capable of showing that his will is contrary to his Creator’s ends. He may oppose his Creator in his will he may dislike God’s ends, and seek others. Now, the Creator cannot be an indifferent spectator of this; for it is a contradiction to suppose, that opposition to his will and aims should be as agreeable to him in itself, as complying with his will. And if he is not an indifferent spectator, then he will not act as such, and so he must maintain a moral government over mankind. 8. This argument is peculiarly strong, as it respects man’s being capable of falling in with or opposing God’s ends in his own creation, and his endowing him with faculties above the rest of the world, It is exceeding manifest concerning mankind, that God must have made them for some end; not only as it is evident that God must have made the world in general for some end, and as man is an intelligent voluntary agent; but as it is especially manifest from fact, that God has made mankind for some special end. For it is apparent, in fact, that God has made the inferior parts of the world for some end, and that the special end he made them for, is to subserve the benefit of mankind. Therefore, above all, may it be argued, that God has made mankind for some end. If an artificer accomplishes some great piece of workmanship, very complicated, and with a vast variety of parts, but the whole is so contrived and connected together, that there is some particular part which-all the other parts are to subserve, we should well conclude that the workman had some special design to serve by that part, and that his peculiar aim in the whole, was what he intended should be obtained by that part. Now, man, the principal part of the creation, is capable of knowing his Creator, and is capable of discerning God’s ends in the formation of other things; therefore, doubtless, since God discovers to him the ends for which he has made other things, it would be very strange if he should not let him know the end for which he himself is made, or for which he had such distinguishing faculties given him, whereby he is set above other parts of the creation. Therefore, in the use of his own faculties, he must either fall in with the known design of the Creator in giving them, or thwart it. He must either co-operate with his Creator, as complying with the end of his own being, or wittingly set himself as his enemy, Of this the Creator cannot be an indifferent spectator; and therefore, by what was said before, must maintain moral government over mankind. 9. It may be argued, that God maintains a moral government over the world of mankind, from this, that the special end of the being of man is something wherein he has to do with his Creator. The special end of the brute creation is something wherein they are concerned with men. But man’s special end is some improvement or use of his faculties towards God. For the special end for which God made mankind, is something very diverse and very superior to those ends for which he made any part of the inferior creation; because God has made man very different from them. But man’s special end does not respect any other parts of the visible creation.

All these are below him, and all, as we observed before, are made for him, to be subservient to his use. Their special end respects him; but his special end does not respect them. For, this is unreasonable in itself: if they are in their formation and end subordinated to him, and subjected to him, then the Maker sets a greater value on him than them, and therefore he has not made him for them. For that would be to suppose them most valuable in the eves of their Maker, And it is manifest, in fact, that the being of mankind does not subserve the benefit of the inferior creatures, any farther than is just necessary to turn them to his own use, and s end them in it.

To this we may add, that the happiness of the greater part of mankind, in their worldly enjoyments, is not great enough, or durable enough, to prove that the end of all things in the whole visible universe is only that happiness. - Therefore, nothing else remains, no other supposition is possible, but that man’s special end is something wherein he has immediately to do with his Creator. 10. If God has made men above other creatures, with capacities superior to them, for some special end, for which other creatures are not made, that special end must be something peculiar to them, for which they are capacitated and fitted by those superior faculties: Now, the greatest thing that men are capacitated for, by their faculties, more than the beasts, is, that they are capable of having intercourse with their Creator, as intelligent and voluntary agents. They are capable of knowing, esteeming, and loving him, and capable of receiving instructions and commands from him, and capable of obeying and serving him, if he be pleased to give commands, and make a revelation of his mind. Surely this is not without some end. He that has done nothing in the inferior world in vain, has not given man this capacity in vain. The sun has not its light given it without a final cause; and shall we suppose, that mankind has this light of the knowledge of their Creator without a final cause?

Thus, it is evident, that the special end for which God has made man, is something wherein he has intercourse with his Creator, as an intelligent, voluntary agent. Hence, the consequence is certain, that mankind are subject to God’s moral government. For there can be no such thing maintained, as a communication between God and man, as between intelligent, voluntary agents, without moral government. For in maintaining communication or converse, one must yield to the other, must comply with the other; there must be union of wills; one must be clothed with authority, the other with submission. If God has made man to converse with himself, he is not indifferent how he is conversed with. One manner of behaviour must be agreeable to his will, and another not; and therefore God cannot act as indifferent in this matter. He cannot let man alone, to behave toward him just as he pleases; therefore there must be moral government. God cannot be indifferent, whether he is respected and honoured, or is contemned and hated. 11. Now as the consequence of the whole, I would infer two things: 1. A future state of rewards and punishments. For, unless there be such a state, it will certainly follow, that God, in fact, maintains no moral government over the world of mankind. For, otherwise, it is apparent, that there is no such thing as rewarding or punishing mankind, according to any visible rule, or indeed, according to any order or method whatsoever. Without this, there may be desires manifested, but there can be no proper laws established, and no authority maintained.

Nothing is more manifest, than that in this world there is no such thing as a regular, equal disposing of rewards and punishments of men according to their moral estate. There is nothing in God’s disposals toward men in this world, to make his distributive justice and judicial equity visible, but all things are in the greatest confusion. Often the wicked prosper, and are not in trouble as other men.- They become mighty in power; yea, it has commonly been so in all ages, that they have been uppermost in the world. They have the ascendant over the righteous. They are mounted on thrones; while the righteous remain in cottages. And, in this world, the cause of the just is not vindicated.- Many wicked men have the righteous in their power, and trample them under foot, and become their cruel persecutors: and the righteous are oppressed, and suffer all manner of injuries and cruelties; while the wicked live, and reign in great glory and prosperity. 2. What has been said, does invincibly argue a divine revelation.

Because, if God maintains a moral government over mankind, then there must be rewards and punishments. But these sanctions must be declared: for instance, the punishments which enforce God’s laws must be made known. To suppose that God keeps up an equal, perfect moral government over the world, and yet leaves men wholly at a loss about the nature, manner, degree, time, place, and continuance (if their punishment, or leaves it only to their guesses, or for them to argue it out from the nature of things, as well as they can, and every one to make his judgment according as his notions shall guide him, is a very unreasonable supposition. If moral government be maintained, the order and method of government must be visible; otherwise it loses the nature of moral government. There may be a powerful disposal, as inanimate, unintelligible things are the subjects of God’s government, in a visible and established order; but no moral government. The order of government serves to maintain authority, and to influence and rule the subject morally, no further than it is visible. The notion of a moral government, without a revelation or declaration of the mind of the head, by his word, or some voluntary sign or signification, in the whole of it is absurd. How absurd is it to suppose, that there should be converse and moral government maintained between the head and subjects, when both are intelligent, voluntary agents, without a voluntary communication of minds and expressions, thoughts and inclinations, between the head and the members of the society. 12. It need not be looked upon as any objection to men’s remaining in being after the death of their bodies, that the beasts that are made for man cease to be when they die. For it is manifest, in fact, that man is the end of the rest of the creatures in this lower world. This world, with all its parts, inanimate, vegetative, and sensitive, was made for an habitation for man during his present state: and if man be the end of the rest of the creatures, for which the rest were made, and to whose use they are subordinated, then man is ‘instar omnium’. The end of all is equivalent to the whole.

Therefore there is no need of any thing else to be preserved; nothing is lost; no part is in vain. If the end of all be preserved, all is preserved: because he is all, the rest is only for his occasional use. The beasts subserve man’s use in the present state: and then, though they cease, jet their end is obtained, and their good, which is their en, remains still in man. Though the tent that was set up for man to sojourn in during his state of probation, ceases when that occasion is over, surely that is no argument that the inhabitant ceases too.

And that the beasts are made for man, affords a good positive argument for a future state of man’s existence. For that all other creatures in this lower world are made for man, and that he himself should be made for no more than they, viz, a short continuance in this world to enjoy the things of it is unreasonable. 13. The natural world, which is in such continual labour, as is described in the first chapter of Ecclesiastes, constantly going round in such revolutions, will doubtless come to an end: these revolutions are not for nothing. There is some great event and issue of things, some grand period, aimed at. Does God make the world restless, to move and revolve in all its parts, to make no progress? to labour with motions so mighty and vast, only to come to the same place again? Some great end is nearer to an accomplishment, after a thousand revolutions are finished, than when there was only one finished. The waters of the sea are not so restless, continually to ascend into the heavens, and then descend on the earth, and then return to the sea again, only that things may be as they were before. One generation of men does not come, another go, and so continually from age to age, only that at last there may be what there was at first, viz, mankind upon earth. The wheels of God’s chariot, after they have gone round a thousand times, do not remain just in the same place that they were in at first, without having carried the chariot nearer to a journey’s end. 14. This is a confirmation of a future state. For, if these revolutions have not something in another state that is to succeed this, then they are in vain.

If any thing of this world is to remain, after its revolutions are at an end, doubtless it will be that part which is the head of all the rest; or that creature for which all the rest is made; and that is man. For, if he wholly ceases, and is extinct, it is as if the whole were totally extinct: because he is the end of all. He is that creature, to serve whom the labours and revolutions of this world are, and whom they affect; and therefore, if he does not remain after the revolutions have ceased, then no end is obtained by all these revolutions: because nothing abides as the fruit of them after they are finished. But all comes to no more than just what was before this world itself began, viz., an universal nonexistence; all is extinct; all is as if the world had never been; and therefore all has been in vain; for nothing remains as the fruit, He that is carried in the chariot, does not remain after he is brought with so much labour and vast ado to the end of his journey; but ceases to be, as the chariot itself does. 15. This confirms the divinity of the christian revelation; which gives this account of things, that this world is come to an end; it is to be dissolved; that the revolutions of the world have an appointed period; and that man, the end of this lower world, is to remain in being afterwards; and gives a rational account of the great period, design, and issue of all things, worthy of the infinite wisdom and majesty of God. 16. Some part of the world, in that which is the highest, the head, and the end of the rest, must be of eternal duration, even the intelligent, reasonable creatures. For, if these creatures, the head and end of all the rest of the creation, come to an end, and be annihilated, it is the same thing as if the whole were annihilated. And if the world be of a temporary duration, and then drops into nothing, it is in vain, i.e. no end is obtained worthy of God.

There is nobody but what will own, that if God had created the world, and then it had dropped into nothing the next minute, it would have been in vain; no end could be obtained worthy of God. And the only reason is, that the end would have been so small, by reason of the short continuance of the good obtained by it. And so it is still infinitely little, if it stand a million of ages, and then drops into nothing. That is as a moment in the sight of God. It is, in comparison of him, absolutely equivalent to nothing, and therefore an end not worthy of him. No end is worthy of an infinite God, but an infinite end; and therefore the good obtained must be of infinite duration. If it be not so, who shall fix the bounds? Who shall say a million of years is long enough? And if it be, who shall say a good of a thousand years’ continuance does not become the wisdom of God? And if it does, how can we say but that a good of still shorter continuance would not answer the ends of wisdom? If it would, who can say that the sovereignty of God shall not fix on a good of a minute’s continuance as sufficient; which is as great in comparison with him as a million of years? The only reason why a good of a minute’s continuance is not great enough to become the Creator of the world, is, that it is a good so little, when compared with him. And the same reason stands in equal force against a good of any limited duration whatsoever. 17. It is often declared in the Old Testament, that God will bring every work into judgment; that there is verily a God that judgeth in the earth; that his eves are on the way of man; that he considers all his goings: that the sins of the wicked, and the good deeds of the righteous, are exactly observed, and written in a book of remembrance, and none of them forgotten; that they are sealed and laid up among God’s treasures; and that he will render to every man according to his works: that the Judge of all the earth will do right; and that therefore God will not destroy the righteous with the wicked: that as to the righteous, it shall be well with him, for he shall eat the fruit of his doings; that as to the wicked, it shall be ill with him, for the reward of his hands shall be given him; that it is impossible it should be otherwise; that there is no darkness nor shadow of death, where the workers of iniquity can hide themselves from God the Judge; that God cannot forget his people; that a woman may sooner forget her sucking child; that God has graven them on the palms of his hands; that God beholds and takes notice of all their afflictions, and pities them, as a father pitieth his children; but that he is the enemy of wicked men; that their sins shall find them out; that though hand join in hand, the wicked shall not go unpunished; that the way of righteousness is a certain way to happiness, and the way of sin a sure way to misery. Solomon himself is more abundant than all other penmen of the Old Testament, in observing the difference between the righteous and the wicked in this respect, the greatness and the certainty of that difference. And, in Ecclesiastes 12:13,14. Solomon declares,” That to fear God and keep his commandments, is the whole duty of man: because God will bring every work into judgment, with every secret thing, whether it be good or whether it be evil.” And chap. 5:8.” If thou seest the oppression of the poor, and the violent perverting of judgment and justice in a province, marvel not at the matter; for he that is higher than the highest regardeth, and there be higher than they.” Chap. 8:11.” Because sentence against an evil work is not executed speedily, therefore the heart of the sons of men is fully set in them to do evil.” And therefore, there is some other time, beside the time of this life, for executing the sentence which he observes will so surely he executed. In Proverbs 10:7. Solomon says, the memory of the just is blessed, but the name of the wicked shall rot. And of this memory or good name of the just, he says, (Eccles.v 2:1.) that “ it is better than precious ointment, (meaning the precious ointment they were wont to anoint the children of great and rich men with, when first born,) and that, upon this account, the day of a godly man’s death (followed with a good name and so blessed a memory) is better than the day of one’s birth.” 18. If God has perfectly forgiven all the sins of the righteous, and they are so high in his favour; and if the great evidence of this favour be the durableness of the benefits that are the fruits of it, and the chief fruit of it is life; then it is at least to be expected, that they will escape that mortality which is such a remarkable disgrace to those that have the human nature, and so wonderful to behold in those whom the Most High has made to differ so much from the beasts in capacity, dignity, end, and design. We might surely expect, that these high favourites should, with regard to life and durableness of happiness, not be mere beasts, and have no preeminence above them; and that they should not be like the grass, and the flower of the field, which in the morning flourisheth and groweth up, but in the evening is cut down and withered; that all their happiness and all the benefits of God’s favour should not he like a shadow, like a dream, like a tale that is told; that it should not be as a span, and should not pass away as the swift ships, as the eagle that hasteth to the prey; to which things the life of man is compared in Scripture.

The things of this world are spoken of as having no profit or value, because they are not lasting, but must be left at death, and therefore are mere vanity, and not worthy that any maim should set his heart on them; Psalm 49:6, to the end; Proverbs 23:4,5. Proverbs 11:7. Ecclesiastes 2:15,16, 1- 7. chap. 3 ten first verses; verse 19. chap. 5:14, 15, 16. But the rewards of righteousness are abundantly represented as exceedingly valuable and worthy that men should set their hearts upon them, because they are lasting; Proverbs 3:16. 8:18. and 10:25, 27. Isaiah 55:3. Psalm 1:3, to the end; Isaiah 17:7, 8- and innumerable other places. How can these things consist one with another, unless there be a future state?

It is spoken of as a remarkable thing, and what one would not expect, that good men should die as wicked men do, as it seems to be, by good men’s dying a temporal death as wicked men do; Ecclesiastes 2:16. chap. 9:3, 4, 5. And therefore, it may he argued, that it does but seem to be so; but that in reality it shall not be so, inasmuch as, though good men die a temporal death as wicked men do, yet, as to their happiness, they die not, but live for ever in a future state. It is an evidence of a future state, that in the Old Testament so many promises are made to the godly, of things that shall be after they are dead, which shall be testimonies of God’s great favour to them, and blessed rewards of his favour; so many promises concerning their name, and concerning their posterity, and the future church of God in the world; and yet that we are so much taught in the Old Testament that men are never the better for what comes to pass after they are dead, concerning these things (i.e. if we look only at the present life, without taking any other state of existence into consideration,) Job 14:21.

Ecclesiastes 1:2, 3:22. and 9:5, 6. Yea, the wise man says expressly, that the dead have no more a reward, (Ecclesiastes 9:5.) i.e. in any thing in this world-That man shall die as a beast, seems to he spoken of, Ecclesiastes 3:16, to the end; as a vanity, an evil, a kind of mischief and confusion, that appears in the world. Therefore this is an argument, that God, the wise orderer of all things, who brings order out of confusion, will rectify this disorder by appointing a future state. 19. It is an argument that the Old Testament affords for the proof (if a future life and immortality, that we are there taught, that mortality is brought in by sin, and comes as a punishment of sin. Therefore, it is natural to suppose, that when complete forgiveness is promised, and perfect restoration to favour, and deliverance from death, and the bestowment of life, as the fruit of this favour, eternal life and immortality is intended-The better men are, the more terrible would it make death, if there were no future state. For the better they are, the more they love God. Good men have found the fountain of good. Those men who have a high degree of love to God, greatly delight in God. They have experience of a much better happiness in life than others; and therefore it must be more dreadful for them to have their beings eternally extinct by death. Hence we may strongly argue a future state: for it is not to be supposed, that God would make man such a creature as to be capable of looking forward beyond death, and capable of knowing and loving him, and delighting in him as the fountain of all good, which will necessarily increase in him a dread of annihilation, and an eager desire of immortality; and yet so order it, that such desire should he disappointed; so that his loving his Creator, should in some sense make him the more miserable. 20. Nothing is more manifest, than that it is absolutely necessary, iii order to a man’s being thoroughly, universally, and stedfastly virtuous, that his mind and heart should be thoroughly weaned from this world; which is a great evidence, that God intends another world for virtuous men. He surely would not require them, in their thoughts, affections, and expectations, wholly to relinquish this world, if it were all the world they were to expect: if he had made them for this world wholly and only, and had created the world for them, to be their only country and home, all the resting-place ever designed for them.- If all the creatures God has made are to come to and end, and the world itself is to come to an end, and so to be as though it had never been, then it will be with all God’s glorious and magnificent works, agreeably to what is said of the temporal of the wicked, Job 20:6,7,8. “Though its excellency be never so great, yet it shall perish for ever; in shall all fly away as a dream; it shall be chased away as a vision of the night.” It shall vanish totally, and absolutely he as though it had not been.

CHAPTER - CONCERNING THE ENDLESS PUNISHMENT OF THOSE WHO DIE IMPENITENT. 1. The word everlasting is used in the very sentence of the Judge at the last day, whom we cannot suppose to use rhetorical tropes and figures. The wicked that are finally impenitent, are represented as wholly cast away, lost, made no account of, etc. which is quite inconsistent with their punishment being medicinal, and for their good and purification, and to fit them for final and eternal happiness. — Eternal punishment is not eternal annihilation. Surely they will not he raised to life at the last day only to lie annihilated. “The words used to signify the duration of the punishment of the wicked, do, in their etymology, truly signify a proper eternity; and if they are sometimes used in a less strict sense, when the nature of the thing requires it, yet that can never pass as any reason why they are not tn be understood absolutely, when the subject is capable of it. They are terms the most expressive of an endless duration, of any that can be used or imagined. And they always signify so far positively endless, as to be express against any other period or conclusion, than what arises from the nature of the thing. They are never used in Scripture in any other limited sense, than to exclude all positive abolition, annihilation, or conclusion, other than what the natural intent or constitution of the subject spoken of must necessarily admit. The word which is the word generally used by the sacred writers, is, we know, derived from the adverb ..., which signifies for ever, and cannot without force be used in any lower sense. And, particularly, this is the word by which the eternal and immutable attributes of Deity are several times expressed.” Dodwell’s Sermoms in answer to Whiston, p. 15, 16. 2. If the torments of hell are purifying pains, that purge the damned from their sins, it must be by bringing them to repentance, convincing them of the evil of sin, and inducing them to forsake it, and with a sincere heart to turn from sin to God, and heartily to choose virtue and holiness, There is no other way for sinners being purged as moral agents; and, if hell fire is the means of any other purification, it cannot be a moral purification.

If the wicked in hell are the subjects of torments, in order to their purification, and so being fitted for, and finally brought to, eternal happiness; then they are the subjects of a dispensation, that is truly a dispensation of love, and of divine and infinite goodness and benevolence, towards them.-And if the design of the pains of hell be that of kind and benevolent chastisement, to bring sinners to repentance, and compliance with the divine will; then we cannot suppose that they will be continued after the sinner has repented, and is actually brought to yield and comply.

For that would be to continue them for no purpose; to go on using means and endeavours to obtain the end, when the end is accomplished, and the thing aimed at is fully obtained already.-Moreover, if the damned, after many ages suffering extreme torment in hell, are to be delivered, and made perfectly and eternally happy, then they must be in a state of probation during this long season of their confinement to such extreme misery. If they are not in a state of probation, or on any trial how they will behave themselves under these severe and terrible inflictions of wrath, but are to be delivered, and made eternally happy at the end of a certain period; then what restraints are they under from giving an unbounded loose and license to their wickedness, in expressions of enmity against God, in cursing and blaspheming, and whatever their hearts are inclined to? And if they are in such a state as this, wherein they are thus left to unrestrained wickedness, and every curb to their most wicked inclination is taken off, being nevertheless sure of deliverance and everlasting happiness; how far is this state fit to be a state of purgation of rational creatures and moral agents from sin, being a state wherein they are so far from means of repentance, reformation, and entirely reclaiming and purging them from sin, that all manner of means are rather removed; and so much is every restraint taken off, that they are given up wholly to sin, which, instead of purifying them, will tend above all things that can be conceived, to harden them in sin, and desperately establish the habits of it? 3. A state of purgation of moral agents, that is, a state to ‘bring sinners to repentance and reformation, and not a state of trial, is a gross absurdity. If any should say, that, “ though we should maintain- that the pains of hell are purifying pains, to bring sinners to repentance, in order to their deliverance and eternal happiness; yet there will be no necessity of sup posing, either that they may sin with impunity, and so without restraint; or that they are properly in a state of probation: for they have no probation whether they shall finally have eternal happiness, because it is absolutely determined by the benevolent Creator, concerning his intelligent creatures, that they shall finally be brought to a state of happiness: but yet their circumstances may be such as may tend greatly to restrain their wickedness, because that the time of their torment shall be longer or shorter, according as they behave themselves under their chastisements more or less perversely; or that their torment shall be raised to a greater height, and additions be made in proportion to the wickedness they commit in their purgatory flames.” To this I Answer:

Even on this supposition they are in a state of probation for a more speedy possession of eternal life and happiness, and deliverance from further misery and punishment; this makes their state as much a state of probation, as their state in the present life. For here it is supposed by these men, that sinners are not in a state of trial, whether ever they shall obtain eternal happiness or no; because that is absolutely determined, and the determination known or knowable concerning all without any trial. But only it is a state of trial whether they shall obtain eternal life so soon as at the end of their lives, or at the day of judgment. Neither have they any trial during this life, whether they shall escape all affliction and chastisement for sin or not; but whether they shall be relieved from a state of suffering so soon, and shall escape those severer and longer chastisements that, with respect to many, are to come afterwards.

And on the supposition of the objection, there must be the proper circumstances of a state of probation in hell, as well as on earth. There they must likewise be continued in that state of free agency, that renders them properly the subjects of judgment and retribution. For the supposition of the objection, they shall be punished for their wickedness in hell, by an addition to their misery proportioned to their sin; and they shall be the subjects of God’s merciful strivings, endeavours, and means to bring them to repentance, as well as here. And there must be a divine judgment after the trial, to determine their retribution, as much as after this life, And the same, or like things, must be determined by the Supreme Judge, as will be determined at the day of judgment. At that great day, on the supposition of such as I oppose, What will be determined concerning the impenitent? not what their eternal state shall be, but only whether they shall have eternal happiness immediately; whether they have repented, and are qualified for immediate admission to heavenly glory; or, whether the bestowment of it shall be delayed, and further chastisements made use of, and so it must be again after their castigatory purifying pains. At the end of all, there must be a judgment, whether now they truly repent, and so have performed the condition of deliverance, and immediate admission to the state of the blessed, or whether there shall be a further season of misery; which brings it in all respects to be a proper judgment, as much as that at the general resurrection; and the preceding time of the use of means and God’s striving with them to bring them to repentance, is as much a proper time of trial in order to judgment, as the time of this life. 4. But if the damned are in a state of trial, let it be considered how unreasonable this is. If they are in a state of trial, then they must be in a state of liberty and moral agency, as those men will doubtless own; and so, according to their notion of liberty, must be under no necessity of continuing in their rebellion and wickedness, but may cast away their abominations, and turn to God and their duty, in a thorough subjection to his will, very speedily. And then, seeing the end of their probationary state, and the severe means God uses with them to bring them to repentance, is obtained; how unreasonable will it be to sup pose, that God, after this, would continue them still under hell torments for a long succession of ages? But if God should speedily deliver them on their speedy repentance, how are the threatenings and predictions of their everlasting punishment fulfilled in any sense, according to the sense even of those who deny the absolute eternity of the misery of hell, and hold, that the words everlasting and for ever, etc. when applied to the misery of the damned; are not to be taken in the strictest sense? They yet allow they signify a very long time, a great many ages. 5. If the devils and damned spirits are in a state of probation, and have liberty of will, and are under the last and most extreme means to bring them to repentance, and consequently the greatest means, having the strongest tendency of all to be effectual, I say, if thus, then is it possible that the greatest part, if not all, of them may be reclaimed by those extreme means, and may be brought to thorough repentance before the day of judgment; yea, it is possible, it might be very soon. And, if so, how could it certainly be predicted concerning the devil, that he would do such and such great things in opposition to Christ and his church, from age to age? and that at last he should be judged and punished, and have God’s wrath more terribly executed upon him? as, “And the devil that deceived them, was cast into the lake of fire and brimstone, where the beast and false prophet are, and shall be tormented day and night, for ever and ever.” (Revelation 20:10.)

And how is it said in Scripture, that when he fell, he was cast down from heaven, and reserved under chains of darkness unto judgment? The expression seems naturally to signify strong and irrefragable bonds, which admit of no comfort or hope of escape. And besides, a being reserved in chains unto judgment, is not consistent with the appointment of another time of trial and opportunity to escape the judgment and condemnation, It is said, Jude 6. “They are reserved in everlasting chains under darkness unto the judgment of the great day.” And if any of the separate souls of the wicked, that are in the case that the soul of the rich man was in, when he died and lift up his eves in hell being in torments, should repent and be delivered before the day of judgment, and so should appear at the right hand among the righteous at that day, then how could that be verified, “For we must all stand before the judgment-seat of Christ, that every one may receive the things done in his body, whether good or bad?”( 2 Corinthians 5:10.)

And we have reason to think, that the time of standing before the judgment-seat of Christ, which the apostle has a special respect to, is the day of judgment, if we compare thus with other scriptures; as that of the same apostle, Acts 17:31. “He hath appointed a day in which he will judge the world in righteousness, by that man whom he hath ordained.” And many other places. 6. And how does their being in a state of trial, many of them for so many ages after death before the day of judgment, during all which time they have opportunity to repent, consist with those words of Christ, Mark 8:38. “Whosoever therefore shall be ashamed of me and my words in this adulterous and sinful generation, of him also shall the Son of man be ashamed, when he cometh in the glory of his Father, with the holy angels?”

How is their continuing in a state of trial from the time of that generation, and from the end of their lives to the day of judgment, consistent with its being declared to them from God beforehand, that they shall certainly be condemned at the day of judgment? or, with Christ’s certifying them beforehand, that whatever trial they shall have, whatever opportunity God should give them for repentance and pardon, for so many ages, all would be in vain; which in effect is passing the sentence. We may argue in like manner, from those words, Matthew 10:14,15. “And whosoever shall not receive you, and hear your words,-verily I say unto you, It shall be more tolerable for the land of Sodom and Gomorrha in the day of judgment, than for that city.” So Matthew 11:2 1-24. “Woe unto thee, Chorazin, woe unto thee, Bethsaida: — I say unto you, It shall be more tolerable for Tyre and Sidon in the day of judgment, than for you. — And thou, Capernaum, which art exalted to heaven, shalt be brought down to hell. I say unto you, It shall be more tolerable for the land of Sodom in the day of judgment, than for thee.”

It is here declared, what the state of those obstinate unbelievers should he at the day of judgment for their wickedness here in the body, with an asseveration, I say unto you. And sentence indeed is passed beforehand upon them by their Judge, concerning the punishment that shall be executed upon them at the day of judgment. The declaration is made in the form of a solemn denunciation or sentence: Woe unto thee, Chorazin, woe unto thee, Bethsaida, etc. And is it reasonable to suppose, that the very Judge that is to judge them at the end of the world, would peremptorily declare, that they should not escape punishment at the day of judgment; yea, solemnly denounce sentence upon them, dooming them to the distinguished punishment they should then suffer for their obstinacy in their lifetime; and yet appoint another time of trial, of a great many hundred years between their death and the day of judgment, wherein they should have opportunity to escape that punishment? 7. It is here also to be observed, that the wicked inhabitants of Sodom and Gomorrha should be condemned to misery at the day of judgment, though they had already been in their purifying flames, and in a state of probation.

The apostle (Romans 2:16.) repeatedly tells us, when these things shall be, that men shall thus receive their retribution; “In the day when God shall judge the secrets of men according to my gospel;” which shows that this life is the only state of trial, and that all men shall be judged at the end of the world according to their behaviour in this life, and not according to their behaviour in another state of trial, between this life and that day. So it is apparent, by 2 Thessalonians 1:5-9. “Which is a manifest token of the righteous judgment of God-seeing it is a righteous thing with God to recompense tribulation to them that trouble you, When the Lord Jesus shall be revealed from heaven with his mighty angels, in flaming fire, taking vengeance on them that know not God, and obey not the gospel of Jesus Christ; who shall he punished with everlasting destruction,” etc. Here it is manifest, that all who are obstinate unbelievers, rejecters of the gospel, shall at the day of judgment be punished with everlasting destruction. So that no room is left for a state of trial, and a space to repent before that time for ages in hell. So it is apparent, Matthew 25:that none will be found at the right hand, but they that have done such good works, as can be done only in this world; which would not be declared beforehand, if there was an opportunity given for millions of others to obtain that privilege. 8. It may be proved, that the day of man’s trial, and the time of God’s striving in the use of means to bring him to repentance, and waiting for his repentance under the use of means, will not be continued after this life, from those words, (Sen. 6:6. “My Spirit shall not always strive with man, for that he also is flesh; yet his days shall be 120 years.” It is as much as to say, that it is not fit that this day of trial and opportunity should last always to obstinate, perverse sinners, It is fit some bounds should be set to my striving and waiting on such as abuse the day of my patience; and that merciful means and gracious calls should not be continued, without limits, to them that trample all means and mercies under-foot, and turn a deaf ear to all calls and invitations, and treat them with constant contempt.

Therefore I will fix a certain limit; I will set their bounds to 120 years; when, if they repent not, I will put an end to all their lives, and with their lives shall be an end of my striving and waiting. This, which in Genesis is called God’s Spirit striving, is by the apostle Peter expressed by the waiting long-suffering of God; 1 Peter 3:20. But, according to the doctrine we are opposing, instead of God’s striving and using means to bring those wicked men to repentance, and waiting in the use of striving and endeavours years, or to the end of their lives, and no longer; he has gone on still since that, for above 4000 years, striving with them in the use of more powerful means to bring them to repentance, and waiting on them, and will continue to do so for so long a time afterwards, that the time is often called everlasting, and represented as enduring for ever and ever. 9. Those words of Christ, “I must work the works of him that sent me while it is day, the night cometh wherein no man can work,” John 9:4. prove that there is no other day of trial after this life. Christ having - undertaken for us, and taken on him our nature, and appearing in the form of a servant, and standing as our surety and representative, had a great work appointed him of God to do in this life for eternity. He could not obtain eternal life and happiness for himself any other way, than by doing that work in this life, which was the time of his probation for eternity, as well as ours. And therefore his words imply as much as if he had said, I must do that work which God has appointed me to do for eternity, that great service which must be done, as I would be eternally happy, now while the day of life lasts, which is the only day appointed for the trial of man’s faithfulness in the service of God, in order to his being accepted to eternal rewards. Death is coming, which will be the setting of the sun, and the end of this day; after which no work will remain, nothing to be done that will be of any significance in order to the obtaining of the recompense of eternal felicity. 10. And doubtless to the same purpose is that in Ecclesiastes “Whatsoever thy hand findeth to do, do it with thy might for there is no work,” (or no man can work,) “nor device, nor knowledge, nor wisdom in the grave, whither thou goest.” As much as to say, after this life, nothing can be done, nothing invented or devised, in order to your happiness; no wisdom or art will serve you to any such purpose, if you neglect the time of the present life, It is unreasonable to suppose the wise man means only that we should in this life do all that we can in temporal concerns, and to promote our temporal interest, and that nothing can be done towards this after this life: not only as this would be an observation of very little importance, it being as flat and impertinent as if he had said, whatever your hand finds to do this year, do it with your might; for nothing that you do or devise the next year, will signify any thing to promote your interest and happiness this year: but also because the wise man himself, in the conclusion of this book, informs us, that his drift through the whole book is, to induce us to do a spiritual work; to fear God and keep his commandments, in order, not to happiness in this life, (which he tells us throughout the book is never to be expected,) but in order to a future happiness and retribution in consequence of a judgment to come; chap. 12:13, 14. “Let us hear the conclusion of the whole matter; Fear God, and keep his commandments:

For this is the whole” (i.e. the whole business, the whole concern)” of man.

For God will bring every work into judgment, whether it be good, or whether it be evil.” 11. If the wicked in hell are in a state of trial, under severe chastisement, as means in order to their repentance and obtaining the benefit of God’s favour in eternal rewards, then they are in a state of such freedom as makes them moral agents, and the proper subjects of judgment and retribution.

Then those terrible chastisements are made use of as the most powerful means of all, more efficacious than all the means used in this life which prove ineffectual, and which proving insufficient to overcome sinners’ obstinacy, and prevail with their hard hearts, God is compelled to relinquish them all, and have recourse to those torments as the last means, the most effectual and powerful. If the torments of hell are to last ages of ages, then it must be because sinners in hell all this while are obstinate; and though they are free agents as to this matter, yet they wilfully and perversely refuse, even under such great means, to repent, forsake their sins, and turn to God. It must be further supposed, that all this while they have the offers of immediate mercy and deliverance made to them, if they will comply. Now, if this be the case, and they shall go on in such wickedness, and continue in such extreme obstinacy and pertinaciousness, for so many ages, (as is supposed, by its being thought their torments shall be so long continued,) how desperately will their guilt be increased! How many thousand times more guilty at the end of the term, than at the beginning! And therefore they will be much the more proper objects of divine severity, deserving God’s wrath, and still a thousand times more severe or longer continued chastisements than the past; and therefore it is not reasonable to suppose, that all the damned should be delivered from misery, and received to God’s favour, and made the subjects of eternal salvation and glory at that time, when they are many thousand times more unworthy of it, more deserving of continuance in misery, than when they were first cast into hell. It is not likely that the infinitely wise God should so order the matter. And if their misery should be augmented, and still lengthened out much longer, to atone for their new contracted guilt; they must be supposed to continue impatient, till that second additional time of torment is ended at the end of which their guilt will still be risen higher and vastly increased beyond what it was before. And, at this rate, where can there be any - place for an end of their misery? 12. It further appears from what was observed above, that the sinner continuing obstinate in wickedness under such powerful means to reclaim him, for so long a time, will be so far from being more and more purged, or brought nearer to repentance, that he will be farther from it. Wickedness in his heart will be vastly established and increased. For, it may be laid down as aim axiom, that the longer men continue wilfully in wickedness, the more is the habit of sin established, and the more and more will the heart be hardened in it. Again, it may be laid down as another axiom, that the greater and more powerful the means are, that are used to bring men to reform and repent, which they resist, and are obstinate under, the more desperately are men hardened in sin, and the more the principle of it in the heart is confirmed. It may be laid down as a third axiom, that long continuance in perverse and obstinate rebellion against any particular kind of means, tends to render those particular means vain, ineffectual, and hopeless.

After the damned in hell have stood it out with such prodigious perverseness and stoutness, for ages of ages, in their rebellion and enmity against God, refusing to bow to his will under such constant, severe, mighty chastisements, attended all the while with offers of mercy, what a desperate degree of hardness of heart and fixed strength of habitual wickedness will they have contracted at last, and inconceivably farther will they be from a penitent, humble, and pure heart, than when first cast into hell I And if the torments should be lengthened out still longer, and also their impenitence, (as by the- supposition one will not end before the other does,) still the farther will the heart be from being purified. And so, at this rate, the torments will never at all answer their end, and must be lengthened out to all eternity. 13. Matthew 5:25,26. “Agree with thine adversary quickly, while thou art in the way with him; lest at any time the adversary deliver thee to the judge, and the judge deliver thee to the officer, and thou be cast into prison. Verily I say unto thee, Thou shalt not come out thence, till thou hast paid the uttermost farthing.” These words imply, that sinners are in the way with their adversary, having opportunity to be reconciled to him but for a short season, inasmuch as it is intimated, that they must agree with him quickly, or they shall cease to be in the way with him, or to have opportunity to obtain his favour any more. But, if they shall be continued in a state of probation after death to the end of the world, and after that for ages, how far, how very far, are these words of Christ from representing the matter as it is? 14. That some even in this world are utterly forsaken of God, and given up to their own hearts’ lusts, proves that these men never will be purified from their sins. That God should, in the future world, use great means to purify them, and fit them for eternal happiness and glory, in the enjoyment of himself, is not consistent with the supposition, that, after the use of great means and endeavours with them in this world, hue gives them up to sin, because of their incorrigibleness and perverse obstinate continuance in rebellion, under the use of those great means, and so leaves them to be desperately hardened in sin, and to goon and increase their guilt, and multiply transgressions to their utter ruin; which is agreeable to manifold representations of Scripture, This is not agreeable to the scheme of such as suppose, that God is all the while, before and after death, prosecuting the design of purifying and preparing them for eternal glory. Consider Psalm 92:7. “When the wicked spring as grass, and when all the workers of iniquity do flourish, it is that they shall be destroyed for ever.”

These places show, God has no merciful design with those whom he gives up to sun. 15. The apostle, in Hebrews 6:4-6. says, “It is impossible for those who were once enlightened, and have tasted of the heavenly gift, etc. if they fall away, to renew them again unto repentance, seeing they crucify to themselves the Son of God afresh, and put him to an, open shame,” etc.

The apostle speaks of their renovation to repentance, as never likely to ha pp en; for this reason, that they have proved irreclaimable under such great means to bring them to repentance, and have thereby so desperately hardened their hearts, and contracted such great guilt by sinning against such great light, and trampling on such great privileges. But if so, how much more unlikely still will it be, that they should ever be renewed to repentance, after they have gone on still more and more to harden their hearts by an obstinate, wilful continuance in sin, many thousand years longer, under much greater means; and have therefore done immensely more to establish the habit of sin, and increase the hardness of their hearts; and after their guilt is so vastly in- creased instead of being diminished! If it be impossible to bring them to repentance, after they have rebelled against such light and knowledge of Christ, and the things of another world, as they had in this life; how much more impossible is it, when added to this, they have had that infinitely greater and clearer knowledge and view of those things to be manifested at the day of judgment! Then they shall see Christ in the glory of his Father with all his holy angels; shall see his great majesty, and know the truth of his promises and threatenings, by sight and experience; and shall see all those ineffable manifestations of the glory of Christ, of his power, omniscience, strict inflexible justice, infinite holiness and purity, truth and faithfulness, and his infinite mercy to penitents. They shall then see the dreadful consequences of rebellion and wickedness, and the infinitely happy and glorious consequences of the contrary; and, even at this time, (on the supposition,) have the offers of mercy and deliverance from that dreadful misery, and the enjoyment of the favour of their great Judge, and participation of all the happiness and glory of the righteous which they shall see at his right hand, if then they will throw down the weapons of their rebellion, and repent, and comply with his will. But if they still, from the greatness of their enmity and perverseness, obstinately and wilfully refuse, yea, and continue still thus refusing, even after they have actually felt the terrible wrath of God, and are cast into the lake of fire; yea, after they have continued there many ages, all the while under offers of mercy on repentance; I say, if it be impossible to renew them to repentance, after their rebelling against and trampling on the light and knowledge, and means used with them in this world, so that it is not to be expected, because of the degree of hardness and guilt contracted by it; how much less is it to be expected at the day of judgment, after all this obstinacy manifested, and guilt contracted? If guilt be contracted by despising such means and advantages as the apostle has respect to in this life, that it may be compared to guilt that would be contracted by crucifying Christ afresh; how much more, when added to this, they shall so openly have despised Christ, when appearing to them in all the terrors, and glories, and love that shall be manifested at the day of judgment, in their immediate and most clear view, and all is offered to them, if they will but yield subjection to him; and their enmity shall have appeared so desperate as rather to choose that dreadful lake of fire, and shall have continued in their choice even after they have felt the severity of that torment without rest day or night for many ages? 16. That all shall not be finally purified and saved, manifest from Matthew 12:31,32. “ Wherefore I say unto you, All manner of sin and blasphemy shall be forgiven unto men; but the blasphemy against the Holy Ghost shall not be forgiven unto men. And whosoever speaketh a word against the Son of man, it shall be forgiven him; but whosoever speaketh against the Holy Ghost, it shall not be forgiven him, neither in this world, neither in the world to come.”-Also, Mark 3:28,29. “Verily I say unto you, All sins shall be forgiven unto the sons of men, and all blasphemies where with soever they shall blaspheme; but he that shall blaspheme against the Holy Ghost, hath never forgiveness, but is in danger of eternal damnation.” — And John 5:16. “If any man see his brother sin a sin which is not unto death, he shall ask, and he shall give him life for them that sin not unto death. There is a sin unto death; I do not say he shall pray for it.” From each of these places it is manifest, that he that is guilty of blasphemy against the Holy Ghost, shall surely be damned, without any deliverance from his punishment, or end to it. The various expressions that are used, serve much to certify and fix the import of others. In Matthew 12:31. it is said, “The blasphemy against the Holy Ghost shall not be forgiven unto men.” The negative is general, and equally respects all times. If this sin should be forgiven at a remote time, it would be as contrary to such a negative, as if it were forgiven immediately. But, to determine us that Christ has respect to all times, even the remotest, and that he means to deny that he shall be forgiven at any time whatsoever, in Mark it is said, “He shall never be forgiven; or, hath never forgiveness;” and, lest this never should be interpreted to mean, never as long as he lives, or never in this world, it is said in Matthew 12:32. “It shall not be forgiven him, neither in this world, nor in the world to come.”

And lest it should be said, that, although he never is forgiven, yet that does not hinder but that there may be an end to his punishment; because he may suffer all he deserves in suffering a temporal punishment, or punishment of a limited, long duration; and he that is acquitted in paying all his debt, is not said to be forgiven his debt: another expression is used in Mark, which shows that he shall ever suffer damnation, and never have deliverance from his misery, whether by forgiveness or without it. — “Hath never forgiveness, but is in danger of eternal damnation.” And the forementioned expressions, “He shall never be forgiven;” “He hath never forgiveness;” “shall not be forgiven in this world, nor the world to come,” show the meaning of the word eternal here, to be such as absolutely excludes any period, any time of favour, wherein condemnation and punishment shall have ceased. And what the apostle John says of those who commit the unpardonable sin, confirms the whole, and proves that he that has committed this sin remains under no dispensation of mercy, and that no favour is ever to be hoped for from God; and therefore it is not our duty to pray for such favour. “There is a sin unto death, I do not say he shall pray for it;” or, I give you no direction to pray for them that sin this sin unto death. 17. Thus it is evident, that all wicked men will not have an end to their damnation; but when it is said, they are in danger of eternal or everlasting damnation, the word eternal is to be understood in the strictest sense. The same terms are used concerning all impenitent sinners, that they shall be sentenced to eternal punishment, and shall go into everlasting punishment, etc. — That their worm dieth not, and the fire is not quenched; and they shall be tormented for ever and ever; and such terms are used after this world comes to an end; and also when they who have committed the unpardonable sin, and others, shall be sentenced all together to an everlasting fire, in the same terms. It is unreasonable to suppose that the punishment of some will he everlasting, in an infinitely different sense from others jointly sentenced; and that the duration of the punishment of one shall be perfectly as nothing, compared with the duration of the punishment of the other, infinitely less than a second to a million of ages. And it is unreasonable to suppose such a difference, also on this account, that there cannot be such a difference in the demerit of them that commit the unpardonable sin, and the demerit of the sins of all other wicked men, some of whom are exceedingly, and almost inconceivably, wicked. There cannot be a truly infinite difference in their guilt, as there must be a properly infinite difference between the dreadfulness of those torments that have an end, however long continued, and however great, and the torments of a truly and strictly everlasting fire. 18. If the damned in hell shall all finally be saved, they shall be saved without Christ, it is manifest, that Christ’s saving work will be at an end at the day of judgment; for, as Christ has a twofold office, that of the Saviour of the world, and the Judge of the world; so, the business of the latter office properly succeeds the former. It is not fit, in the nature of things, that he should come into the world and appear openly in the character of universal Judge, to decide men’s state — in, consequence of the trial there has been for making their state better by salvation — till that trial is over, and all its effects completed, when no more is to be hoped as to altering their state for the better by his salvation. Therefore Christ, at his first coming, appeared in order to save men from condemnation and a sentence of eternal misery; and not to Judge them; as he tells us, “If any man hear my words and believe not, I judge him not: for I came, not to judge the world, but to save the world.”( John 12:47.)

See also chap. 3:17. and 8:15. But the great business he will come upon at his second coming, as is abundantly declared, is to judge the world. And it is also exceedingly plain, that Christ’s saving work will be at an end at the day of judgment; because we read, 2 Corinthians 15, that at the end of the world he will deliver up his kingdom; he will resign his commission: which proves, that the work of salvation, which is the design of it, will be at an end, when all his enemies, all that rejected him, and would not have him to rule over them, and so have failed of his salvation, shall be made his footstool, shall be condemned and destroyed. Instead of being the heirs of salvation, he shall come in flaming fire to take vengeance on them that know not God, and obey not the gospel of Jesus Christ, who shall be punished with everlasting destruction, etc. When he shall come to be glorified in his saints, and admired in all them that believe; 2 Thessalonians 1:8-10. 19. If the damned, after they have suffered awhile, are to be delivered, and to have eternal life; then the present dispensation of grace and life to the fallen children of men, that was introduced by Christ and his apostles, is not the last; but another is to be introduced after this has proved unprofitable and ineffectual. But, that a new dispensation of grace should thus be introduced, because that which was brought in by Christ and his apostles, proves weak and unprofitable through men’s corruption, and there appears to be need of one which shall be more effectual, is not agreeable to the Scripture. For this dispensation is spoken of as the last and most perfect, wherein perfection was reached, Hebrews 7:19. “For the law made nothing perfect, but the bringing in of a better hope did.” And chap. 11:40. “ God having provided some better thing for us, that they without us should not be made perfect.” The ancient dispensation is spoken of as that which God found fault with, in proving ineffectual through the corruption of men; and so he introduced a new administration, that should not be liable to exception, and therefore should not wax old, or be ever liable to vanish away and give place to another. Hebrews 8:6, to the end.

So he speaks of the things of that ancient dispensation, as things which were liable to be shaken and removed; but of the things of the new dispensation then introduced, as those that could not be shaken, but should remain for ever; Hebrews 12:25, to the end; and 2 Corinthians 3:11. The dispensation of the New Testament is often spoken of in the prophecies of the Old Testament as an everlasting dispensation; Jeremiah 31:31,32. chap. 32:40. Isaiah 61:8. Ezekiel 37:26. 20. To suppose that, after all the means of grace that are used in this world, Moses and the prophets, Christ and the gospel, the warnings of God’s word, and the exhibitions of glorious gospel grace, have been despised and obstinately withstood, so as to make the case desperate as to their success, God has other means in reserve, to be used afterwards to make men holy, that will be more powerful, and shall be effectual; is not agreeable to Scripture. Particularly, Luke 16:27, to the end: “Then he said, I pray thee therefore, father, that thou wouldst send him to my father’s house: for I have five brethren; that he may testify to them, lest they also come into this place of torment. Abraham saith unto him, They have Moses and the prophets, let them hear them. And he said, Nay, father Abraham, but if one went unto them from the dead, they will repent. And he said unto him, If they hear not Moses and the prophets, neither will they be persuaded though one rose from the dead.” And this is especially manifest, from Revelation 22:10-12. “And he saith unto me, Seal not the sayings of the prophecy of this book: for the time is at hand. He that is unjust, let him be unjust still; and he that is filthy, let him be filthy still. And behold I come quickly, and my reward is with me, to give every man according as his works shall be.”

I think the meaning must be either, The time is quickly coming, when every man’s state will be fixed, in as much as I am quickly coming to judgment, to fix every man’s state unalterably, according as his work shall be; and after that there will be no alteration, nor any means or endeavours in order to it; but he that is unjust, let him be unjust still; and he that is filthy, let him be filthy still: and if this be the meaning, it makes it evident, that Christ will not immediately proceed to the use of the most powerful and effectual means of all, to change the state of the unjust and filthy, to purify them and make them holy, and fit them for eternal glory, with infallible success-Or, the meaning must be this, which seems to be much the most probable:

Christ having given this last revelation to his church to be added to the book of Scripture, with which the canon was to be shut up and sealed, by the instrumentality of the apostle John, who lived the longest of the apostles, and wrote this book after all the rest were dead; orders John, ver. 10. to publish this book, wherein such great future judgments are revealed as coming on the wicked, and such an affecting declaration of the future glory of the saints, to enforce the rest of God’s word and means of grace; and then intimates, that no more revelations are to be expected, no more instructions and warnings are to be added to the word of God, as the steady means of grace, any further to confirm and enforce the rest; and the next revelation that is to be expected, and that Christ will make of himself to the world, is to he his immediate appearance in judgment, to fix unalterably every man’s state according to his works, according to the improvement he shall have made of those past revelations, instructions, and warnings: and therefore, those that will not be purified by those means, are not to expect that better or other means will ever be used with them; but he that is unjust must remain so still, and he that is filthy must be filthy still, and hue that is righteous shall be righteous still, and he that is holy shall be holy still. Thus Christ takes leave of his church till his last coming, warning them to improve the means of grace they have, and informing them that they are never to have any other: q. d . They have Moses and the prophets; and, in the writings o-f the New Testament, they have more glorious, powerful, and efficacious revelations of me. Those writings I now finish and seal. Let them hear these, and make a good improvement of them; for these are the last means I shall ever use to change man’s state. This is inconsistent with his reserving his greatest and most powerful means, with a determined certain success, to be used after the day of judgment. 21. They who suppose the damned are made to suffer the torments of hell for their purification, suppose, that God is herein prosecuting his grand design of benevolence to his creatures; yea, benevolence to the sufferers; and that he does not use these severe means but from necessity for their good, because all gentle remedies prove ineffectual. Now it is unreasonable to suppose that God is under any necessity of inflicting such extreme torments upon them for so long a time, in order to their being brought to repentance; and that, 1. If we consider the nature of things: torments inflicted have no tendency to bring a wicked man to repentance directly and properly, if by repentance we mean an alteration of the disposition, and appetites, and taste of the mind. We know by experience, that pain inflicted for gratifying an appetite, may make men a raid to gratify the appetite; but they do not change the inclination, or destroy the appetite. They may make men willing to comply with external exercises, of which they have a distaste, and to which their heart, in its relish and inclinations, is averse; yet not from love to the things complied with, but from hatred of pain, and love of ease. So that the man complies in some sense; but his heart does not comply. He is only driven, and as it were forced; and an increase of pain alters not the nature of things. It may make a man more earnestly to desire freedom from pain; but still there is no more to be expected from it, than is in the tendency of pain, which is not to give a new nature, a new heart, or a new natural relish and disposition. It is not granted, that even long continued pains and practice will gradually raise an habitual love to virtue. The pains of the damned being great and long continued, may more and more convince them of the folly of their negligence and fearlessness in sin, and may make them willing to take some pains, but will not show them the beauty of holiness, or the odiousness of sin, so as to cause them to hate sin on its own account.

Can any one that considers human nature, especially of those that deny an innate, desperate wickedness of heart, (as the men that we have this controversy with generally do,) doubt in the least, whether, if a man should be in a furnace of fire for one day only, alive and full of quick sense, and should retain a full and lively remembrance of his misery, it would not be sufficient to make him wholly comply with all the pains and outward selfdenial requisite in order to an universal, external obedience to the precepts of the word of God, rather than have those torments renewed and committed for ages; and indeed rather than endure one more such day?

What pains would not such a man be willing to suffer? What labours could be too much? What would he not be willing to part with, in foregoing worldly wealth or pleasures? Would not the most covetous man, that had felt such a rod as this, be willing to part with all his treasures of silver and gold? and the most ambitious man be willing to live in a cottage or wilderness? the most voluptuous man to part with his pleasures? Would he need first to endure many ages of such torment, before he would be willing thus far to comply? It is against all principles of human nature to suppose it If he retains the remembrance of the torment, in a lively idea of it, it must unspeakably outweigh the most lively and affecting and attractive ideas of the good things of the world. The supposition, therefore, of his not being brought to compliance by less torment, is as unreasonable as to suppose, that a mote of dust would sink the scale, being put in a balance with a talent of lead, or with ten thousand talents. If the Most High compassionate these poor wretches, and has nothing but a kind and gracious design of infinite mercy and bounty towards them, why does he take such dreadful measures with them? Will no other do? Cannot infinite wisdom find out some gentler method to bring to pass the same design? If it be said, that no other can accomplish the effect, consistently with the freedom of will;-I answer, What means can be devised, having a greater tendency to drive men, and compel them to comply with the thing required, (if there be any such thing,) without acting freely, and as persons left to their own free choice, than such a rod not only held over, but used upon them in such an amazing manner, by an omnipotent hand? 2. It is apparent, from what has often come to pass, that God is in no necessity of making use of such dreadful and long-continued torments, in order to bring sinners to repentance. It is most unreasonable to suppose, that no sinners that ever were converted in this world, were, before their conversion, as wicked and as hard-hearted as some of those that have died impenitent; as Saul the persecutor, afterwards the apostle Paul, and some of the converts, in the 2nd chapter of Acts, who had had a hand in Christ’s crucifixion, and innumerable instances of persecutors and others, who have been brought to repentance since those days. Such were converted by gentler means than those pains of hell, in what the Scripture calls everlasting burnings; and that without any infringement of liberty necessary to their being moral agents. It would be unreasonable to suppose, that all those eighteen, on whom the tower of Siloam fell, were good men. But Christ would not have his hearers imagine they were worse than themselves; and yet intimates, that there was a possibility of their escaping future misery by repentance. 3. So far as pain and affliction are made use of to bring men to repentance, it is apparent God can make infinitely less severe chastisement effectual, together with such influences and assistances of his Spirit, as are not inconsistent with the persons’ moral agency in their forsaking sin and turning to God. And, if it should be said, that none of them had the habits of sin so confirmed, as all such as die in sin; I would answer, That this is very unreasonably supposed: and if it should be allowed, yet it cannot be pretended, that the difference of guilt and hard-heartedness is proportionable at all to the severity of the chastisement used for purgation. If no more than ten degrees of pain, or one year’s chastisement, be requisite for the overcoming of five degrees of strength of the habit of sin, one would think, that less than 100,000 degrees, or 100,000 years chastisement, should be sufficient to overcome ten degrees of strength of the same habit. 22. If the torments of hell are purifying pains, and are used by a God of universal benevolence towards his creatures, as necessary means for the purgation of the wicked from sin, and their being fitted for, and finally brought to, eternal happiness in the enjoyment of the love of God; then it will follow, that the damned in hell are still the objects of God’s mercy and kindness, and that in the torments they suffer, they are the subjects of a dispensation of grace and benevolence. All is for their good; all is the best kindness that can be done them, the most benevolent treatment they are capable of, in their state of mind; and, in all, God is but chastising them as a wise and loving father, with a grieved and compassionate heart, gives necessary chastisement to sons whom he loves, and whose good he seeks to the utmost; in all he does he is only prosecuting a design of infinite kindness and favour. And indeed, some of the chief of those who are in the scheme of purifying pains, expressly maintain, that, instead of being the fruits of vindictive justice, they are the effects of God s benevolence, not only to the system of intelligent creatures in general, but to the sufferers themselves. Now, how far are these things from being agreeable to the representation which is made of things in the Holy Scriptures?

The Scriptures represent the damned as thrown away of God; as things that are good for nothing; and which God makes no account of; Matthew 13:48. As dross, and not gold and silver, or any valuable metal; Psalm 119:119. “Thou puttest away all the wicked of the earth as dross.” So Ezekiel 22:18. Jeremiah 6:28-30. as salt that has lost its savour; as good for nothing but to be cast out and trodden under foot of men; as stubble that is left, and as the chaff thrown out to be scattered by the wind, and go whither that shall happen to carry it, instead of being gathered and laid up as that which is of any value. Psalm 1:4. Job 21:18. and 35:5. as that which shall be thrown away as wholly worthless, as chaff, and stubble, and tares; all which are thrown away as not worthy of any care to save them; yea, are thrown into the fire, to be burnt up as mere nuisances, as fit for nothing but to be destroyed, and therefore are cast into the fire to be destroyed and done with. Matthew 3:12. and 12:30. Job 21:18. as barren trees, trees that are good for nothing; and not only so, but cumberers of the ground; and as such, shall be cut down and cast into the fire. Matthew 3:10. and 7:19.

Luke 13:7. as barren branches in a vine, that are cut off and castaway; as good for nothing, and gathered and burned. John 15:6. as thrown out and purged away as the filth of the world. Thus, it is said, Job 20:7. “That the wicked shall perish for ever, as his own dung.” They are spoken of as those that shall be spued out of God’s mouth; as thrown into the lake if fire; as the great sink of all the filth of the creation; Revelation 21:8.” But the fearful, and unbelieving, and the abominable, and murderers, and whoremongers, and sorcerers, and idolaters, and all liars, shall have their share in the lake that burns with fire and brimstone.” As briers and thorns, that are not only wholly worthless in a field, but hurtful and pernicious; and are nigh unto cursing, whose end is to be burned; Hebrews 6: i.e. the husband man throws them into the fire, and so has done with them for ever. He does not still take care of them, in order to make them fruitful and flourishing plants in his garden of delights. The wicked, it is said, shall be driven from light into darkness, and chased out of the world; Job 18:18.

Instead of being heated by God with benevolence, chastening them with the compassion and kindness of a father, for their great and everlasting good, they, at that day, when God shall gather his children together, to make them experience the blessed fruits of the love of a heavenly Father, shall be shut out as dogs; Revelation 21:7,8. with chap. 22:14, 15. And are represented as vessels to dishonour, vessels of wrath, fit for nothing else, but to contain wrath and misery. They are spoken of as those that perish and lose their souls; that are lost; (2 Corinthians 4:4.) Those that lose themselves and are cast away; those that are destroyed, consumed, etc.- which representations do not agree with such as are under a dispensation of kindness, and the means of a physician, in order to their eternal life, health, and happiness, though the means are severe. When God, of old, by his prophets, denounced his terrible judgments against Jerusalem and the people of Israel, against Moab, Tyre, Egypt, Assyria, etc. which judgments, though long continued, were not designed to be perpetual; there were mixed with those awful denunciations, or added to them, promises or intimations of future mercy. But, when the Scripture speaks of God’s dealings with ungodly men in another would, there are nothing but declarations and denunciations of wrath and misery, and no intimations of mercy; no gentle terms used, no significations of divine pity, no exhortations to humiliation under God’s awful hand, or calls to seek his face and favour, and turn and repent. The account that the Scripture gives of the treatment that wicked men shall meet with after this life, is very inconsistent with the notion of their being from necessity subjected to harsh means of cure, and severe chastisement, with a benevolent, gracious design of their everlasting good; particularly the manner in which Christ will treat them at the day of judgment. He will bid the wicked depart from him as cursed. 23. We have no account of any invitations to accept of mercy; any counsels to repent, that they may speedily be delivered from this misery, But it is represented that then they shall be made his footstool. He shall triumph over them. He will trample upon them as men are wont to tread grapes in a wine-press, when they trample with all their might, to that very end that they may effectually crush them in pieces. He will tread them in his anger, and trample them in his fury, and, as he says, their blood shall be sprinkled on his garments, and he will stain all his raiment, Isaiah 63 at the beginning; Revelation 14:19,20. and chap. 19:15. in which last place it is said~ he treadeth the wine-press of the fierceness and wrath of Almighty God.

These things do not savour of chastening with compassion and benevolence, and as still prosecuting a design of love toward them, that he may in the end actually be their Saviour, and the means of their eternal glory. There is nothing in the account of the day of judgment, that looks as though saints had any love or pity for the wicked, on account of the terrible long-continued torments which they must suffer. Nor indeed will the accounts that are given admit of supposing any such thing. We have an account of their judging them, and being with Christ in condemning them, concurring in the sentence, wherein he bids them begone from him as cursed with devils into eternal fire; but no account of their praying for them, nor of their exhorting them to consider and repent.

They shall not be grieved, but rather rejoice at the glorious manifestations of God’s justice, holiness, and majesty, in their dreadful perdition, and shall triumph with Christ; Revelation 18:20. and 19 at the beginning, They shall be made Christ’s footstool, and so they shall be the footstool of the saints.

Psalm 68:23. “That thy foot may be dipped in the blood of thine enemies, and the tongue of thy dogs in the same.” If the damned were the objects of divine benevolence, and designed by God for the enjoyment of his eternal love, doubtless it would be required of all God’s children to love them, and to pity them, and pray for them, and seek their good; as here in this world it is required of them to love their enemies, to be kind to the evil and unjust; and to-pity and pray for the vilest of men, that were their own persecutors, because they ate the subjects of God’s mercy in many respects, and are fit objects of infinite divine mercy and love. If Christ, the head of all the church, pities the damned and seeks their good, doubtless his members ought to do so too. If the saints in heaven ought to pity the damned, as well as the saints on earth are obligated to pity the wicked that dwell here; doubtless their pity ought to be in some proportion to the greatness of the calamities of the objects of it, and the greatness of the number of those they see in misery. But if they had pity and sympathizing grief in such measure as this, for so many ages, what an alloy would it be to their happiness I God is represented as whetting his glittering sword, bending his bow, and making ready his arrows on the string against wicked men, and lifting his hand to heaven, and swearing, that he will render vengeance to his enemies, and reward them that hate him, and make his arrows drunk with their blood, and that his sword shall devour their flesh.

Deuteronomy 32:40,41,42. and Psalm 7:11,12,13. Certainly this is the language and conduct of an enemy, not of a friend, or of a compassionate chastising father. 24. The degree of misery and torment that shall be inflicted, is an evidence that God is not acting the part of benevolence and compassion, and only chastening from a kind and gracious principle and design. It is evident, that it is God’s manner, when he thus afflicts men for their good, and chastens them with compassion, to stay his rough wind in the day of his east wind; to correct in measure; to consider the frame of those that are corrected; to remember their weakness, and to consider how little they can bear. He turns away his anger, and does not stir up all his wrath. Psalm lxxviii. 37, 38, 39. Isaiah 27:8. Jeremiah 30:11. and 46:28. And it is his manner, in the midst even of the severest afflictions, to order some mitigating circumstances, and to mix some mercy. But the misery of the damned is represented as unmixed. The wine of the wrath of God is poured out without mixture into the cup of his indignation, that they may be tormented with fire and brimstone in the presence of the holy angels, and in the presence of the Lamb; and the smoke of their torment shall ascend up for ever and ever, and they have no rest day nor night. Revelation 14:10,11, They are tormented in a flame that burns within them, as well as round ahout them, and they shall be denied so much as a drop of water to cool their tongues. And God’s wrath shall be inflicted in suich a manner, as to show his wrath, and make his strength known on the vessels of wrath, and which shall be punished with everlasting destruction, answerable to that glory of Christ’s power in which hue shall appear at the day of judgment, when he shall come in the glory of his Father, with power and great glory, in flaming fire, to take vengeance on them that know not God, and obey not the gospel. Can any imagine, that in all this God is only correcting from love, and that the subjects of these inflictions are some of those happy ones whom God corrects in order to teach them out of his law? whom he makes sore, and bindeth up? Job 5:17,18. Psalm 64:12. Theme is nothing in Scripture that looks as if the damned were under the use of means to bring them to repentance. It is apparent that God’s manner is, when he afflicts men to bring to repentance by affliction, to join instructions, admonitions, and arguments to persuade.

But if we judge by scripture representations of the state of the damned, they are left destitute of all these things.- There are no prophets, or ministers, or good men, to admonish them, to reason and expostulate with them, or to set them good examples. There is a perfect separation made betwixt all the righteous and the wicked by a great gulf; so that- there can be no passing from one to the other. They are left wholly to the company of devils, and others like them. When the rich man in hell cries to his father Abraham, begging a drop of water, he denies his request; and adds no exhortation to repentance. Wisdonn is abundantly represented in the book of Proverbs, as counselling, warning, calling, inviting, and expostulating with such as are under means for the obtaining wisdom, and as waiting upon them in the use of means, that they may turn at her reproof. But as to such as are obstinate under these means of grace and calls of wisdom, till the time of their punishment comes, it is represented, that their fear shall come as desolation, and destruction as a whirlwind; that distress and anguish shall come upon them; and that then it will be in vain for them to seek wisdom: that if they seek her early, they shall not find her, and if they call upon her, shine will not hear; but instead of this, will laugh at their calamity, and mock when their fear cometh: which certainly does not consist with the idea that the God of wisdom is still striving with them, and using means, in a benevolent and compassionate manner, to bring them to seek and embrace wisdom; still offering wisdom with all her unspeakable benefits, if they will hearken to her voice and comply with her counsel. is wisdom then actually using the most powerful and effectual means to bring them to this happiness, even such as shall surely be successful, though they have obstinately refused all others, and when wisdom called, they heretofore refused, when shine stretched forth her hand, they dud not regard? Is he still most effectually acting the part of a friend, to deliver them from their distress and anguish, instead of laughing at their calamity?

Proverbs 1 latter end. This declaration of wisdom, if it ever be -fulfilled at all, will surely be fulfilled most completely and perfectly at the time appointed for obstinate sinners to receive their most perfect and complete punishment.

If all mankind, even such as live and die in their wickedness, are and ever will line the objects of Christ’s goodwill and mercy, and those whose eternal happiness hue desires and seeks; then surely he would pray for all: but Christ declares that there are some that he prays not for. John 17:9. “I pray for them: I pray not for the world, but for them which thou hast given me; for they are thine.” Compared with ver 14. “The world hath hated them, because they are not of the world, even as I am not of the world.”

Ver. 25. “The world hath not known thee, but I have known thee; and these have known that thou hast sent me;” and ver. 20. “ Neither pray I for these alone, but for them also which shall believe on me through their word.” By this it appears that Christ prayed for all that should ever be true believers. — But he prayed not for those who should not be brought by the word of the apostles, and such means of grace as are used in this world, to believe in him, and should continue notwithstanding not to know God, and in enmity against true holiness or Christianity. These were such as Christ prayed not for.

CHAPTER - OF ENDLESS MISERY. 25. If sin and misery, and the second death, are to continue and prevail for so long a time after the day of judgment, with respect to great multitudes that Christ will finally save and deliver from those things, having perfectly conquered and abolished them; then how can the Scriptures truly represent, that all enemies shall be put under his feet at the end of the world, and that the last enemy that shall be destroyed is death; and that then, having perfectly subdued all his enemies, he shall resign up the kingdom to the Father, and he himself be subject to the Father? as in 1 Corinthians 15:20-28. The time of Christ’s victory over death will be at the general resurrection and day of judgment, as is evident by ver. 54. with the foregoing context. The chief enemies that Christ came to destroy, with regard to such as should be saved, and be of his church, were sin and misery, or death consisting in sin, and death consisting in suffering the second death, unspeakably the greatest enemy that came by sin, infinitely more terrible than temporal death. But if the notion I am opposing be true, these greatest and worst enemies, instead of being subdued, shall have their principal reign afterwards, for many ages at least; viz, sin in the sad effect and consequence of it, men’s misery; and God shall have his strongest conflict with those enemies afterward that is, shall strive against them in the use of the most powerful means . 26. There is a great evidence, that the devil is not the subject of any dispensation of divine mercy and kindness, and that God is prosecuting no design of infinite goodness towards him, and that his pains are not purifying pains. It is manifest, that, instead of any influence of his torments to bring him nearer to repentance, he has been from the beginning of his damnation, constantly, with all his might, exerting himself in prosecuting his wickedness, his violent, most haughty, and malignant opposition to God and man; fighting especially with peculiar virulence against Christ and his church; opposing with all his might, every thing that is good; seeking the destruction and misery of all mankind, with boundless and insatiable cruelty; on which account he is called Satan, the adversary, and Abaddon, and Apollyon, the destroyer. He is represented as a roaring lion, seeking whom he may devour, a viper, the old serpent, the great red dragon, red on account of his bloody cruel nature. He is said to be a murderer from the beginning. He has murdered all mankind, has murdered their souls as well as their bodies. He was the murderer of Jesus Christ, by instigating Judas and his crucifiers. He has most cruelly shed the blood of an innumerable multitude of the children of God. He is emphatically called the evil one, that wicked one, etc. He is a liar, and the father of lies, and the father of all the sin and wickedness that is, or ever has been, in the world. He is the spirit that worketh in the children of disobedience; 2 Corinthians 4:3,4, It is said, that he that committeth sin is of the devil; for the devil sinneth from the beginning. And all wicked men are spoken of as his children. He has set up himself as God of this world, in opposition to the true God, and has erected a vast kingdom over the nations; and is constantly carrying on a war with the utmost earnestness, subtlety, malice, and venom, against Jesus Christ, and all his holy and gracious designs; maintaining a kingdom of darkness, wickedness, and misery, in opposition to Christ’s kingdom of light, holiness, and peace; and thus will continue to do till the end of the world, as appears by scripture prophecies. 27. And God’s dealings with him are infinitely far from being those of a friend, kindly seeking his infinite good, and designing nothing else in the end, but to make him eternally happy in love and favour, and blessed union with him. God is represented every where as acting the part of an enemy to him, that seeks and designs nothing in the final event but his destruction.

The grand work of God’s providence, which he is prosecuting from the beginning to the end of the world, viz. the work of redemption, is against him, to bruise or break in pieces his head, to cast him like lightning from heaven, from that height of power and dominion to which he has exalted himself; to tread him under-foot and to cause his people to trample and bruise, or crush him under-foot and gloriously to triumph over him. Christ, when he conquered him, made a show of him openly, triumphing ever him.

And it is evident, that, as it will be with the devil in this respect, so it will be with the wicked. This is reasonable to suppose. from what the Scripture represents of the relation wicked men stand in to the devil as his children, servants, subjects, instruments, and his property and possession. They are all ranked together with him in one kingdom, in one interest, and one company. And many of them are the great ministers of his kingdom, and to whom he has committed authority; such as the beast and false prophet that we read of in the Revelation. Now, how reasonable and natural is it to suppose, that those who are thus united should have their portion and lot together! As Christ’s disciples, subjects, followers, soldiers, children, instruments, and faithful ministers, shall have their part with him in his eternal glory; so we may reasonably believe, that the devil’s disciples, followers, subjects, soldiers in his army, his children, instruments, and ministers of his kingdom, should have their part with him, and not that such an infinite difference should be made between them, that the punishment of the one should be eternal, and that of the other but temporal, and therefore infinitely less, infinitely disproportionate; so that the proportion between the punishment of the latter, and that of the former, is as nothing, infinitely less than an unit to a million of millions. This is unreasonable to be supposed in itself, as the difference of guilt and wickedness cannot be so great, but must he infinitely far from it; especially, considering the aggravations of the wickedness of a great part of damned men, as committed against Christ, and gospel grace and love; which exceeding great aggravation the sin of the devils never had. 28. As the devil’s ministers, servants and instruments, of the angelic nature, those that are called the devil’s angels, shall have their part with him; for the like reason we may well suppose, h is servants, and instruments of the human nature, will share with him. And not only is this reasonable in itself, but the Scripture plainly teaches us that it shall be so. In Revelation 19:20. it Is said, “ The beast and the false prophet were both cast alive into the lake of fire burning with brimstone.” So it is said, chap. 20:10. “The devil that deceived them was cast into the lake of fire and brimstone, where the beast and false prophet are, and shall be tormented day and night for ever and ever — thus expressing both the kind of misery and the duration. Just in the same manner it is said concerning the followers of the beast. It is said, chap. 14:9, 10, 11. “Saying with a loud voice, If any man worship the beast, etc.-the same shall be tormented with fire and brimstone, and the smoke of their torment ascendeth up for ever and ever, and they have no rest day nor night.”-And chap. 21:8. of wicked men in general, it is said, they shall have their part in the lake which burneth with fire and brimstone.-So we find in Christ’s description of the day of judgment, the wicked are sentenced to everlasting fire prepared for the devil and his angels. By which it appears. most plainly, that they share with the devil in suffering misery of the same kind, and also share with him in suffering misery of the same everlasting continuance. And, indeed, not only would the punishment infinitely differ as to quantity and duration, if the punishment of the devils was to be eternal, and of wicked men only temporal; but, if this were known, it would, as it were, infinitely differ in kind. The one suffering God’s hatred and mere vengeance, infictions that have no pity or kindness in them; the other, the fruit of his mercy and love, and infinitely kind intention: the one attended with absolute despair, and a black and dismal sinking prospect of misery, absolutely endless; the other with the light of hope, and a supporting prospect, not only of an end to their misery, but of an eternal unspeakable happiness to follow. According to the notion which I am opposing, the judgment that shall take place at the end of the world, will be so far from being the last judgment, or any proper judgment to settle all things in their final state, that it will, with respect to the wicked, be no more than the judgment of a physician, whether more sharp and powerful remedies must not be applied in order to the relief of sinners, and the cure of their disease, which, if not cured, will make them eternally miserable! 29. It is evident, that the future misery of the wicked in hell is not come to an end, and to be succeeded by eternal happiness; and that their misery is not subservient to their happiness, because the Scripture plainly signifies, concerning those that die in their sins, that they have all the good and comfort in this life that ever is designed for them. Luke 6:24. “Woe unto you that are rich, for ye have received your consolation.” Luke 16:25. “Son, remember that thou in thy lifetime receivedst thy good things.”

Psalm 17:13,14. “Deliver my soul from the wicked — from the men of the world which have their portion in this life, and whose belly thou fillest with thy hid treasure.” 30. According to the opinion I am now opposing, God will surely at the last deliver all the damned from their misery, and make them happy. So that God will see to it, that the purifying torments shall certainly at last have their effect, to turn them from sin. Now, how can this consist with God’s treating them as moral agents, and their acting from the freedom of their own wills, in the affair of their turning from sin, and becoming morally pure and virtuous, according to the notions of freedom and moral agency which now prevail, and are strenuously maintained by some of the chief assertors of this opinion concerning hell torments; which notion of freedom implies contingence, and is wholly inconsistent with the necessity of the event? If after all the torments used to bring sinners to repentance, the consequence aimed at, viz. their turning from sin to virtue, be not necessary, but it shall still remain a contingent event, whether there ever will be any such consequence of those severe, long-continued chastisements, or no; then, how can it be determined, that this will surely be the consequence? How can it be a thing infallible, that such a consequence of means used will follow, when at the same time, it is not a consequence any way necessarily connected with the means used, it being only a thing contingent whether it will follow or not? If God has determined absolutely to make them all pure and happy, and yet their purity and happiness depend on the freedom of their will; then here is an absolute, divine decree, consistent with the freedom of men’s will, which is a doctrine utterly rejected by the generality of that sort of men who deny the eternity of hell torments. If it be said, that God has not absolutely determined the duration or measure of their torments, but intends to continue them till they do repent, or to try lesser torments first, and, if these do not answer, to increase them till they are effectual, determining that he will raise or continue them till the effect shall finally and infallibly follow; that is the same thing as to necessitate the effect. And here is necessity in such a case, as much as when a founder puts a piece of metal into a furnace, with a resolution to melt it, and if continuing it there a little while will not dissolve it, that he will keep it there till it does dissolve; and if, by reason of its peculiar hardness, an ordinary degree of heat of the furnace will not be effectual, that he will increase the vehemence of the heat, till the effect shall certainly follow. 31. If any should maintain this scheme of temporary future punishments, vis, that the torments in hell are not purifying pains, and that the damned are not in a state of trial with regard to any expected admission to eternal happiness, and that therefore they are not the proper objects of divine benevolence; that the dispensation they are under, is not truly a dispensation of mercy, but that their torments are properly penal pains, wherein God displays his vindictive justice; that they shall suffer misery to such a degree, and for so long a time, as their obstinate wickedness in this world deserves; and that indeed they shall be miserable a very long time, so long, that it is often figuratively spoken of in Scripture as being everlasting, and that then they shall be annihilated: On this I would observe, that there is nothing got by such a scheme; no relief from the arguments taken from Scripture, for the proper eternity of future punishment. For, if it be owned, that Scripture expressions denote a punishment that is properly eternal, but that it is in no other sense properly so, than as the annihilation, or state of non-existence, to which the wicked shall return, will be eternal; and that this eternal annihilation is that death which is so often threatened for sin, perishing, for ever, everlasting destruction, being lost, utterly consumed, etc, and that the fire of he.! is called eternal fire, in the same sense that the eternal fire which consumed the cities of Sodom and Gomorrha is called eternal fire, Jude 7. because it utterly consumed those cities, that they might never be built more; and that this fire is called that which cannot be quenched, or at least not until it has destroyed them that are cast into it.-lf this be all that these expressions denote, then they do not at all signify the length of the torments, or long continuance of their misery; so that the supposition of the length of their torments is brought in without any necessity, the Scripture saying nothing of it, having no respect to it, when it speaks of their everlasting punishments; and it answers the scripture expressions as well, to suppose that they shall be annihilated. immediately, without any long pains, provided the annihilation be everlasting. 32. If any should suppose, that the torments of the damned in hell are properly penal, and in execution of penal justice, but yet that they are neither eternal, nor shall end in annihilation, but shall be continued till justice is satisfied, and they have truly suffered as much as they deserve, whereby their punishment shall be so long as to be called everlasting, but that then they shall be delivered, and finally be the subjects of everlasting happiness; and that therefore they shall not in the mean time be in a state of trial, nor will be waited upon in order to repentance, nor will their torments be used as means to bring them to it; for that the term and measure of their punishment shall be fixed, from which they shall not be delivered on repentance, or any terms or conditions whatsoever, until justice is satisfied:

I would observe, in answer to this, that if it be so, the damned, while under their suffering, are either answerable for the wickedness that is acted by them while in that state, or may properly be the subjects of a judicial proceeding for it, or not, the former be supposed, then it will follow, that they must have another state of suffering and punishment, after the ages of their suffering for the sins of this life, are ended. And it cannot be supposed, that this second period of suffering will be shorter than the first: for the first is only for the sins committed during a short life, often represented in Scripture, for its shortness, to be a dream, a tale that is told, a blast of wind, a vapour, a span, a moment, etc. But the time of punishment is always represented as exceeding long, called everlasting; represented as enduring for ever and ever, as having no end, etc. If the sins of a moment must be followed with such punishment, then, doubtless, the sins of those endless ages must be followed with another second period of suffering, much longer. For it must be supposed, that the damned continue sinning all the time of their punishment; for none can rationally imagine that God would hold them under such extreme torments, and terrible manifestations and executions of his wrath, after they have thoroughly repented, and turned from sin, and are become pure and holy, and conformed to God, and so have left off sinning. And if they continue in sin during this state of punishment, with assurance that God still has a great benevolence for them, even so as to intend finally to make them everlastingly happy in the enjoyment of his love, then their sin must he attended with great aggravation; as they will have the evil and ill desert of sin set before them in the most affecting manner, in their dreadful sufferings for it, attended besides with evidence that God is infinitely benevolent towards them, and intends to bestow infinite blessings upon them.-But, if this first long period of punishment must be followed with a second as long, or longer; for the same reason, the second must be followed by a third, as long, or longer than that; and so the third must be followed by a fourth, and so in infinitum; and, at this rate, there never can be an end of their misery. So this scheme overthrows itself. 33. And if the damned are not answerable for the wickedness they commit during their state of punishment, then we must suppose that, during the whole of their long and, as it were, eternal state of punishment, they are given up of God to the most unrestrained wickedness, having this to consider, that how far soever they go in the allowed exercises and manifestations, of their malice and rage against God and Christ, saints and angels, and their fellow damned spirits, they have nothing to fear from it, it will be never the worse; and surely, continuing in such unrestrained wickedness, for such duration, must most desperately confirm the habit of sin, must increase the root and fountain of it in the heart. Now, how unreasonable is it to suppose, that God would thus deal with such as were objects of his infinite kindness, and the appointed subjects of the unspeakable and endless fruits of his love, in a state of perfect holiness and purity, and conformity to and union with himself; thus to give them up beforehand to unrestrained malignity against himself, and every kind of hellish wickedness, as it were infinitely to increase the fountain of sin in the heart, and the strength of the principle and habit!. Now, how incongruous is it to suppose, with regard to those for whom God has great benevolence, and designs eternal favour, that he would lay them under a necessity of extreme, unbounded hatred of him, blasphemy and rage against him, for so many ages; such necessity as should exclude all liberty of their own in the case! If God intends not only punishment, but purification, by these torments; on this supposition, instead of their being purified, they must be set at an infinitely greater distance from purification. And if God intends them for a second time of probation, in order to their being brought to repentance and the love of God after their punishment is finished; then how can it be certain beforehand, that they shall finally be happy, as is supposed? How can it be certain they will not fail in their second trial, or in their third, if there he a third? Yea, how much more likely that they will fail of truly turning in heart from sin to the love of God, in their second trial, if there be any proper trial in the case, after their hearts have been so much more brought under the power of a strong habit of sin and enmity to God!

If the habit proved so strong in this life, that the most powerful means and mighty inducements of the gospel would not prevail, so that God was, as it were, under a necessity of cutting them down and dealing thus severely with them; how much less likely will it be, that they will be prevailed upon to hove God and the ways of virtue, after their hearts are set at so much greater distance from those things! Yea, unless we suppose a divine interposition of almighty, efficacious power, to change the heart in the time of this second trial, we may be sure that, under these circumstances, the heart will not turn to love God. 34. And besides, if they are laid under such a necessity of hating and blaspheming God, for so many ages, in the manner that has been spoken of, how extremely incongruous is such an imagination, that God would lay those he intended for the eternal bounty and blessedness of dear children, under such circumstances, that they must necessarily hate him, and with devilish fury curse and blaspheme him for innumerable ages, and yet never have cause, even when they are delivered and made happy in God’s love, to condemn themselves for it, though they see the infinite hatefulness and unreasonableness of it, because God laid them under such a necessity, that they could use no liberty of their own in the case? I leave it for all to judge, whether God’s thus ordering things with regard to such as, from great benevolence, he intended for eternal happiness in a most blessed union with himself; be credible. 35. The same disposition and habit of mind, and manner of viewing things, is indeed the main ground of the cavils of many of the modern freethinkers; and modish writers, against the extremity and eternity of hell torments, if relied upon, would cause them to be dissatisfied with almost any thing that is very uncomfortable in a future punishment, so much as the enduring of the pain that is occasioned by the thrusting of a thorn under the nail of the finger, for a whole year together, day and night, without any rest, or the least intermission or abatement. There are innumerable calamities that come to pass in this world, through the permission and ordination of Divine Providence, against which (were it not that they are what we see with our eyes, and are universally known and incontestable facts) this cavilling, unbelieving spirit would strongly object; and, if they were only proposed in theory as matters of faith, would be opposed as exceedingly inconsistent with the moral perfections of God; and the opinions of such as asserted them would be cried out against, as in numberless ways contrary to God’s wisdom, his justice, goodness, mercy, etc. — such as, the innumerable calamities that have happened to poor innocent children, through the merciless cruelty of barbarous enemies their being gradually roasted to death, shrieking and crying for their fathers and mothers; the extreme pains they sometimes are tormented with, by terrible diseases which they suffer; the calamities that have many times been brought on whole cities, while besieged, and when taken by merciless soldiers, destroying all, men, women, and children, without any pity; the extreme miseries which have been suffered by millions of innocent persons, of all ages, sexes, and conditions, in times of persecution, when there has been no refuge to be found on earth; yea, those things that come to pass universally, of which all mankind are the subjects, in temporal death, which is so dreadful to nature.

CHAPTER - CONCERNING THE DIVINE DECREES IN GENERAL, AND ELECTION IN PARTICULAR 1. Whether God has decreed all things that ever came to pass or not, all that own the being of a God own that he knows all things beforehand.

Now, it is self-evident, that if he knows all things beforehand, he either doth approve of them, or he doth not approve of them; that is, he either is willing they should be, or he is not willing they should be. But to will that they should be, is to decree them. 2. The Arminians ridicule the distinction between the secret and revealed will of God, or, more properly expressed, the distinction between the decree and law of God; because we say he may decree one thing, and command another. And so, they argue, we hold a contrariety in God, as if one will of his contradicted another, however, if they will call this a contradiction of wills, we know that there is such a thing; so that it is the greatest absurdity to dispute about it. We and they know it was God’s secret will, that Abraham should not sacrifice his son Isaac; but yet his command was, that he should do it. We know that God willed, that Pharaoh’s heart should be hardened; and yet that the hardness of his heart was sin. We know that God willed the Egyptians should hate God’s people: Psalm 105:25. “ He turned their heart to hate his people, and deal subtlely with his servants.” We know that it was God’s will, that Absalom should lie with David’s wives; 2 Samuel 12:2. “ Thus saith the Lord, I will raise up this evil against thee, out of thine own house; and I will take thy wives before thine eyes, and give them unto thy neighbour; and he shall lie with thy wives in the sight of this sun. For thou didst it secretly; but I will do this thing before all Israel, and before the sun.” We know that God willed that Jeroboam and the ten tribes should rebel. The same may be said of the plunder of the Babylonians; and other instances might be given. The Scripture plainly tells us, that God wills to harden some men, Romans 9:18. That he willed that Christ should be killed by men, etc. 3. It is most certain, that if there are any things so contingent, that there is an equal possibility of their being or not being, so that they may be, or they may not be; God foreknows from all eternity that they may be, and also that they may not be. All will grant that we need no revelation to teach us this. And furthermore, if God knows all things that are to come to pass, he also foreknows whether those contingent things are come to pass or no, at the same time that they are contingent, and that they may or may not come to pass. But what a contradiction is it to say, that God knows a thing will come to pass, and yet at the same time knows that it is contingent whether it will come to pass or no; that is, he certainly knows it will come to pass, and yet certainly knows it may not come to pass! What a contradiction is it to say, that God certainly foreknew that Judas would betray his Master, or Peter deny him, and yet certainly knew that it might be otherwise, or certainly knew that he might be deceived! I suppose it will be acknowledged by all, that for God certainly y to know a thing will be, and yet certainly to know that it may not be, is the same thing as certainly to know that he may be deceived. I suppose it will also be acknowledged, that certainly to know a thing, and also at the same time to know that we may be deceived in it, is the same thing as certainly to know it, and certainly to know that we are uncertain of it, or that we do not certainly know it; and that it is the same thing as certainly to know it, and not certainly to know it at the same time; which we leave to be considered, whether it be not a contradiction. 4. The meaning of the word absolute, when used about the decrees, wants to be stated. It is commonly said, God decrees nothing upon a foresight of any thing in the creature; as this, they say, argues imperfection in God; and so it does, taken in the sense that they commonly intend it. But nobody, I believe, will deny but that God decrees many things that he would not have’ decreed, if he had not foreknown and foredetermined such and such other things. What we mean, we completely express thus — That God decrees all things harmoniously, and in excellent order, one thing harmonizes with another, and there is such a relation between all the decrees, as makes the most excellent order. Thus God decrees rain in drought, because he decrees the earnest prayers of his people; or thus, he decrees the prayers of his people, because he decrees rain. I acknowledge, to say, God decrees a thing because, is an improper way of speaking; but not more improper than all our other ways of speaking about God. God decrees the latter event, because of the former, no more, than he decrees the former, because of the latter. But this is what we mean-When God decrees to give the blessing of rain, he decrees the prayers of his people; and when he decrees the prayers of his people for rain, he very commonly decrees rain; and thereby there is harmony between these two decrees, of rain and the prayers of God’s people. Thus also, when he decrees diligence and industry, he decrees riches and prosperity; when he decrees prudence, he often decrees success; when he decrees striving, then he often decrees the obtaining the kingdom of heaven when he decrees the preaching of the gospel, then he decrees the bringing home of souls to Christ; when he decrees good natural faculties, diligence, and good advantages, then he decrees learning when he decrees summer, then he decrees the growing of plants; when he decrees conformity to his Son, then he decrees calling when he decrees calling, then he decrees justification; and when he decrees justification, then he decrees everlasting glory. Titus, all the decrees of God are harmonious; and this is all that can he said for or against absolute or conditional decrees. But this I say, it is as improper to make one decree a condition of another, as to make the other a condition of that but there is a harmony between both. 5. It cannot be any injustice in God to determine who is certainly to sin, and so certainly to be damned. For, if we suppose this impossibility, that God had not determined any thing things would happen as fatally as they do now - For as to such an absolute contingency, which they attribute to man’s will, calling it the sovereignty of the will; if they mean, by this sovereignty of will, that a man can will as he wills, it is perfect nonsense, and the same as if they should spend abundance of time and ins, and be very hot, at proving, that a man can will when he doth will; that is, that it is possible for that to be, which is. But if they mean, that there is a perfect contingency in the will of man, that is, that it happens merely by chance that a man wills such a thing, and not another, it is an impossibility and contradiction, that a thing should be without any cause or reason, and when there was every way as much cause why it should not have been.

Wherefore, seeing things do unavoidably go fatally and necessarily, what injustice is it in the Supreme Being, seeing it is a contradiction that it should be otherwise, to decree that they should be as they are! 6. Contingency, as it is holden by some, is at the same time contradicted by themselves, if they hold foreknowledge. This is all that follows from an absolute, unconditional, irreversible decree, that it is impossible but that the things decreed should be. The same exactly follows from foreknowledge, that it is absolutely impossible but that the thing certainly foreknown should precisely come to pass.

If it will universally hold, that none can have absolutely perfect and complete happiness, at the same time that any thing is otherwise than he desires at that time it should be; so thus, if it be true, that he has not absolute, perfect, infinite, and all possible happiness now, who has not now all that he wills to have now; then God, if any thing is now otherwise than he wills to have it now, is not now absolutely, perfectly, and infinitely happy. If God is infinitely happy now, then every thing is now as God would have it to be now; if every thing, then those things that are contrary to his commands. If so, it is not ridiculous to say, that things which are contrary to God’s commands, are yet in a sense agreeable to his will?

Again, let it be considered, whether it be not certainly true, that every one that can with infinite ease have a thing done, and yet will not have it done, wills it not; that is, whether or no he that wills not to have a thing done, properly wills not to have a thing done. For example, let the thing be this, that Judas should be faithful to his Lord; whether it be not true, that if God could with infinite ease have it done as he would, but would not have it done as he could, if he would, it be not proper to say, that God would not have it be, that Judas should be faithful to his Lord. 7. They say, to what purpose are praying, and striving, and attending on means, if a I was irreversibly determined by God before? But, to say that all was determined before these prayers and strivings, is a very wrong way of speaking, and begets those ideas in the mind, which correspond with no realities with respect to God. The decrees of our everlasting state were not before our prayers and strivings for these are as much present with God from all eternity, as they are the moment they are present with us. They are present as part of his decrees, or rather as the same; and they did as really exist in eternity, with respect to God, as they exist in time, and as much at one time as another. Therefore, we can no more fairly argue, that these will be in vain, because God has foredetermined all things, than we can, that they would be in vain if they existed as soon as the decree, for so they do, in as much as they are a part of it. 8. That we should say, that God has decreed every action of men, yea, every action that is sinful, and every circumstance of those actions; that he predetermines that they shall be in every respect as they afterwards are; that he determines that there shall be such actions, and just so sinful as they are; and yet that God does not decree the actions that are sinful, as sin, but decrees them as good, is really consistent. For we do not mean by decreeing an action as sinful, the same as decreeing an action so that it shah be sinful; but by decreeing an action as sinful, I mean decreeing it for the sake of the sinfulness of the action. God decrees that they shall be sinful, for the sake of the good that he causes to arise from the sinfulness thereof; whereas man decrees them for the sake of the evil that is in them- 9. When a distinction is made between God’s revealed will and his secret will, or his will of command and decree, will is certainly in that distinction taken in two senses. His will of decree, is not his will in the same sense as his will of command is. Therefore, it is no difficulty at all to suppose, that the one may be otherwise than the other: his wall in both senses is his inclination. But when we say he wills virtue, or loves virtue, or the happiness of his creature; thereby is intended, that virtue, or the creature’s happiness, absolutely and simply considered, is agreeable to the inclination of his nature. His will of decree is, his inclination to a thing, not as to that thing absolutely and simply, but with respect to the universality of things, that have been, are, or shall be So God, though he hates a thing as it is simply, may incline to it with reference to the universality of things.

Though be hates sin in itself, yet be may will to permit it, for the greater promotion of holiness in this universality, including all things, and at all times. So, though he has no inclination to a creature’s misery, considered absolutely, yet he may will it, for the greater promotion of happiness in this universality. God inclines to excellency, which is harmony, but yet he may incline to stiffer that which is unharmonious in itself, for the promotion of universal harmony, or for the promoting of the harmony that there is in the universality, and making it shine the brighter. And thus it must needs be, and no hypothesis whatsoever will relieve a man, but that he must own these two wills of God. For all must own, that God sometimes wills not to hinder the breach of his own commands, because he does not in fact hinder it. He wills to permit sin, it is evident, because he does permit it. None will say that God himself does what he does not will to do. But you will say, God wills to permit sin, as he wills the creature should be left to his freedom; and if he should hinder it, he would offer violence to the nature of his own creature. I answer, this comes nevertheless to the very thing that I say. You say, God does not will sin absolutely; but rather than alter the law of nature and the nature of free agents, he wills it. He wills what is contrary to excellency in some particulars, for the sake of a more general excellency and order. So that this scheme of the Arminians does not help the matter. 10, It is a proper and excellent thing for infinite glory to shine forth; and for the same reason, it is proper that the shining forth of God’s glory should be complete; that as, that all parts of his glory should shine forth, that every beauty should be proportionably effulgent, that the beholder may have a proper notion of God. It is not proper that one glory should be exceedingly manifested, and another not at all; for then the effulgence would not answer the reality. For the same reason it is not proper that one should be manifested exceedingly, and another but very little, It is highly proper that the effulgent glory of God should answer his real excellency; that the splendor should be answerable to the real and essential glory, for the same reason that it is proper and excellent for God to glorify himself at all. Thus it is necessary, that God’s awful majesty, his authority and dreadful greatness, justice, and holiness, should be manifested. But this could not he, unless sin and punishment had been decreed; so that the shining forth of God’s glory would be very imperfect, both because these parts of divine glory would not shine forth as the others do, and also the glory of his goodness, love, and holiness would be faint without them; nay, they could scarcely shine forth at all. If it were not right that God should decree and permit and punish sin, there could be no manifestation of God’s holiness in hatred of sin, or in showing any preference, in his providence, of godliness before it. There would he no manifestation of God’s grace or true goodness, if there was no sin to be pardoned, no misery to be saved from. How much howsoever he bestowed, his goodness would not be so much prized and admired, and the sense of it not so great, as we have elsewhere shown. We little consider how much the sense of good is heightened by the sense of evil, both moral and natural. And as it is necessary that there should be evil, because the display of the glory of God could not but be imperfect and incomplete without it, so evil is necessary, in order to the highest happiness of the creature, and the completeness of that communication of God, for which he made the world; because the creature’s happiness consists in the knowledge of God, and sense of his love. And if the knowledge of him be imperfect, the happiness of the creature must be proportionably imperfect; and the happiness of the creature would be imperfect upon another account also; for, as we have said, the sense of good is comparatively dull and flat, without the knowledge of evil. 11. It is owned, that God did choose men to eternal life, upon a foresight of their faith. But then, here is the question, whether God decreed that faith, and chose them that they should believe. 12. The sin of crucifying Christ being foreordained of God in his decree, and ordered in his providence, of which we have abundant evidence front the nature of the thing, and from the great ends God had to accomplish by means of this wicked act of crucifying Christ; it being, as it were, the cause of all the decrees, the greatest of all decreed events, and that on which all other decreed events depend as their main foundation; being the main thing in that greatest work of God, the work of redemption, which is the end of all other works; and it being so much prophesied of, and so plainly spoken of, as being done according to the determinate counsel and foreknowledge of God; I say, seeing we have such evidence that this sin is foreordained iii God’s decrees, and ordered in providence, and it being, as it were, the head sin, and representative of the sin of men in general; hence is a clear argument, that all the sins of men are foreordained and ordered by a wise Providence. 13. it is objected against the absolute decrees respecting the future actions of men, and especially the unbelief of sinners, and their rejection of the gospel, that this does not consist with the sincerity of God’s calls and invitations to such sinners; as he has willed, in ‘his eternal secret decree, that they should never accept of those invitations. To which I answer, that there is that in God, respecting the acceptance and compliance of sinners, which God knows will never he, and which he has decreed never to cause to be, in which, though it be not just the same with our desiring and wishing for that which will never come to pass, yet there is nothing wanting but what would imply imperfection in the case. There is all in God that is good, and perfect, and excellent in our desires and wishes for the conversion and salvation of wicked men. As, for instance, there is a love to holiness, absolutely considered, or an agreeableness of holiness to his nature and will; or, in other words, to his natural inclination. The holiness and happiness of the creature, absolutely considered, are things that he loves. These things are infinitely more agreeable to his nature than to ours.

There is all in God that belongs to our desire of the holiness and happiness of unconverted men and reprobates, excepting what implies imperfection.

All that is consistent with infinite knowledge, wisdom, power, selfsufficience, infinite happiness, and immutability. Therefore, there is no reason that his absolute prescience, or his wise determination and ordering what is future, should hinder his expressing this disposition of his nature, in like manner as we are wont to express such a disposition in ourselves, viz. by calls and invitations, and the like.

The disagreeableness of the wickedness and misery of the creature, absolutely considered, to the nature of God, is all that is good in pious and holy men’s lamenting the past misery and wickedness of men. Their lamenting these, is good no farther than it proceeds from the disagreeableness of those things to their holy and good nature. This is also all that is good in wishing for the future holiness and happiness of men.

And there is nothing wanting in God, in order to his having such desires and such lamentings, but imperfection; and nothing is in the way of his having them, but infinite perfection; and therefore it properly, naturally, and necessarily came to pass, that when God, in the manner of existence, came down from his infinite perfection, and accommodated himself to our nature and manner, by being made man, as he was, in the person of Jesus Christ, he really desired the conversion and salvation of reprobates, and lamented their obstinacy and misery; as when he beheld the city Jerusalem, and wept over it, saying, O Jerusalem,” etc. In the like manner, when he comes down from his infinite perfection, though not in the manner of being, but in the manner of manifestation, and accommodates himself to our nature and manner, in the manner of expression, it is equally natural and proper that he should express himself’ as though he desired the conversion and salvation of reprobates, and lamented their obstinacy and misery. 14. Maxim 1. There is no such thing truly as any pain, or grief, or trouble in God.

Maxim 2. Hence it follows that there is no such thing as any real disappointment in God, or his being really crossed in his will, or things going contrary to his will; because, according to the notion of will, to have one’s will, is agreeable and pleasing; for it is the notion of being pleased or suited, to have things as we will them be; and so, on the other hand, to have things contrary to one’s will, is disagreeable, troublesome, or uncomfortable. “He is in one mind, and who can turn him? And what his soul desireth, that he doth.” (Job 23:13.)

In the first place, I hay this down, which I suppose none will deny, that as to God’s own actions, God decrees them, or purposes them beforehand.

For none will be so absurd as to say that God acts without intentions, or without designing to act, or that he forbears to act, without intending to forbear. 2ndly, That whatsoever God intends or purposes, he intends and purposes from all eternity, and that there are no new purposes or intentions in God. For, if God sometimes begins to intend what he did not intend before, then two things will follow. 1. That God is not omniscient, If God sometimes begins to design what he did not design before, it must of necessity be fur want of knowledge, or for want of knowing things before as be knows them now, for want of having exactly the same views of things. If God begins to intend what he did not before intend, it must be because he now sees reasons to intend it, that he did not see before; or that he has something new, objected to his understanding, to influence him. 2. If God begins to intend or purpose things that he did not intend before, then God is certainly mutable, and then he must, in his own mind and will, be liable to succession and change; for wherever there are new things, there is succession and change.

Therefore, I shall take these two things for positions granted and supposed in this controversy, viz. that as to God’s own actions and forbearings to act, he decrees and purposes them beforehand; and that whatsoever God designs or purposes, he purposes from all eternity, and thus decrees from all eternity all his own actions and forbearings to act.

Coroll. Hence God decrees from all eternity, to permit all the evil that ever he does permit; because God’s permitting is God’s forbearing to act or to prevent. 15. It can be made evident by reason, that nothing can come to pass but what it is the will and pleasure of God should come to pass. This may be argued from the infinite happiness of God. For every being had rather things should go according to his will, than not; because, if he had not rather, then it is not his will, It is a contradiction to say, he wills it, and yet does not choose it, or had not rather it should be so than not. But, if God had rather things should be according to his will than not, then, if a thing fall out otherwise than he hath willed, he meets with a cross; because, on this supposition, he had rather it should have been otherwise and therefore he would have been better pleased if the thing had been otherwise. It is contrary to what he choose, and therefore it is of necessity that he must be displeased. It is of necessity that every being should be pleased, when a thing is as he chooses, or had rather it should be. It is a contradiction to suppose otherwise. For it is the very notion of being please, to have things agreeable to one’s pleasure! For the very same reason, every being is crossed, or it is unpleasing to him, when a thing is, that he chose, and had rather should not have been, For it is the very notion of a thing’s being cross or unpleasing to any, that it is contrary to his pleasure.

But if God can meet with crosses and things unpleasing to him, then he is not perfectly and unchangeably happy. For wherever there is any unpleasedness or unpleasantness, it must, of necessity, in a degree diminish the happiness of the subject. Where there is any cross to a being’s choice, there is something contrary to happiness. Wherever there is any unpleasedness, there is something contrary to pleasure, and which consequently diminishes pleasure. It is impossible any thing should be plainer than this. 16. The commands and prohibitions of God are only significations of our duty and of his nature. It is acknowledged that sin is, in itself considered, infinitely contrary to God’s nature; but it does not follow, but that it may; be the pleasure of God to hermit it, for the sake of the good that he will bring out of it. God can bring such good out of that, which in itself is contrary to his nature, and which, in itself considered, he abhors, as may be very agreeable to his nature, and when sin- is spoken of as contrary to the will of God, it is contrary to his will considered only as in itself As man commits it, it is contrary to God’s will; for men act in committing it with a view to that which is evil. But as God permits it, it is not contrary to God’s will; for God in permitting it has respect to the great good that he will make it an occasion of. If God respected sin as man respects it in committing it, it would be exceedingly contrary to his will hut considered as God decrees to permit it, it is not contrary to God’s will. To give an instance — The crucifying of Christ was a great sin; and as man committed it, it was exceedingly hateful and highly provoking to God. Yet upon many great considerations it was the will of God that it should be done. Will any body say that it was not the will of God that Christ should be crucified? “For to do whatsoever thy hand and thy counsel determined before to be done.” (Acts 4:28.)

I7. Sin is an evil, yet the futurition of sin, or that sin should be future, is not an evil thing. Evil is an evil thing, and yet it may be a good thing that evil should be in the world. There is certainly a difference between the thing itself existing, and its being an evil thing that ever it came into existence.

As for instance, it might be an evil thing to crucify Christ, but yet it was a good thing that the crucifying of Christ came to pass. As men’s act, it was evil, but as God ordered it, it was good. Who will deny but that it may be so, that evil’s coming to pass may he an occasion of greater good than it is an evil, and so of there being more good in the whole, than if that evil had not come to pass? And if so, then it is a good thing that that evil comes to pass. When we say the thing is an evil thing in itself, then we mean that it is evil, considering it only within its own bounds, But when we say that it is a good thing that ever it came to pass, then we consider the thing as a thing among events, or as one thing belonging to the series of events, and as related to the rest of the series. If a man should say, that it was a good thing that ever it happened that Joseph’s brethren sold him into Egypt, or that it was a good thing that ever it came to pass that Pope Leo X. sent put indulgencies for the commission of future sins, nobody would understand a man thus expressing himself, as justifying these acts.

It implies no contradiction to suppose that an act may be an evil act, and yet that it is a good thing that such an act should come to pass. A man may have been a bad man, and yet it may be a good thing that there has been such a man. This implies no contradiction; because it implies no contradiction to suppose that there being such a man may be an occasion of there being more good in the whole, than there would have been otherwise. So it no more imp lies a contradiction to suppose that an action may be an action, and yet that it may be a good thing that there has been such an action. God’s commands, and calls, and counsels, do imply another thing, viz. that it is our duty to do these things; and though they may he our duty, yet it may be certain beforehand that we shall not do them.

And if there be any difficulty in this, the same difficulty will attend the scheme of the Arminians; for they allow that God permits sin. Therefore, as he permits it, it cannot be contrary to his will. For if it were contrary to his will as he permits it, then it would be contrary to his will to permit it; for that is the same thing. But nobody will say that God permits sin, when it is against his will to permit it; for this is would be to make him act involuntarily, or against his own will. 18. “The wrath of man shall praise thee, and the remainder of wrath shalt thou restrain.” Psalm 76:10. If God restrains sin when he pleases; and when he permits it, permits it for the sake of some good that it will be an occasion of, and does actually restrain in all other cases; it is evident that when he permits it, it is his will that it should come to pass for the sake of the good that it will be an occasion of. If he permits it for the sake of that good, then he does not permit it merely because be would infringe on the creature’s liberty in restraining it; as is further evident because he does restrain it when that good is not in view. If it be his will to permit it to come to pass, for the sake of the good that its coming. to pass will be an occasion of; then it is his will to permit it, that by its coming to pass he may obtain that good; and therefore it must necessarily be his will that it should come to pass, that be may obtain that good. If he permits it, that, by its coming to pass, he may obtain a certain good, then his proximate end in permitting it, is, that it may come to pass. And if he wills the means for the sake of the end he therein wills the end. If God wills to permit a thing that it may come to pass, then he wills that it should come to pass. This is selfevident.

But, if he wills to permit it to come to pass, that by its coming to pass he may obtain some end, then he wills to permit it that it should come to pass. For to will to permit a thing to come to pass, that by its coming to pass good may be obtained, is exactly the same thing as to will to permit it to come to pass, that it may come to pass, and so the end may be attained.

To will to permit a thing to come to pass, that he may obtain some end by its coming to pass, and yet to be unwilling that it should come to pass, certainly implies a contradiction.

If the foundation of that distinction that there is between one man and another, whereby one is a good man, and another a wicked man, be God’s pleasure, and his causation; then God has absolutely elected the particular persons that are to be godly. For, by supposition, it is owing to his determination. Matthew 11:25-27. “At that time, Jesus answered and said, I thank thee, O Father, Lord of heaven and earth, because thou hast laid these things from the wise and prudent, and hast revealed them unto babes.

Even so, Father, for so it seemed good in thy sight. All things are delivered unto me of my Father; and no man knoweth the Son, but the Father; neither knoweth any man the Father, save the Son, and he to whomsoever the Son will reveal him,” 19. It may be argued from the infinite power and wisdom of God, that nothing can come to pass, but that it must be agreeable to the will and pleasure of God that it should come to pass. For, as was observed before, every being had rather things should be according to his will, than not.

Therefore, if things be not according to his will, it must be for want of power. It cannot be for want of will, by supposition. It must therefore be for want of sufficiency. It must be either because he cannot have it so, or cannot have it so without some difficulty, or some inconvenience; or all may be expressed in a word, viz. that he wants sufficiency to have things as he wishes. But this cannot be the case of a being of infinite power and infinite wisdom. If he has infinite power and wisdom, he can order all things to be just as he wills: and he can order it with perfect and infinite ease, or without the least difficulty or inconveniency. Two things lie before him, both equally within his power, either to order the matter to be, or not to order it to be; and both of them are equally easy to him. One is as little trouble to him as the other; as to easiness or trouble, they are perfectly equal. It is as easy for him to order it, as not to order it. Therefore, his determination, whether it be ordering it, or not ordering it, must be a certain sign of his will in the case. If he does order it to be, this is a sign that his will is that it should be. And if he does not order it to be, but suffers it not to be, that is as sure a sign that he wills that it should not be- So that, however the thing is, it is a sure sign that it is the will of God that it should be as it is.

To this, nothing can be objected, unless that it is not for want of will, nor want of power in God, that things be not as he would have them, but because the nature of the subject will not allow of it. But how can this be to the purpose, when the nature of the subject itself is of God, and is wholly within his power, is altogether the fruit of his mere will? And cannot a God of infinite wisdom and infinite power cause the natures of things to be such, and order them so after they are caused, as to have things as he chooses, or without his will’s being crossed, and things so coming to pass that he had rather have them otherwise? As, for instance, God foresaw who would comply with the terms of salvation, and who would not: and he could have forborne to give being to such as he foresaw would not comply, if, upon some consideration it was not his pleasure that there should be some who should not comply with the terms of salvation.

Objectors may say, God cannot always prevent men’s sins, unless he act contrary to the free nature of the subject, or without destroying men’s liberty, But will they deny, that an omnipotent and infinitely wise God could not possibly invent, and set before men, such strong motives to obedience, and have kept them before them in such a manner, as should have influenced all mankind to continue in their obedience, as the elect angels have done, without destroying their liberty? God will order it so, that the saints and angels in heaven never will sin: and does it therefore follow, that their liberty is destroyed, and that they are not free, but forced in their actions? Does it follow, that they are turned into blocks, as the Arminians say the Calvinist doctrines turn men? 20. God decrees all the good that ever comes to pass; and therefore there certainly will come to pass no more good, than he has absolutely decreed to cause; and there certainly and infallibly will no more believe, no more be godly, and no snore be saved, than God has decreed that he will cause to believe, and cause to be godly, and will save. 21, The foreknowledge of God will necessarily infer a decree: for God could not foreknow that things would be unless he had decreed they should be; and that because things would not be future, unless h had decreed they should be, if God, from all eternity, knew that such and such things were future, then they were future; and consequently the proposition was from all eternity true, that such a thing, at such a time, would be. And it is as much impossible that a thing should be future without some reason of its being future, as that it should actually be, without some reason why it is. It is as perfectly unreasonable to suppose, that this proposition should be true, viz. such a thing will be, or is to be, without a reason why it is true; as it is that this proposition should be true, such a thing actually is, or has been without some reason why that is true, or why that thing exists, For, as the being ‘of the thing is not in its own nature necessary, so that proposition that was true before, viz. that it shall be, is not in its own nature a necessary truths. And therefore I draw this consequence, that if there must lie some reason of the futurition of the thing, or why the thing is future this can be no other than Cods decree, or the truth of the proposition, that such a thing will be, has been determined by God. For the truth of the proposition is determined by the supposition. My meaning is, that it does not remain a question: hut the matter is decided, whether the proposition shall be true or not, The thing, in its own nature, is not necessary, but only possible; and therefore, it is not of itself that it is future; it is not of itself in a state of futurition, if I may so speak but only its a state of possibility; and there must be some cause to bring it out of a state of mere possibility, into a state of futurition. This must be God only; for there was no other being by supposition existing. And though other things ate future, yet it will not be sufficient to say, that the futurition of other things is the cause of the futurition of this. And it is owing only to him, that is the first being, and that exists necessarily, and of himself, that all other things, that are not in their own nature necessary, or necessarily future, but merely possible, are brought out of that state of mere possibility, into a state of futurition, to he certainly future. Here is an effect already done, viz. the rendering that which in its own nature is only possible, lobe certainly future, so that it can be certainly known to be future: and there must be something already existing that must have caused this effect. What so ever is not of itself, or by the necessity of its own nature is an effect of something else, But that such a thing should be future by supposition, is not of itself or by necessity of its own nature If things that appertain to the creature, or things that come to pass in time, be not future of themselves and of their own nature, then they are future because God makes them to be future. This is exceedingly evident; for there is nothing else at all beside God and things that come to pass in time. And therefore, if things that come to pass in time have not the reason of their own futurition in themselves, it must be in God.

But if you say, that the ground or reason of their futurition is in the things themselves, then things are future prior to any decree, or their futurition is antecedent in nature of any decree of God. And then, to what purpose is any decree of God? For, according to this supposition, God’s decreeing does not make any thing future, or not future; because it was future prior to his decree. His decreeing or appointing that any thing shall be, or shall not be, does not alter the case. It is not about to be, or about not to be, any thing the more for God’s decreeing it. According to this supposition, God has no freedom or choice in decreeing or appointing any thing, It is not at his choice what shall be future, and what not no, not in one thing. For the futurition of things is by this supposition antecedent in nature to Isis choice; so that his choosing or refusing does not alter the case. The things in themselves are future, and his decreeing cannot make them not future; for they cannot be future and not future at the same time: neither can it make them future, because they are future already: so that they who thus plead for man’s liberty, advance principles which destroy the freedom of God himself, It is allowed that things are future before they come to pass; because God foreknows them, Either things are future antecedently to God’s decree and independently of it, or they are not. If they are not future antecedently to, and independently of; God’s decree, then they are made so by his decree; there is no medium. But if they are so antecedently to his decree, then the above-mentioned absurdity will follow, viz. that God has no power by his decree to make any thing future or not future He has no choice in the case. And if it be already decided, something must have decided it; for, as has been already shown, it is not true without a reason why it is true. And if something has determined or decided the truths of it, it must be God that has decided it, or something else. It cannot be chance or mere accident: that is contrary to every rational supposition. For it is to be supposed, that there is some reason for it, and that something does decide it. If there be any thing that comes to pass by mere accident, that comes to pass of itself without any reason. If it be not chance therefore that has decided it, it must be God or the creature. It cannot be the creature as actually existing: for, by supposition, it is determined from all eternity before any creature exists. Therefore, if it he any thing in the creature that decides it in any way, it must be only the futurition of that thing in the creature. But this brings us to the absurdity and contradiction, that the same thing is both the cause and the effect of itself. The very effect, the cause of which we are seeking, is the futurition of the thing; and if this futurition be the cause of that effect it is the cause of itself. 22. The first objection of the Arminians is, that the divine decree infringes on the creature’s liberty. In answer to this objection, we may observe some things to show what is the truse notion of liberty, and the absurdity of their notion of liberty. Their nation of liberty is, that there is a sovereignty in the will, and that the will determines itself, so that its determination to choose or refuse this or that, is primarily within itself; which description of liberty implies a self-contradiction. For it supposes the will, in its first act, choosing or refusing to be deter mined by itself; which implies that there is an antecedent act of the will to that first act, determining that act. For, if the will determines its own first act, then there must be an act of the will before that first act, (for that determining is acting,) which is a contradiction. There can he no fallacy its this; for we know that if the will determines its owls act, it does not determine it without acting. Therefore, here is this contradiction, viz. that there is an act of the will before the first act. There is an act of the will determining what it shall choose, before the first act of choice; which is as much as to say, that there is an act of volition before the first act of volition. For the will’s determining what it will choose, is choosing. The will’s determining what it will will, is willing.

So that according to this notion of liberty, the will must choose before it chooses, in order to determine what it will choose. If the will determines itself, it is certain that one act must determine another. If the will determines its own choice, then it must determine by a foregoing act what it will choose. If the will determines its own act, then an antecedent act determines the consequent; for that determining is acting. The will cannot determine without acting. Therefore I inquire what determines that first act of the will, viz, its determination of its own act? It must be answered, according to their scheme, that it is the will by a foregoing act. Here, again, we have the same contradiction, viz, that the first act of the will is determined by an act that is before that first act. If the will determines itself, or determines its own choice, the meaning of it must be, if there be any meaning belonging to it, that the will determines how it will choose; and that it chooses according to that, its own determination how to choose, or is directed in choosing by that its own determination. But then I would inquire, whether that first determination, that directs the choice, be not itself an act or a volition; and if so, I would inquire what determines that act. Is it another determination still prior to that in the order of nature?

Then I would inquire, what determines the first act or determination of all?

If the will, in its acts of willing or choosing, determines or directs itself how to choose, then there is something done by the will prior to its act of choosing that is determined, viz, its determining or directing itself how to choose. This act determining or directing, must be something besides or distinct from the choice determined or directed, and must be prior in order of nature to it. Here are two acts of the will, one the cause of the other, viz. the act of the will directing and determining, and the act or choice directed or determined. Now, I inquire, what determines that first act of the will determining or directing, to determine and direct as it does? If it be said, the will determines itself in that; then that supposes there is another act of the will prior to that, directing and determining that act, which is contrary to the supposition. And if it was not, still the question would recur, what determines that first determining act of the will? If the will determines itself, one of these three things must be meant, viz. 1. That that very same act of the will determines itself. But this is as absurd as to say that something makes itself; and it supposes it to be before it is. For the act of determining is as much prior to the thing determined, as the act of making is before the thing made. Or, 2. The meaning must be, that the will determines its own act, by some other act that is prior to it in order of nature; which implies that the will acts before its first act. Or, 3 . The meaning must be, that the faculty, considered at the same time as perfectly without act, determines its own consequent act; which is to talk without a meaning, and is a great absurdity. To suppose that the faculty, remaining at the same time perfectly without act, can determine any thing, is a plain contradiction; for determining is acting. And besides, if the will does determine itself, that power of determining itself does not argue any freedom, unless it he by an act of the will, or unless that determination be itself an act of choice. For what freedom or liberty is there in the will’s determining itself, without an act of choice in determining, whereby it may choose which way it will determine itself? So that those that suppose the will has a power of self-determination, must suppose that that very determination. is an act of the will, or an act of choice, or else it does not at all help them out in what they would, viz. the liberty of the will. But if that very determination how to act, be itself an act of choice, then the question returns, what determines this act of choice.

Also, the foreknowledge of God contradicts their notion of liberty as much, and in every respect in the same manner as a decree. For they do not pretend that decree contradicts liberty any otherwise, than as it infers that it is beforehand certain that the thing will come to pass, and that it is impossible but that it should be, as the decree makes an indissoluble connexion beforehand between the subject and predicate of the proposition, that such a thing shall be. A decree infers no other necessity than that. And God’s foreknowledge does infer the same to all intents and purposes. For if from all eternity God foreknew that such a thing would be, then the event was infallibly certain beforehand, and that proposition was true from all eternity, that such a thing would be;’ and therefore there was an indissoluble connexion beforehand between the subject and predicate of that proposition. If the proposition was true beforehand, the subject and predicate of it were connected beforehand. And therefore it follows from hence, that it is utterly impossible that it should not prove true, and that, for this reason, that it is utterly impossible that a thing should be true, and not true, at the same time. 23. The same kind of infallible certainty, that the thing will come to pass, or impossibility but that it should come to pass, that they object against, must necessarily be inferred another way, whether we hold the thing to be any way decreed or not. For it has been shown before, and I suppose none will deny, that God from all eternity decrees his own actions. Therefore he from all eternity decrees every punishment that he ever has inflicted, or will inflict. So that it is impossible, by their own reasoning, but that the punishment should come to pass. And if it be impossible but that the punishment should come to pass, then it is equally impossible but that the sin should come to pass. For if it be possible that the sin should not come to pass, and yet impossible but that the punishment should come to pass, then it is impossible but that God should punish that sin which may never be. 24. For God certainly to know that a thing will be, that possibly may he, and possibly may not be, implies a contradiction, if possibly it may he otherwise, then how can God know certainly that it will be? If it possibly may be otherwise, then he knows it possibly may be otherwise; and that it is inconsistent with his certainly knowing that it will not be otherwise. if God certainly knows it will be, and yet it may possibly be otherwise, then it may possibly happen to be otherwise than God certainly knows it will be. If so, then it may possibly happen that God may be mistaken in his judgment, when he certainly knows; for it is supposed that it is possible that it should be otherwise titan he judges. For that it should be otherwise than he judges, and that he should be mistaken, are the same thing. How unfair therefore is it in those that hold the foreknowledge of God, to insist upon this objection from human liberty, against the decrees, when their scheme is attended with the same difficulty, exactly in the same manner! 25. Their other objection is, that God’s decrees make God the author of sin. I answer, that there is no more necessity of supposing God the author of sin, on this scheme, than on the other. For if we suppose pose, according to my doctrine, that God has determine, from all eternity, the number and persons of those that shall perform the condition of the covenant of grace; in order to support this doctrine, there is no need of maintaining any more concerning God’s decreeing sin, than this, viz. that God has decreed that he will permit all the sin that ever comes to pass, and that upon his permitting it, it will certainly come to pass. And they hold the same thing; for they hold that God does determine beforehand to permit all the sin that does come to pass; and that he certainly knows that if he docs permit it, it will come to pass. I say, they in their scheme allow both these; they allow God does permit all the sin to come to pass, that ever does come to pass; and those that allow the foreknowledge of God, do also allow the other thing, viz, that he knows concerning all the sin that ever does really come to pass, that it will come to pass upon his permitting it.

So that if this be making God the author of sin, they make him so in the very same way that they charge us with doing it. 26. One objection of theirs against God’s decreeing or ordering, in any sense, that sin should come to pass, is, that man cannot do this without making himself sinful, and, in some measure, guilty of the sin, and that therefore God cannot. To this I answer, that the same Objection lies against their own scheme two ways: 1. Because they own that God does permit sin, and that he determines to permit before hand, and that he knows, with respect to all sin that ever is committed, that upon his permitting it, it will come to pass; and we hold no other. 2. Their Objection is, that what is a sin in men, is a sin in God; and therefore, in any sense to decree sin, would be a sin. But if this Objection be good, it is as strong against God’s permission of sin, which they allow; for it would be a sill in men to permit sin. We ought not to permit or suffer it where we have an opportunity to hinder it; and we cannot permit it without making ourselves in some measure guilty. Yet they allow that God does permit sin; and that his permitting it does not make him guilty of it. Why must the argument from men to God be stronger in the other case than in this? 27. They say, that we ought to begin in religion, with the perfections of God, and make these a rule to interpret Scripture. ans. 1. If this be the best rule, I ask, why is it not as good a rule to argue from these perfections of God, his omniscience, infinite happiness, infinite wisdom and power, as his other attributes that they argue from? If it be not as good a rule to argue from these as those, it must be because they are not so certain, or because it is not so certain that he is possessed of these perfections. But this they will not maintain; for his moral perfect ions are proved no otherwise than by arguing from his natural perfections; and therefore the latter must be equally certain with the former. What we prove another thing by, must at least be as certain as it makes the thing proved by it. If an absolute and universal decree does infer a seeming inconsistence with some of God’s moral perfections, they must confess the contrary to have a seeming inconsistence with the natural perfections of God.

Again, 2ndly, They lay it down for a rule, to embrace no doctrine which they by their own reason cannot reconcile with the moral perfections of God. But I would show the unreasonableness of this rule. For, 1. If this be a good rule, then it always was so. Let us then see what will follow. We shall then, 2ndly, have reason to conclude every thing to be really inconsistent with God’s moral perfections, that we cannot reconcile with his moral perfections; for if we had not reason to conclude that it is inconsistent, then we have no reason to conclude that it is not true. But if this be true, that we have reason to conclude every thing is inconsistent with God’s moral perfections which we cannot reconcile with those perfections, then David had reason to conclude that some things that he saw take place, in fact were inconsistent with God’s moral perfections, for he could not reconcile them with those perfections, Psalm 73 And Job had cause to come to the same conclusion concerning some events in his day. 3. If it be a good rule, that we must conclude that to be inconsistent with the divine perfections, that we cannot reconcile with, or, which is the same thing, that we cannot see how it is consistent with, tbose perfections, then it must be because we have reason to conclude that it cannot happen that our reason cannot see bow it can be, and then it will follow that we must reject the doctrine of the Trinity, the incarnation of the Son of God, etc.

The Scripture itself supposes that there are some things in the Scripture that men may not be able to reconcile with God’s moral perfections. See Romans 9:19. “Why doth be yet find fault? For who hath resisted his will?”

And the apostle doth not answer the objection, by showing us how to reconcile it with the moral perfections of God, but by representing the arrogancy of quarrelling with revealed doctrines under such a pretence, and not considering the infinite distance between God and us. “ Nay, but who art thou, O man, that repliest against God?” And God answered Job after the same manner. God rebuked him for darkening counsel by words without knowledge, and answered him, only by declaring and manifesting to him the infinite distance between God and him; so letting him know, that it became him humbly to submit to God, and acknowledge his justice even in those things that were difficult to his reason; and that without solving his difficulties any other way than by making him sensible of the weakness of his own understanding. 28. If there be no election, then it is not God that makes men to differ, expressly contrary to Scripture. No man ought to praise God for that happiness that he has above other men, or for that distinction that is between him and other men, that he is holy and that he is saved; when they are not holy and not saved. The saints in heaven, when they look on the devils in hell, have no occasion to praise God on account of the difference between them. Some of the ill consequences of the Arminian doctrines are, that it robs God of the greater part of the glory of his grace, and takes away a principal motive to love and praise him, and exalts man to God’s room, and ascribes the glory to self, that belongs to God alone. Romans 11:7. “The election hath obtained, and the rest were blinded.” That by the election here is not meant the Gentiles, but the elect part of the Jews, is most apparent by the context. Such Arminians who allow, that some only are elected, and not all that are saved, but none that are reprobated, overthrow hereby their own main objection against reprobation, viz. that God offers salvation to all, and encourages them to seek it, which, say they, would he inconsistent with God’s truth, if he had absolutely determined not to save them; for they will not deny that those that are elected whilst ungodly, are warned of God to beware of eternal damnation, and to avoid such and such things, lest the’,’ should be damned. But for God to warn men to beware of damnation, though he has absolutely determined that they shall not be damned, is exactly parallel with his exhorting men to seek salvation, thought he has actually determined that they shall not be saved. 29. That election is not from a foresight of works, or conditional, as depending on the condition of man’s will, is evident by 2 Timothy 1:9. “Who hath saved us, and called us with a holy calling, not according to our works, but according to his own purpose and grace, which was given us in Christ Jesus before the world began.” Philippians 2:13. “For it is God that worketh in you, both to will and to do of his own good pleasure.” Romans 9:15,16. “I will have mercy on whom I will have mercy, and will have compassion on whom I will have compassion. So then, it is not of him that willeth, nor of him that runneth, but of God that showeth mercy.” Men’s labours and endeavours themselves are from God 1 Corinthians 15:10.”

But by the grace of God, I am what I am; and his grace, which was bestowed upon me, was not in vain; but I laboured more abundantly than they all. Yet not I, but the grace of God which was with me.” 30. God decrees all things, and even all sins. Acts 2:23. “Him, being delivered by the determinate counsel and foreknowledge of God, ye have taken, and by wicked hands have crucified and slain;” 4:28. “For to do whatsoever thy hand and thy counsel determined before to be done.” If the thing meant, be only that Christ’s sufferings should come to pass by some means or other; I answer, they could not come to pass but by sin. For contempt and disgrace was one thing he was to suffer. Even the free actions of men are subject to God’s disposal. Proverbs 21:1. “The king’s heart is in the hand of the Lord; he turneth it as the rivers of water, whithersoever it pleaseth him.” See Jeremiah 52:3. “For through the anger of the Lord it came to pass in Jerusalem and Judah, till he had cast them out from his presence, that Zedekiah rebelled against the king of Babylon.”

The not complying with the terms of the covenant of grace is decreed, Peter 2:8. “ A stone of stumbling and a rock of offence to them that stumble at the word, being disobedient, whereunto also they were appointed.” What man determines, never comes to pass, unless God determines it, Lamentations 3:37. “ Who is he that saith, and it cometh to pass, and the Lord commandeth it not?” By commanding is here meant willing; and God is elsewhere said to speak, and it was done; to command, and it stood fast. God determines the limits of men’s lives, This is exceeding evident. Job 7:1. “ Is there not an appointed time to man upon earth? Are not his days also like the days of a hireling? ‘Days of a hireling’ signify an appointed, certain, limited time as Isaiah 16:14. and 21:16. If the limits of men’s lives are determined, men’s free actions must be determined, and even their sins; for their lives often depend on such acts.

See also Job 14:5. 31. If God does not know all things, then his knowledge may increase, he may gain, and may grow wiser as he grows older. He may discover new things, and may draw consequences from them And he may be mistaken: if he does not know, he may guess wrong: if he does not know, he has no infallible judgment; for an infallible judgment is knowledge. An if he may be mistaken, he may order matters wrong; he may be frustrated; his measures may be broken. For, doubtless, in things that are uncertain, he orders things according to what appears most probable, or else he fails in prudence. But in so ordering things, his measures may be broken. And then the greater part of the great events, viz, events among rational creatures, would be uncertain to him. For the greater part of them depend on men’s free actions. That he does foreknow, is evident by his predicting and foretelling events, and even the sins of men, as Judas’s sin. If he did not foreknow, he might change his will as he altered hits views. Now, it is especially with respect to God’s will and purposes, that he is said its Scripture not to be changeable. Having thus proved the foreknowledge of God, and the greater part of Arminians not denying it, I shall hereafter make it for granted, and shall argue against those only that allow it. If he did not foreknow and might be disappointed, he might repent. 32. They say, as God’s power extends only to all things possible, so God’s knowledge only extends to all things knowable.

Ans. Things impossible, or contradictions, are not things; but events that come to pass, are things God’s power does extend to all things, otherwise it would not be infinite. So neither is the knowledge of God infinite, unless God knows all things. To suppose that God cannot do things impossible, does not suppose that God’s power can be increased. But to suppose that God does not know men’s free actions, does suppose that God’s knowledge may be increased. To suppose that God’s decrees are conditional, in the sense of the Arminians, or that they depend, as they suppose, on a foresight of something that shall come to pass in time, is to suppose that something that first begins to be in time, is the cause of something that has been from all eternity, which is absurd; for nothing can be a cause of that existence, which is before the existence of that cause.

What an absurdity is it, to suppose that that existence which is an effect, is effected by a cause, when that cause that effects it, is not, or has no being!

If it he answered, that it is not the actual existence of the thing, that is the reason or cause of the decree, but the foresight of the existence; and the foresight of the existence may be at the same time with the decree, and before it, in the order of nature, though the existence itself is not and that it is not properly the actual existence of the thing foreseen, that is the cause of the decree, but the existence of it in the divine foreknowledge. I reply, that this does not help the difficulty at all, but only puts it a step further off; for still, by their scheme, the foreknowledge depends on the future actual existence; so that the actual existence is the cause of the divine foreknowledge, which is infinite ages before it. And it is a great absurdity to suppose this effect to flow from this cause, before the existence of the cause. And whatever is said, the absurdity will occur, unless we suppose that the divine decree is the ground of the futurition of the event, and also the ground of the foreknowledge of it. Then the cause is before the effect; but otherwise the effect is before the cause. 33. If God absolutely determined that Christ’s death should have success in gathering a church to him, it will follow that there was a number absolutely elected, or that God had determined some should surely be saved. If God determined that some should surely] be saved, that implies that he had determined that he would see to it, that some should perform the conditions of salvation and he saved; or, which is the same thing, that he would cause that they should be surely saved. But this cannot be, without fixing on the persons beforehand. For the cause is before the effect. There is no such thing as God’s resolving absolutely beforehand that he would save some, and yet not determining who they should be, before they were actually saved; or that he should see to it, that there should be in a number the requisites of salvation, and yet not determine who, till they actually have the requisites of salvation. But God had absolutely determined that some should be saved, yea, a great number, after Christ’s death; and had determined it beforehand. Because he had absolutely promised it; Isaiah 49:6. and 53:10. See in Psalm 72. and other places in the Psalm, and Titus 2:14. God, having absolutely purposed this before Christ’s death, must either have then determined the persons, or resolved that he would hereafter determine the persons; at least, if he saw there was need of it, and saw that they did not come in of themselves. But this latter supposition, if we allow it, overthrows the Arminian scheme. It shows that such a predetermination, or absolute election, is not inconsistent with God’s perfections, or the nature of the gospel-constitution, or God’s government of the world, and his promise of reward to the believing and obedient, and the design of gospel offers and commands, as the Arminians suppose. If God has absolutely determined to save some certain persons, then, doubtless, he has in like manner determined concerning all that are to be saved. God’s promising, supposes not only that the thing is future, but that God will do it. If it be left to chance, or man’s contingent will, and the event happen right, God is never the truer. He performs not his promise; he takes no effectual care about it; it is not he that promised, that performs.

That thing, or rather nothing, called fortune, orders all.-Concerning the absurdity of supposing that it was not absolutely determined beforehand, what success there should be of Christ’s death; see Polhill’s Spec. Theolog. in Christ, p 165-171.

It is pretended, at the antecedent certainty of any sin’s being committed, seeing that it is attended with necessity, takes away all liberty, and makes warnings and exhortations to avoid sin, a mere illusion. To this I would bring the instance of Peter. Christ told him, that he should surely deny him thrice that night, before the cock should crow twice. And yet, after that, Christ exhorted all his disciples to watch and pray, that they might not fall into temptation; and directs, that he who had no sword, should sell his garment and buy one. 34. How evident is it, that God sets up that to be sought after as a reward of virtue, and the fruit of our endeavours, which yet has determined shall never come to pass! As, 1 Samuel 13:13. “ And Samuel said unto Saul, Thou hast done foolishly thou hast not kept the commandment of the Lord thy God, which he commanded thee. For now would the Lord have established thy kingdom upon Israel for ever.” It is evident that God had long before decreed, that the kingdom of Israel should be established in the tribe of Judah. Luke 22:22. “ The Son of man goeth as it was determined, [Matthew 26:2 h. and Mark 14:21. as it is written of him,] but woe unto that man by whom the Son of man is betrayed.” As it was determined as this passage is not liable to the ambiguities which some have apprehended in Acts 2:23. and 4:28. (which yet seem on the whole to be parallel to it in their most natural construction,) I look upon it as an evident proof, that those things are in the language of Scripture said to be determined or decreed, (or exactly bounded and marked out by God, as the word ... most naturally signifies,) which he sees will in fact happen in consequence of his volitions, without any necessitating agency, as well as those events of which he is properly the author; and, as Beza expresses it, “Qui sequitur deum emendate sane loquitur, we nee not fear falling into any impropriety of speech, when we use the language which God has taught.” Doddridge in loc. 35. As to the decrees of election, see Psalm 65:4. Blessed is the man whom thou choosest, and causest to approach unto thee. that he mav dwell in thy courts we shall be satisfied with the goodness of thy house, even of thy holy temple.” Isaiah 41:9. “ Thou whom I have taken from the ends of the earth, and called thee from the chief men thereof, and said unto thee, Thou art my servant; I have chosen thee, and not cast thee away.” Matthew 20:16. “ So the last shall be first, and the first last; for many he called, but few chosen.” Chap. 22:14. “For many are called, but few are chosen.”

Chap. 24:24. “For there shall arise false Christs and false prophets, and shall show great signs and wonders; in so much that, if it were possible, they shall deceive the very elect.” John 6:37-46. “All that the Father giveth me, shall come to me; and him that cometh to me I will in no wise cast out,” etc. Chap. 10:3, 4, and ver. 11, and 14-17. ver. 26-30. “To him the porter openeth, and the sheep hear his voice; and he calleth his own sheep by name, and leadeth them out. And when he putteth forth his own sheep, he goeth before them, and the sheep follow him, for they know his voice. I am the good Shepherd; and know my sheep, and am known of mine.

Therefore doth my Father love me; because I lay down my life, that I might take it again. But ye believe not, because ye are not of my sheep, as I said unto you,” etc. Chap. 17:6-20. “I have manifested thy name unto the men thou gayest me out of the world: thine they were, and thou gayest them me; and they have kept thy word, etc. Neither pray I for these alone; but for them also which shall believe on me through their word.” Acts 18:10.”

For I am with thee, and no man shall set on thee, to hurt thee: for I have much people in this city.” As to reprobation, see Matthew 11:20-27. “Then began he to upbraid the cities wherein most of his mighty works were done, because they repented not, &e. Even so, Father, for so it seemed good in thy sight. All things are delivered unto me of my Father; and no man knoweth the Son, but the Father; neither knoweth any man the Father, save the Son, and he to whomsoever the Son will reveal him.” John 6:44-46. “ No man can come to me, except the Father which hath sent me draw him: and I will raise him up at the last day, etc. Not that any man hath seen the Lord, save he which is of God, be hath seen the Father.” Chap. 8:47. “He that is of God, heareth God’s words: ye therefore hear them not, because ye are not of God.” Chap. 10:26. “But ye believe not, because you are not of my sheep, as I said unto you.” Chap. 17:9-13. “I pray for them: I pray not for the world, but for them which thou hast given me; for they are thine,” etc. 1 Thessalonians 5:9. “ For God hath not appointed us to wrath, but to obtain salvation by our Lord Jesus Christ.” 1 Peter 2:8. “And a stone of stumbling, and a rock of offence, even to them which stumble at the word, being disobedient: whereunto also they were appointed.” Jude 4. “ For there are certain men crept in unawares, who were before of old ordained to this condemnation, turning the grace of God into lasciviousness.” 1 John 4:6. “We are of God. He that knoweth God, heareth us; he that is not of God, heareth not us. Hereby know we the spirit of truth, and the spirit of error.” Revelation 3:8. “1 know thy works: behold, I have set before thee an open door, and no man can shut it: for thou hast a little strength, and hast kept my word, and hast not denied my name.” Chap. 20:12-15. “And I saw the dead, small and great, stand before God; and the books were opened: and another book was opened, which is the book of life: and the dead were judged out of those things which were written in the books, according to their works. And whosoever was not found written in the book of life, was cast into the lake of fire.” John 12:37-41. “But though he had done so many miracles before them, yet they believed not on him. Because that Esaias said, he hath blinded their eyes, and hardened their heart, that they should not see with their eyes, etc.

These things said Esaias, when he saw his glory and spake of him.”

Romans 9:6,7,8. 11-14, 16-19. ver. 21-24. ver. 27, 29, 33. “Not as though the word of God hath taken none effect. For they are not all Israel, which are of Israel: neither because they are the seed of Abraham, are they all children: but, in Isaac shall thy seed be called. That is, they which are the children of the flesh, these are not the children of God; but the children of the promise are counted for the seed. For the children, being not yet born, neither having done any good or evil, that the purpose of God according to election might stand, not of works, but of him that calleth, it was said, The elder shall serve the younger, etc. What shall we say then? Is there unrighteousness with God? God forbid. So then, it is not of him that willeth, nor of him that runneth, but of God that showeth mercy, etc. Thou will say then unto me, Why doth he yet find fault? For who hath resisted his will? Hath not the potter power over the clay, of the same lump to make one vessel unto honour, and another to dishonour? etc. Even us whom he hath called, not of the Jews only, but also of the Gentiles. Esaias also crieth concerning Israel, Though the number of the children of Israel be as the sand of the sea, a remnant shall be saved: And as Esaias said before, Except the Lord of Sabaoth had left us a seed, we had been as Sodom, and been made like unto Gomorrha. As it is written, Behold, I lay in Sion a stumbling-stone, and a rock of offence. And whosoever believeth on him shall not be ashamed.” And chap. 11:1-6. ver. 7-11. ver. 15, 17, 19- 23. ver. 32, 36. “1 say then, bath God cast away his people? God forbid.

For I also am an Israelite, of the seed of Abraham, of the tribe of Benjamin, etc. Even so then at this present time also there is a remnant according to the election of grace. And if by grace, then is it no more of works: otherwise grace is no more grace. But if it be of works, then is it no more grace: otherwise work is no more work. What then? Israel hath not obtained that which he seeketh for; but the election hath obtained it, and the rest were blinded. God hath given them the spirit of slumber, eyes that they should not see, and ears that they should not hear, unto this day. Let their table be made a snare, and a trap, and a stumbling. block, and a recompence unto them, etc. And if some of the branches be broken off, and thou, being a wild olivetree, wert grafted in among them, and with them partakest of the root and fatness of the olive-tree; thou will say then, The branches were broken off, that I might be grafted in, &e, And they also, if they abide not in unbelief, shall he grafted in: for God is able to graft them in again. For God hath concluded them all in unbelief, that he might have mercy upon all. For of him, and through him and to him, are all things: to whom be glory for ever. Amen.” 36. All that is intended when we say that God decrees all that comes to pass, is, that all events are subject to the disposals of Providence, or that God orders all things in Isis providence; and that he intended from eternity to order all things in providence, and intended to order them as he does.

Election does not signify only something common to professing Christians, Matthew 20:16. “Many are called, but few are chosen.” Matthew 24:31. “He shall send forth his angels, and gather together his elect.” 37. God’s foreknowledge appears from this, that God has foretold that there should be some good men, as the Arminians themselves allow.

Stebbiug, in his Treatise concerning the Operations of the Holy Spirit, p. 237, second edition, says as follows: “So long as a man may be certain that those things will come to pass which God hath foretold, he may be certain, that God’s g race will prevail in multitudes of men before the end of all things. For by divers predictions in holy writ we are assured, that when Christ shall come to judgment, there will be some who shall be changed, and put on immortality.” 38. The Scriptures, in teaching us this doctrine, are guilty of no bard imposition on our understanding of a doctrine contrary to reason. If they bad taught the contrary doctrine, it would have been much more contrary to reason, and a much greater temptation to persons of diligent and thorough consideration, to doubt of the divinity of the Scripture. 39. Concerning the decreeing of sin, see Acts 3:17,18. with Acts 13:27. “And now, brethren, I wot that through ignorance ye did it, as did also your rulers. But those things which God before had showed by the mouth of all his prophets, that Christ should suffer, he hath so fulfilled.”-” F or they that dwell at Jerusalem, and their rulers, because they knew him not, nor yet the voices of the prophets which are read every sabbath-day, they have fulfilled them in condemning him.” 40. It is objected, that this is a speculative point. So might they say, Jesus’s being the Messiah, is a speculative point. 41. If God’s inviting or commanding a person to do a thing when be, in his decree, has ordained t at it shall be otherwise, argues insincerity in the command or invitation, the insincerity must be in this, viz, that he commands a thing to be done when his end in commanding is not, that the thing may be done; which cannot be his end; because he knows certainly at the time that he commands it, that it will not be. But it is certain, that God’s commanding a thing to be done, which he certainly knows at the time will not be done, is no evidence of insincerity in God in commanding.

For thus God commanded Pharaoh to let the people go: and yet he knew he would not obey, as he says at the same time that he orders the command to be given him, Exodus 3:18,19. “And thou shalt come, thou and the elders of Israel, unto the king of Egypt, and you shall say unto him, The Lord God of the Hebrews hath met with us; and now let us go, we beseech thee, three days’ journey into the wilderness, that we may sacrifice to the Lord our God: and I am sure that the king of Egypt will not let you go; no, not by a mighty hand.” See also chap. 4:21, 22, 23. and chap. 7:1-7.; see also chap. 9:16. compared with Romans 9:17. 42. It is impossible for an infinitely wise and good being to do otherwuse, than to choose what he sees on the whole to he best. And certainly reason requires us to suppose, that of all possible events with respect to sin, and the conversion and salvation of particular persons, it is better that one of those possible and opposite events should come to pass than another; and therefore, an infinitely wise and good being must choose accordingly. What God permits, he decrees to permit. If it is no blemish to God to permit sin, then it is no blemish to him to purpose or initend to permit it. And if he be omniscient, and does designedly permit that sin which actually comes to pass, then he designedly permits that sin, knowing, if he permits it, it will actually come to pass. And this is an effectual permission, and all that we plead for. What, then, do our adversaries quarrel with us for? And why do they pretend that we charge God with being the author of sin? There is a way of drawing consequences from Scripture, that begs the question. As the Arminians say, there are many more texts plainly against election, than seem to be for it, viz. those texts that represent, that general offers of salvation are made, as though it were left to men’s choice, whether they will be saved or no. But that is begging the question. For the question very much consists in these things, whether an absolute decree be inconsistent with man’s liberty, and so with a generah offer of salvation, etc. 43. Concerning the Arminian notion of election, that when the apostles speak of election, they only mean that by which the professing Christians in those days were distinguished from others, as the nation of Israel of old was; this is unreasonable, according to their own principles. For if they were elected, and that was the reason why they so far embraced the gospel, as to become Christians rather titan others, then, on Arminian principles, no thanks were due to them for embracing the gospel; neither were others, who continued openly to reject the gospel, to blame; and it was in vain to use any means to persuade any to join with the christian church; nor were any to blame for not doing it, or to he praised for doing it, etc. Besides, their principles render vain all endeavours to spread the gospel. For the gospel will certainly be spread to all nations that are elected; and all such shall have the offers of the gospel, whether they take any care of the matter or no. 44. Dr. Whitby, to make out his scheme, makes the word election signify two entirely different things; one, election to a common faith of Christianity; another, a conditional election to salvation. But every one must be sensible of the unreasonableness of such shifting and varying, and turning into all shapes, to evade the force of Scripture. 45, It is evident the apostle, in Romans 9 has not only respect to God’s sovereignty in the election and preterition of nations, because he illustrates his meaning by the instance of a particular person, viz. Pharaoh. The exercise of t.he sovereignty that he speaks of, appears by the express words of the apostle about vessels of mercy aid vessels of wrath, vessels of honour and vessels of dishonour. But the vessels of mercy, he speaks of as prepared to glory. They, it is plain, are those that shall be saved, and the vessels of wrath are those that perish. He speaks of those that shall be saved, ver. 27. “A remnant shall be saved.” What is there that God does decree, accord ing to the scheme of the Arminians, so as to make it in any measure consistent with itself? He does not decree any of the great events of the world of mankind, (which are the principal events, and those to which all others are subordinated,) because these depend on men’s free will. He does not absolutely decree any events wherein the welfare of men is concerned; for if he does, then these things, according to their scheme, cannot be the subject of prayer. For according to them, it is absurd to seek or pray for things, which we do not know but that God has absolutely decreed and fixed before. We do not know but that he has determined absolutely and unfrustrably from eternity, that they shall not he; and then, by their scheme, we cannot pray in faith for them. See Whitby, p. 177, etc.

And if God does not decree and order those events beforehand, then what becomes of the providence of God; and what room is there for prayer, if there be no providence? Prayer is shut out this way also. According to them, we cannot reasonably pray for the accomplishment of things that are already fixed, before our prayers; for then our prayers alter nothing, and what, say they, signifies it for us to pray?

Dr. Whitby insists upon it, that we cannot pray in faith for the salvation of others, if we do not know that Christ died intentionally for their saluation. 46. To Dr. Whitby’s observation, that the apostle speaks of churches, as though they were all elect, I answer, he speaks from a judgment of charity, as Dr. Whitby himself observes, p. 460. God foreknows the elect, as God is said to know those that are his own sheep from strangers; as Christ is said not to know the workers of iniquity, that is, he owns them. not. In the same sense, God is said to know the elect from all eternity; that is, he knew them as a man knows his own things. He acknowledged them from eternity. He owns them as his children. Reprobates he did not know; they were strangers to God from all eternity. If God ever determined, in the general, that some of mankind should certainly be saved, and did not leave it altogether undetermined whether ever so much as one soul of all mankind should believe in Christ; it must be that he determined that some particular persons should certainly believe in him. For it is certain that if he has left it undetermined concerning this, and that, and the other person, whether ever he should believe or not, and so of every particular person in the world; then there is no necessity at all, that this, or that, or any particular person in the world, should ever be saved by Christ, for the matter of any determination of God’s. So that, though God sent his Son into the world, yet the matter was left altogether undetermined by God, whether ever any person should be saved by him, and there was all this ado about Christ’s birth, death, resurrection, ascension, and sitting at God’s right hand, when it was not as yet determined whether he should ever save one soul, or have any mediatorial kingdom at all. 47. It is most absurd to call such a conditional election as they talk of, by the name of election, seeing there is a necessary connexion between faith in Jesus Christ and eternal life. Those that believe in Christ, must be saved according to God’s inviolable constitution of things. What nonsense is it, therefore, to talk of choosing such to life from all eternity Out of the rest of mankind! A predestination of such to life is altogether useless and needless.

By faith in one that has satisfied for sin, the soul necessarily becomes free from sin. By faith in one that has bought eternal life for them, they have, of unavoidable consequence, a right to eternal life, Now, what sense is it to say, that God from all eternity, of his free grace, chose out those that he foresaw would have no guilt of sin, that they should not be punished for their guilt, as others were, when it is a contradiction to suppose that they can be punished for their guilt when they have none? For who can lay any thing to their charge, when it is Christ that has died? And what do they mean by an election of men to that which is, in its own nature, impossible that it should not be, whether they are elected to it or no; or by God’s choosing them that had a right to eternal life, that they should possess it?

What sense is it to say that a creditor chooses out those among his debtors to be free from debt, that owe him nothing? But if they say that election is only God’s determination, in the general, that all that believe shall be saved, in what sense can this be called election? They are not persons that are here chosen, but mankind is divided into two sorts, the one believing, and the other unbelieving, and God chooses the believing sort. It is not election of persons, but of qualifications. God does from all eternity choose to bestow eternal life upon those that have a right to it, rather than upon those who have a right to damnation. Is this all the election we have an account of in God’s word? Such a thing as election may well be allowed; for that there is such a thing as sovereign love, is certain; that is, love, not for any excellency, but merely God’s good pleasure. For whether it is proper to say that God from all eternity loved the elect or no, it is proper to say that God loved men after the fall, while sinners and enemies; for God so loved the world, that he gave his only-begotten Son to die. This was not for any goodness or excellency, but merely God’s good pleasure; for he would not love the fallen angels. 48. Christ is often spoken of in Scripture as being, by way of eminency, the elect or chosen of God. Isaiah 42:1. “Behold my servant whom I uphold, mine elect in whom my soul delighteth.” Luke 23:35. “If he be the Christ, the chosen of God.” 1 Peter 2:4. “A living stone, chosen of God, and precious.” Psalm 89:3. “I have made a covenant with my chosen:” ver. 19. “I have exalted one chosen out of the people.” Hence those persons in the Old Testament, that were the most remarkable types of Christ, were the subjects of a very remarkable election of God, by which they were designed to some peculiar honour of the prophetical, priestly, or kingly office. So Moses was called God’s chosen, in that wherein he was eminently a type of Christ, viz, as a prophet and ruler, and mediator for his people; Psalm 106:23. “Had not Moses, his chosen, stood before him in the breach.” So Aaron was constituted high priest by a remarkable election of God, as in Numbers 16:5. and 17:5. Deuteronomy 21:5. So David the king was the subject of a remarkable election; Psalm 78:68-72. “Moreover, he refused the tabernacle of Joseph, and chose not the tribe of Ephraim, but chose the tribe of Judah, the mount Sion which he loved; and he built his sanctuary like high palaces; like the earth which he hath established forever. He chose David also his servant, and took him from the sheepfolds, from following the ewes great with young he brought him to feed Jacob his people, and Israel his inheritance.” 1 Samuel 16:7-10.

The Lord hath not chosen this, neither hath the Lord chosen this; the Lord hath not chosen these.” Christ is the chosen of God, both as to Isis divine and human nature. As to his divine nature, he was chosen of God, though not to any addition to his essential glory or real happiness, which is infinite, yet to great declarative glory. As he is man, he is chosen of God to the highest degree of real glory and happiness of all creatures. As to both, he is chosen of God to the office and gloomy of the mediator between God and men, and the head of all the elect creation. His election, as it respects his divine nature, was for his worthiness and excellency and infinite amiableness in the sight of God, and perfect fitness for that which God chose him to, and his worthiness was the ground of his election. But his election, as it respects his human nature, was free and sovereign, not being for any worthiness, but his election was the foundation of his worthiness.

His election, as he is God, is a manifestation of God’s infinite wisdom. The wisdom of any being is discovered by the wise choice he makes; so the infinite wisdom of God is manifest in the wisdom of his choice when he chose his eternal Son, one so fir, upon all accounts, for the office of a mediator, when he only was fit, and when he was perfectly and infinitely fit; and yet his fitness was so difficult to be discerned, that none but one of infinite wisdom could discover it. His election, as he was man, was a manifestation of God’s sovereignty and. grace. God had determined to exalt one of the creatures so high, that he should be one person with God, and should have communion with God, and should have glory in all respects answerable; and so should be the head of all other elect creatures, that they might be united to God and glorified in him. And his sovereignty appears in the election of the man Jesus, various ways. It appears in choosing the species of creatures of which he should be, viz. the race of mankind, and not the angels, the superior species. God’s sovereignty alsoappears its choosing this creature of the seed of fallen creatures that were become ememies and rebels, abominable, miserable creatures. It appears in choosing that he should be of such a branch of mankind, in selecting the posterity of David, a mean person originally, and the youngest of the family. And as he was the seed of the woman, so his sovereignty appears in his being the seed of such particular women; as of Leah, the uncomely y wife of Jacob, whom her husband had not chosen; and Tamar a Camaamitess, and a harlot; and Rahab a harlot; and Ruth a Moabitess; and of Bathsheba, one that had committed adultery; and as he was the seed of many a mean person. And his sovereignty appears in the choice of that individual female of whom Christ was born.

It was owing to this election of God, that the man Jesus was not one of the corrupt race of mankind, so that his freedom from sin and damnation is owing to the free, sovereign, electing love of God in him, as well as in the rest of elect men. All holiness, all obedience and good works, and perseverance in him, was owing to the electing love of God, as well as in his elect members. And so his freedom from eternal damnation was owing to the free, electing love of God another way, viz, as it was owing to God’s electing love to him and his members, but to him in the first place, that he did not fail in that great and difficult work that he undertook; that he did nor fail under his extreme sufferings, and so eternally continue under them. For if he had failed; if his courage, resolution, and love had been conquered by Isis sufferings, he never could have been delivered from them; for then he would have failed in his obedience to God, and his love to God failing, and being overcome by sufferings, these sufferings would have failed of the nature of an acceptable sacrifice to God, and the infinite value of his sufferings would have failed, and so must be made up in infinite duration, to atone for his own deficiency. But God having chosen Christ, he could not fail in this work, and so was delivered from his sufferings, from the eternity of them, by the electing love of God, Justification and glorification were fruits of God’s foreknowledge and predestination in him, as well as in his elect members.

So that the man Christ Jesus has the eternal, electing love of God to him, to contemplate and admire, and to delight and rejoice his heart, as all his elect members have. He has it before him, as others have, eternally to praise God for his free and sovereign election of him, and to ascribe the praise of his freedom from eternal damnation, (which he, with his elect members, beholds, and has had a sense of, far beyond all the rest, and so has more cause of joy and praise for his deliverance from it,) and the praise of the glory he possesses, to that election. This election is not for Christ’s works or worthiness, for all his works and worthiness are the fruits of it.

God had power over this seed of the woman, to make it either a vessel to honour, or dishonour, as he had over the rest.

Christ is, by way of eminency, called The Elect of God. For though other elect men are by election distinguished from the greater part of mankind, yet they, in their election, have that which is common to thousands and millions; and though the elect angels are distinguished by election from the angels that fell, yet they are chosen among myriads of others; but this man, by his election, is vastly distinguished from all other creatures in heaven or earth; and Christ, in his election, is the head of election, and the pattern of all other election. Christ is the head of all elect creatures; and both angels and men are chosen in him in some sense, i.e. chosen to he in him. All elect men are said to be chosen in Christ, Ephesians 1:4. Election contains two things, viz, foreknowledge and predestination, which are distinguished in the 8th chapter of Romans. The one is choosing persons to be God’s, which is a foreknowing of them; and the other, a destining theta to be conformed to the image of his Son, both in holiness and blessedness. The elect ate chosen in him with respect to those two, in senses somewhat diverse. With respect to foreknowledge or foreknowing, we are chosen in him as God chose us, to be actually his in this way, viz. by being in Christ, or being members of his Son. This is the way that God determined we should actually become his. God chose Christ, and gave his elect people to him; and so, looking on them as his, owned them for Isis own. But by predestination, which is consequent on his foreknowledge, we ate elected in Christ, as we are elected in Isis election. For God having in foreknowledge given us to Christ, he thenceforward beheld us as members and parts of him; and so ordaining the head to glory, he therein ordained the members to glory. In destining Christ to eternal life, he destined all parts of Christ to it also. So that we are appointed to eternal life in Christ, being in Christ, his members from eternity. In his being appointed to life, we are appointed to life. So Christ’s election is the foundation of ours, as much as Isis justification and glorification are the foundation of ours. By election in Scripture is sometimes meant this latter part, viz. destination to conformity to Christ in life and glory, as 2 Thessalonians 2:13. “God from the beginning hath chosen you to salvation — “And it seems to be spoken of in this sense chiefly, in Ephesians 1:3,4,5. “Who hath blessed us with all spiritual blessings in heavenly places in Christ, according as he hath chosen us in him before the foundation of the would, that we should he holy and without blame before him in hove; having predestinated us to the adoption of children by Jesus Christ to himself, according to the good pleasure of his will.” 49. 2 Thessalonians 2:13 “But we are bound to give thanks alway to God for you, brethren, beloved of the Lord, because God hath from the beginning chosen you to salvation, through sanctification of the Spirit and belief of the truth.” Concerning this scripture I observe the following things: 1. The word translated chosen is a word that signifies to choose or pick out from many others. 2. That this choosing is given as a reason why those differ from others that believe not the truth, but have pleasure in unrighteousness, as an instance of the distinguishing grace of God; and therefore the apostle mentions their being chosen, their election as the ground of their sanctification by the Spirit and belief of the truth. 3. The apostle speaks of their being chosen to salvation, as a ground of their perseverance, or the reason why they never shall fall away, as others spoken of before, whereby they failed of salvation. See the preceding verses. Compare Hebrews 6:9. 4. They are spoken of as thus chosen from the beginning.

That place, Matthew 20:21-23. “Grant that these my two sons may sit, one on thy right hand, and the other on thy left, in thy kingdom; — it shall be given to them for whom it is prepared of my Father,” affords an invincible argument for particular, personal predestination.

It is an evidence that the apostle, in chap. 9 of Romans, has not respect solely to an election and dereliction of nations or public societies, that one instance which he produces to illustrate and confirm what he says, is the dereliction of a particular person, even Pharaoh, Romans 9:17. So it is an instance of God’s mercy to a particular person, even Moses. When he says to Moses, “I will have mercy on whom I will have mercy, and will have compassion on whom I will have compassion,” etc. the words cited were used by God on occasion of and with relation to his mercy to a particular person, even Moses; (see Exodus 33:19.) And the language in that verse and the next, is suited to particular persons; as, verse 16 and 18, and verses 22, 23. And the apostle shows plainly, verses 27, 29, that it is not an election of nations or publie societies, butt a distinction of some particular persons from others of the same society as it was a distinction of particular persons, in preserving some, when others were destroyed by Nebuchadnezzar’s armies; and in returning some from captivity, and leaving others. This was not a showing of mercy to one public society in distinction from another. So in chap. 10:4, 5. where the apostle plainly continues to speak of the same election, it was not by a national election, or election of any public society, that God distinguished the seven thousand that he had reserved, who had not bowed the knee to Baal.

John 6:37. “All that the Father hath given me shall come to me. And this is the Father’s will which sent me, that of all which he hath given me I should lose nothing, butt should raise it up again at the last day.”-” What is this being given to Christ to be raised up again to everlasting life, but the election of particular persons to salvation? And since it is the Father’s will, that of all that he has given to Christ, he should lose nothing this election must be so absolute as to insure their salvation.” Green’s Friendly Controversies.

It is plainly and abundantly taught in Scripture, that election is not of works. Romans 9:11. “That the purpose of God according to election might stand, not of works, but of him that calleth.” Verse 11. “Neither of them having done either good or evil.” And Romans 11:5,6. “ Even so at this present time also, there is a remnant according to the election of grace.

And if by grace, then it ms no mom-n of works; otherwise grace is no more grace. But if it be of works, then it is no more grace; otherwise work is no more work.” 2 Timothy 1:9. “ Who hath saved us, and called us with a holy calling, ‘not according to oar works, but according to his own purpose and grace, which was given us in Christ Jesus before the world began.”

How invincible a proof of the calvinistical doctrine of election is that place in Romans 11:5! “Even so then at this present time also, there is a remnant according to the election of grace.” Dr. Doddridge observes upon it, that some explain this of having chosen grace, 1:c. the gospel. But that turn is very unnatural, and neither suits the phrase, nor the connexion with the former clause, or with the next verse, where the apostle comments on his own words. 50. If God does not some way in his providence, and so in his predeterminations, order what the volitions of men shall be, he would be as dependent in governing the world, as a skilfuth mariner is in governing his ship, in passing over a turbulent, tempestuous ocean, where he meets constantly, and through the whole voyage, with things that agitate the ship, have great influence on the motions of it, and are so cross and grievous to him that he is obliged to accommodate himself in the best manner that he can. He meets with cross winds, violent tempests, strong currents, and gm- eat opposition from enemies; none of which things he has the disposal of, butt is forced to suffer. He only guides the ship, and, by his skill, turns that hither and thither, and steers it in such a manner as to avoid dangers, as well as the case will allow. 51. As that objection against the election which the apostle speaks of in his epistles, as an election by which such should be distinguished as should certainly be saved at last, viz. that many of those whom the apostle calls elect, chosen in Christ, etc. actually turned apostates; what Dr. Doddnidge observes in his note on Ephesians 1:4. may be a sufficient Answer. The apostle speaks of whole societies in general as consisting of saints and believers, because this was the predominant character; and he. had reason, in the judgment of charity, to believe the greater part were such; (compare Philippians 1:7.) Nor did be always judge it necessary to make exceptions iii reference to a few hypocrites who had crept in among them, any more than Christ judged it so to speak of Judas as excluded, when he mentions the twelve thrones of judgment on which the apostles should sit.” (Matn. 19:28.) 52. Many have a notion concerning some things in religion, and, in particular, concerning predestination, that if they be the truth, yet it is not best that they should be known. But many reasons may be offered against this notion. 53. What the devil did to afflict Job, was the exercise and fruit of his devilish disposition, and his acts therein were devilish. And vet it is most apparent, that those acts and effects of the ‘devil towards Job, were appointed by infinite wisdom for holy ends; but not accomplished by God any otherwise than by permission. 54. There were many absolute promises of old, that salvation should actually be accomplished, and that it should be of great extent, or extending to great multitudes of mankind; as, that “ the seed of the woman should bruise the serpent’s head.” “ In thee, and in thy seed, shall all the families of the earth be blessed.” Psalm 22:30. “A seed shall serve him, and it shall be accounted to the Lord for a generation.” Isaiah 53:10. “He shall see his seed.” Psalm 2:6. “ Ask of me, and I will give thee the heathen for thine inheritance,” etc. Psalm 110. “Sit thou at my right hand, till I make thine enemies thy footstool.” “ Thy people shall be willing in the day of thy power;” and innumerable others. And if there were absolute promises of this, then there were absolute purposes of it; for that which is sincerely, absolutely promised, is with an absolute purpose of fulfilling the promise.

But how can it be devised, that there should be an absolute, determinate, infallible, unchangeable purpose, that Christ should actually save vast multitudes of mankind and yet it be not absolutely purposed that he should save any one single person, but that with regard to every individual soul, this was left undetermined by God, to be determined by man’s contingent will, which might determine for salvation, or against it, there being nothing to render it impossible concerning any one, that his will would not finally determine against it? Observe, these prophecies are not merely predictions, but are of the nature of promises, and are often so called-” Which he hath promised by the mouth of all his holy prophets since the world began,” etc.

God takes care to fulfil his own promises; but, according to this scheme, it is not God that fulfils these promises; but men, left to themselves, to their contingent wills, fulfil them. Man’s will, which God does not determine, determines itself in exclusion of God.

All the promises of God are yea and amen, and God himself makes them so to be; he takes care of that matter. 55. Concerning that grand objection, that this doctrine supposes partiality in God, and is very dishonourable to him, being quite contrary to God’s extensive and universal benevolence to his creatures; it may be shown that the Arminian notions and principles in this matter, head directly to deism; and that on these principles, it is utterly impossible to answer Tindal’s objections against revealed religion, especially in his 14th chapter. Besides, unjustifiable partiality is not imputable to a sovereign distributing his favours, though ever so unequally, unless it be done unwisely, and so as to infringe the common good. 56. God has regard to conditions in his decrees, as he has regard to a wise order and connexion of things. Such us his wisdom in his decrees, and all his acts and operations, that if it were not for wise connexion that is regarded, many things would not be decreed. One part of the wise system of events would not have been decreed, unless the other parts had been decreed, etc. God in the decree of election is justly to be considered as decreeing the creature’s eternal happiness, antecedently to any foresight of good works, in a sense wherein he does not in reprobation decree the creature’s eternal misery, antecedently to any foresight of sin; because the being of sin is supposed in the first place in order to the decree of reprobation, which is, that God will glorify his vindictive justice; and the very notion of revenging justice, simply considered, supposes a fault to be revenged. But faith and good works are not supposed in the first place in order to the decree of election. The first things in order in this decree are, that God will communicate his happiness, and glorify his grace; (for these two seem to be co-ordinate;) but in neither of these are faith and good works supposed. For when God decrees, and seeks to communicate his own happiness in the creature’s happiness, the notion of this, simply considered, supposes or implies nothing of faith or good works; nor does the notion of grace, in itself, suppose any such thing. It does not necessarily follow from the very nature of grace, or God’s communicativeness of his own happiness, that there must be faith and good works. This is only a certain way of the appointment of God’s wisdom,, wherein he will bring men to partake of his grace. But yet God is far from having decreed damnation from a foresight of evil works, in the sense of the Arminians, as if God in this decree did properly depend on the creature’s sinful act, as an event, the coming to pass of which primarily depends on the creature’s determination; so that the creature’s determination in this decree may properly be looked upon as antecedent to God’s determination, and on which his determination is consequent and dependent. 58. What divines intend by prior and posterior in the affair of God’s decrees, is not that one is before another in the order of time, for all are from eternity; but that we must conceive the view or consideration of one decree to be before another, inasmuch as God decrees one thing out of respect to another decree that he has made; so that one decree must be conceived of as in some sort to be the ground of another, or that God decrees one because of another; or that he would not have decreed one, had he decreed that other. Now there are two ways in which divine decrees may be said to be in this sense prior one to another. h. When one thing decreed is the end of another, this must in some respect be conceived of as prior to that other. The good to be obtained is in some respect prior, in the consideration of him who decrees and disposes, to the means of obtaining it. 2. When one thing decreed is the ground on which the disposer goes, in seeking such an end by another thing decreed, as being the foundation of the capableness or fitness that there is in that other thing decreed, to obtain such an end. Thus the sinfulness of the reprobate is the ground on which God goes in determining to glorify his justice in the punishment of his sinfulness; because his sinfulness is the foundation of the possibility of obtaining that end by such means. His having sin is the foundation of both the fitness and possibility of justice being glorified in the punishment of his sin, and therefore the consideration of the being of sin in the subject, must in some respect be prior in the mind of the disposer, to the determination to glorify his justice in the punishment of sin. For the disposer must first consider the capableness and aptness of such means for such an end, before be determines them to such an end.

Thus God must be conceived of, as first considering Adonibezek’s cruelty in cutting off the thumbs and great toes of threescore and ten kings, as that which was to be before he decreed to glorify his justice in punishing that cruelty by the cutting off his thumbs and great toes. For God, in this last decree, has respect to the fitness and aptness of his thumbs and great toes being cut off to glorify his justice. But this aptness depends on the nature of that sin that was punished. Therefore the disposer, in fixing on those means for this end, must be conceived of as having that sin in view. Not only must God be conceived of as having some end in consideration, before he determines the means in order to that end, but he must also be conceived of as having a consideration of the capableness or aptness of the means to obtain the end before he fixes on the means. Both these, in different respects, may be said to be prior to the means decreed to such an end in the mind of the disposer. Both, in different respects, are the ground or reason of the appointment of the means. The end is the ground or reason of the appointment of the means; and also the capacity and fitness of means to the end, is the ground or reason of this appointment to such an end. So both the sin of the reprobate, and also the glory of divine justice, may properly be said to be before the decree of damning the reprobate. The decree of damnation may properly be said, in different respects, to be because of both these; and that God would not have decreed the damnation of the sinner, had it not been for the respect he had both to the one and the other. Both may properly be considered as the ground of the decree of damnation. The view of the sinfulness of the reprobate must be in some respect prior in the decree, to God’s decree to glorify his justice in punishing their sinfulness. Because sinfulness is necessarily supposed as already existing in the decree of punishing sinfulness, and the decree of damnation being posterior to the consideration of the sin of men in this hatter respect, clears God of any injustice in such a decree. That which stands in the place of the ultimate end in a decree, i.e. that which is a mere end, and not a means to any thing further or higher, viz. the shining forth of God’s glory, and the communication of his goodness, must indeed be considered as prior in the consideration of the Supreme Disposer, to every tiling excepting the mere possibility of it. But this must in some respects be conceived of as prior to that, because possibility is necessarily supposed in his decree. But if we descend lower than the highest end; if we come down to other events decreed, that be not mete ends, but means to obtain that end, then we must necessarily bring in mote things, as in some respect prior, in the same manner as mere possibility is in this highest decree.

Because more things must necessarily be supposed en considered as existing in the decree, in order that those things which are decreed may reach the end for which they are decreed. More things must be supposed in order to a possibility of these things taking place as subordinate to their end; and therefore they stand in the same place, in these lower decrees, as absolute possibility does in the decree of the highest end. The vindictive justice of God is not to be considered as a mere or ultimate end, but as a means to that end. Indeed, God’s glorifying his justice, or rather his glorifying his holiness and greatness, has the place of a mere and ultimate end. But his glorifying his justice in punishing sin, (or in exercising vindictive justice, which is the same,) is not to be considered as a mere end, but a certain way or means of obtaining an end. Vindictive justice is not to be considered as a certain, distinct attribute to be glorified, but as a certain way and means for the glorifying an attribute. Every distinct way of God’s glorifying or exercising an attribute, might as well be called a distinct attribute as this. It is but giving a distinct name to it, and so we might multiply attributes without end. The considering of the glorifying of vindictive justice as a mere end, has led to great misrepresentations, and undue and unhappy expressions about the decree of reprobation- Hence the glorifying of God’s vindictive justice on such particular persons, has been considered as altogether prior its the decree to their sinfulness, yea, to their very beings Whereas it being only a means to an end, those things that are necessarily presupposed, in order to the fitness and possibility of this means of obtaining the end, must be conceived of as prior to it. Hence God’s decree of the eternal damnation of the reprobate is not to be conceived of as prior to the fall, yea, and to the very being of the persons, as the decree of the eternal glory of the elect is. For God’s glorifying his love, and communicating his goodness, stands in the place of a mere or ultimate end, and therefore is prior in the mind of the eternal Disposer to the very being of the subject, and to every thing but mere possibility. The goodness of God gives the being as well as the happiness of the creature, and does not presuppose it. Indeed, the glorifying of God’s mercy, as it presupposes the subject to be miserable, and the glorifying his grace, as it presupposes the subject to be sinful, unworthy, and ill deserving, are not to be conceived of as ultimate ends, but only as certain ways and means for the glorifying the exceeding abundance and overflowing fulness of God’s goodness and love; therefore these decrees are not to be considered as prior to the decree of the being and permission of the fall of the subject. And the decree of election, as it implies a decree of glorifying God’s mercy and grace, considers men as being cursed and fallen; because the very notion of such a decree supposes sin and misery. Hence we may learn, how much in the decree of predestination is to be considered as prior to the creation and fall of man, and how much as posterior; viz. that God’s decree to glorify his love and communicate his goodness, and to glorify his greatness and holiness, is to be, considered as prior to creation and the fall of man. And because the glory of God’s love, and the communication of his goodness, necessarily imply the happiness of the creature, and give both their being and happiness; hence the design to communicate and glorify his goodness and love eternally to a certain number, is to be considered as prior, in both those mentioned respects, to their being and fall. For such a design, in the notion of it, presupposes neither. But nothing in the decree of reprobation is to be looked upon as antecedent in one of those respects to man’s being and fall; but only that general decree that God will glorify his justice, or rather his holiness and greatness, which supposes neither their being nor sinfulness. But whatsoever there is in this decree of evil to particular subjects, it is to be considered as consequent on the decree of their creation, and permission of their fall. And indeed, although all that is in the decree of election, all that respects good to the subjects, be not posterior to the being and fall of men, yet both the decree of election and rejection or reprobation, as so styled, must be considered as consequent on the decrees concerning the creation and fall. For both these decrees have respect to that distinction or discrimination that is afterwards actually made amongst men in pursuance of these decrees. Hence effectual calling, being the proper execution of election, is sometimes in Scripture called election; and the rejection of men in time is called reprobation. Therefore the decrees of election and reprobation must be looked upon as beginning there, where the actual distinction begins, because distinction is implied in the notion of those decrees. And therefore, whatsoever is prior to this actual distinction, the foresight of it, and decree concerning it, or that state that was common, or wherein they were undistinguished, the foresight of that, or decree concerning it, must be considered, in some respect, as prior to the decree concerning the distinction. Because all that is before is supposed or looked upon as already put in the decree. For that is the decree, viz. to make such a distinction between those that were before in such a common state. And this is agreeable to the scripture representations of those decrees, John 15:19. “Ye are not of the world, but I have chosen you out of the world, therefore the world hateth you.” See also Ezekiel 16:1-8.

The decrees of God must be conceived of in the same order, and as antecedent to, and consequent on, one another, in the same manner, as God’s acts in the execution of those decrees. If this will not hold, with regard to those things that are the effects of those acts, yet certainly it will hold with respect to the acts themselves. They depend on one another, and are grounded on one another, in the sanie manner as the decrees that these are the execution of, and in no other. For, on the one hand, the decrees ‘of God are no other than his eternal doing what is done, acted, or executed by him in time. On the one hand,’ God’s acts themselves, in executing, can be conceived of no otherwise, than as decrees for a present effect. They are acts of God’s will. God brings things to pass only by acts of his will. He speaks, and it is done. - His will says, let it be, and it is. And this act of his will that now is, cannot be looked upon as really different from that act of will that was in him before, and from eternity, in decreeing that this thing should be at this time. It differs only relatively, Here is no new act of the will in God, but only the same acts of God’s will, which before, because the time was not come, respected future time; and so were called decrees.

But now the time being come, they respect present time, and so are not called by us decrees, but acts executing decrees. Yet they are evidently the same acts in God. Therefore those acts, in executing, must certainly be conceived of in the same order, and with the same dependence, as the decrees themselves. It may be in some measure illustrated by this-The decree of God, or the will of God decreeing events, may be represented as a straight line of infinite length, that runs through all past eternity, and terminates in the event. The last point in the line, is the act of God’s will in bringing the event to pass, and does not at all differ from all the other points throughout the infinite length of the line, in any other respect but this, that this last point is next to the event. This line may be represented as in motion, but yet always kept parallel to itself. The hither end of the line, by its motion, describes events in the order in which they come to pass; or at least represents God’s acts in bringing the events to pass, in their order and mutual dependence, antecedence, and consequence. By the motion of all the other points of the line, before the event or end of the line, in the whole infinite length of it, are represented the decrees in their order; which, because the line in all its motions is kept parallel to itself, is exactly the same with the order of the motions of the last point. For the motion of every point of the whole line, is in all respects just like the motions of that last point wherein the line terminates in the event; and the different parts of the motion of every point, are its every respect precisely in the same order.

And the maxim, that what is first in intention, is last in execution, does not in the least concern this matter. For, by last in execution, is meant only last in order of time, without any respect to the priority or posteriority that we are speaking of; and it does not at all -hinder, but that in God’s acts, in executing his decrees, one act is the ground or reason of another act, in the same manner precisely as the decree that related to it was the ground or reason of the other decree. The absolute independence of God no more argues against some of God’s decrees being grounded on decrees of some other things that should first come to pass, than it does against some of God’s acts in time, being grounded on some other antecedent acts of his. It is just the same with God’s acts in executing, as has been said already of his decreeing. In one respect, the end that is afterwards to be accomplished, is the ground of God’s acting; in another respect, something that is already accomplished, is the ground of his acting, as it is the ground of the fitness or capableness of the act to obtain the end. There is nothing but the ultimate end of all things, viz. God’s glory, and the communication of his goodness that is prior to all first acts in creating the world, in one respect, and mere possibility in another. But, with respect to after-acts, other ends are prior in one respect, and other preceding acts are prior in another, just as I have shown it to be with respect to God’s decrees. Now, this being established, it may help more clearly to illustrate, and fully to evince, what we have insisted on concerning the order of the decrees, and that God’s decrees of some things that are accomplished first in order of time, are also prior in the order, so as to be the proper ground and reason of other decrees. For, let us see how it is in God’s acts in executing his decrees. Will any deny, that God’s act in rewarding righteousness, is grounded on a foregoing act of his in giving righteousness? And that he regards righteousness in such a person, because he hath given righteousness to such a person; and that because this latter act necessarily supposes the former act foregoing? So, in like manner, God’s decree, in determining to reward righteousness, is grounded on an antecedent decree to give righteousness, because the former decree necessarily supposes the latter decree, and implies it in the very notion of it. So, who will deny, but that God’s act in punishing sin is grounded on what God hath antecedently done in permitting sin, or suffering it to be, because the former necessarily supposes the latter, and therefore that the actual permission of sun is prior, in the order of nature, to the punishment of it? So that whatever foregoing act of God is in any respect a ground and reason of another succeeding act, so far is both the act and decree of the act prior to both that other act and decree. It may be objected to this, that if so, the decree of bestowing salvation on an elect soul, is founded on the decree of bestowing faith on him; for God actually bestows salvation in some respect, because he has bestowed faith; and this would be to make the decree of election succeeding to the decree of giving faith, as well as that of reprobation consequent on the decree of permitting sin. To this I answer, that both God’s act, and also his decree of bestowing salvation on such a fallen creature, is in some respects grounded on God’s act and decree of giving faith, but in no wise as the decree or act of eternal punishing is grounded on sin, because punishment necessarily presupposes sin, so that it could not be without. But the decreeing and giving the happiness of the elect, is not so founded on faith. The case is very different For with respect to eternal punishment, it may be said that God would not, yea, could not, have decreed or executed it, had he not decreed and permitted sin; but it cannot be said, either that God could not, or would not, have decreed or bestowed the eternal happiness of the elect, unless hue had decreed and given faith.

Indeed, the salvation of an elect soul is, in this respect, grounded on the decree of giving faith as God’s decree of bestowing happiness on the elect in this particular way, as a fallen creature, and by the righteousness of Christ made his own, by being heartily received and closed with, is grounded on the decree of bestowing faith in Christ, because it presupposes it, as the act that answers to this decree does. But the decree of bestowing happiness in general, which we conceive of as antecedent to this act, presupposes no such thing; nor does just so much without any more in execution presuppose faith, or indeed the righteousness of Christ, or any act or suffering of a mediator, or even the fall of man. And the decree of God’s communicating his goodness to such a subject does not so much as presuppose the being of the subject, because it gives being. But there is no decree of evil to such a subject which can be conceived of as antecedent to a decree of punishment. For the first decree of evil or suffering, implies that in it. For there is no evil decreed for any other end, but the glory of God’s justice. Therefore the decree of the permission of sin is prior to all other things in the decree of reprobation. Due distinctions seem not to have been observed, in asserting that all the decrees of God are unconditional; which has occasioned difficulties in controversies about the decrees. There are no conditional decrees in this sense, viz. that decrees should depend on conditions of them, which in this decree, that depends on them as conditions, must be considered, like themselves, as yet undecreed.

But yet decrees may, in some sort, be conditions of decrees; so that it may be said, that God would not have decreed some things, had he not decreed others. 59. The Objection to the divine decrees will be, that according to this doctrine, God may do evil, that good may come of it.

ANS. I do not argue that God may commit evil, that good may come of it; but that he may will that evil should come to pass, and permit that it may come to pass, that good may come of it. It is in itself absolutely evil, for any being to commit evil that good may come of it; but it would be no evil, but good, even in a creature, to will that evil should come to pass, if he had wisdom sufficient to see certainly that good would come of it, or that more good would come to pass in that way than in any other. And the only reason why it would not be lawful for a creature to permit evil to come to pass, and that it would not be wise, or good and virtuous, in him so to do, is, that he has not perfect wisdom and sufficiency, so as to render it fit that such an affair should be trusted with him. In so doing he goes beyond his line; he goes out of his province; hue meddles with things too high for him.

It is every one’s duty to do things fit for him in his sphere, and commensurate to Isis power. God never intrusted this providence in the hands of creatures of finite understandings, nor is it proper that he should.

If a prince were of perfect and all-comprehensive wisdom and foresight, and he should see that an act of treason would be for the great advancement of the welfare of Isis kingdom, it might be wise and virtuous in him to will that such act of treason should come to pass; yea, it would be foolish and wrong it he did not; and, it would be prudent and wise in him not to restrain the traitor, but to let him alone to go in the way he chose.

And yet he might hate the treason at the same time, and he might properly also give forth laws at the same time, forbidding it upon pain of death, and might hold these laws in force against this traitor.

The Arminians themselves allow that God permits sin, and that if he permits it, it will come to pass So that the only difficulty about the act of the will that is in it, is that God should will evil to be, that good may come of it. But it is demonstrably true, that if God sees that good will come of it, and more good than otherwise, so that when the whole series of events is viewed by God, and all things balanced, the sum total of good with the evil is more than without it, all being subtracted that needs be subtracted, and added that is to be added: if the sum total of good thus considered, be greatest, greater than the sum in any other case, then it will follow that God, if he be a wise and holy being, must will it.

For if this sum total that has evil in it, when what the evil subtracts is subtracted, has yet the greatest good in in, then it is the best sum total, better than the other sum total that has no evil in it. But tf, all things considered, it be really the best, how can it be otherwise than that it should be chosen by an infinitely wise and good being, whose holiness and goodness consists in always choosing what is best? Which does it argue most, wisdom or folly, a good disposition or an evil one, when two things are set before a being, the one better and the other worse, to choose the worse, and refuse the better? 60. There is no inconsistency or contrariety between the decretive and preceptive will of God. It is very consistent to suppose that God may hate the thing itself, and vet will that it should come to pass. Yea, I do not fear to assert that time thing itself may he contrary to God’s will, and yet that it may be agreeable to his will that it should come to pass, because his will, in the one case, has not the same object with his will in the other case. To suppose God to have contrary wills towards the same object, is a contradiction; but it is not so, to suppose him to have contrary wills about different objects. The thing itself, and that the thing should come to pass, are different, as is evident; because it is possible that the one may be good and the other may be evil. The thing itself may be evil, and yet it may be a good thing that it should come to pass. It may be a good thing that an evil thing should come to pass; and oftentimes it most certainly and undeniably is so, and proves so. 61. Objectors to the doctrine of election may say. God cannot always preserve men from sinning, unless he destroys their liberty. But will they deny that an omnipotent, an infinitely wise God, could possibly invent and set before men such strong motives to obedience, and keep them before them in such a manner, as should influence them to continue in their obedience, as the elect angels have done, without destroying their liberty?

God will order it so that the saints and angels in heaven never will sin, and does it therefore follow that their liberty is destroyed, and that they are not free, but forced in their actions? Does it follow that they are turned into machines and blocks, as the Arminians say the Calvinistic doctrines turn men 62. To conclude this discourse; I wish the reader to consider the unreasonableness of rejecting plain revelations, because they are puzzling to our reason. There is no greater difficulty attending this doctrine than the contrary, nor so great. So that though the doctrine of the decrees be mysterious, and attended with difficulties, yet the opposite doctrine is in itself more mysterious, and attended with greater difficulties, and with contradictions to reason more evident, to one who thoroughly considers things; so that, even if the Scripture had made no revelation of it, we should have had reason to believe it. But since the Scripture is so abundant in declaring it, the unreasonableness of rejecting it appears the more glaring.

CHAPTER - CONCERNING EFFICACIOUS GRACE. 1. It is manifest that the Scripture supposes, that if ever men are turned from sin, God must undertake it, and he must be the doer of it; that it is his doing that must determine the matter; that all that others can do, will avail nothing, without his agency, This is manifest by such texts as these:

Jeremiah 31:18,19. “Turn thou me, and I shall be turned; Thou art the Lord my God. Surely after that I was turned, I repented; and after that I was instructed, I smote upon my thigh,” etc. Lamentations 5:21. “ Turn thou us unto thee, O lord, and we shall be turned. 2. According to Dr. Whitby’s notion of the assistance of the Spirit, the Spirit of God does nothing in the hearts or minds of men beyond the power of the devil; nothing but what the devil can do; and nothing showing any greater power in any respect, than the devil shows and exercises in his temptations. For he supposes that all that the Spirit of God does, is to bring moral motives and inducements to mind, and set them before the understanding, etc, It is possible that God may infuse grace, in some instances, into the minds of such persons as are striving to obtain it in the other way, though they may not observe it, and may not know that it is not obtained by gradual acquisition. But if a man has indeed sought it only in that way, and with as much dependence on himself, and with as much neglect of God in his endeavours and prayers, as such a doctrine naturally leads to, it is not very likely that he should obtain saving grace by the efficacious, mighty power of God. It is most likely that God should bestow this gilt in a way of earuest attention to divine truth, and the use of the means of grace, with reflection on one’s own sinfulness, and in a way of being more and more convinced of sinfulness, ana total corruption and need of the divine power to restore the heart, to infuse goodness, and of becoming more and more sensible of one’s own impotence, and helplessness and inability to obtain goodness by his own strength. And if a man has obtained no other virtue, than what seems to have been wholly in that gradual and insensible way that might be expected from use and custom, in the exercise of his own strength, he has reason to think, however bright his attainments may seem to be, that he has no saving virtue. 3. Great part of the gospel is denied by those who deny pure efficacious grace. They deny that wherein actual salvation and the application of redemption mainly consists; and how unlikely are such to be successful in their endeavours after actual salvation!

Turnbull’s explanation of Philippians 2:12,13. “Work out your own salvation with fear and trembling; for it is God that worketh in you both to will and to do of his own good pleasure,” is this, (Christian Philosophy, p. 96, 97.) “ Give all diligence to work out your salvation; for it is God, the Creator of all things, who, by giving you, of his good pleasure, the power of willing and doing, with a sense of right and wrong, and reason to guide and direct you, hath visibly made it your end so to do. Your frame shows, that to prepare yourselves for great moral happiness, arising from a well cultivated and improved mind, suitably placed, is your end appointed to you by your Creator. Consider, therefore, that by neglecting this your duty, this your interest, you contemn and oppose the good will of God towards you, and his design in creating you.” 4. If we look through all the examples we have of conversion in Scripture, the conversion of the apostle Paul, and of the Corinthians, (“ Such were some of you, but ye are washed,” etc.) and all others that the apostles write to, how far were they from this gradual way of conversion, by contracted habits, and by such culture as Turnbull speaks of! Turnbull, in his Christian Philosophy p. 470. seems to think, that the sudden conversions that were in the apostles’ days, were instances of their miraculous power, as in these words, “ They appealed to the works they wrought, to the samples they gave of their power to foretell future events; their power to cure instantaneously all diseases of the body; their power to cure, in the same extraordinary manner, all diseases of the mind, or to convert bad into good dispositions; their power to bestow gifts and blessings of all sorts, bodily and spiritual.” See again to the like purpose, p. 472.

Now I would inquire, whether those who thus had the diseases of their minds cured, and their bad converted into good dispositions, had any virtue; or whether those good dispositions of theirs were virtues, or any thing praiseworthy; and whether, when they were thus converted, they became good men and the heirs of salvation? As Turnbull himself allows, all that are not good men, were called the children of the devil in Scripture; and he asserts that nothing is virtue, but what is obtained by our own culture; that no habit is virtuous, but a contracted one, one that is owing to ourselves, our own diligence, etc.; and also holds, that none are good men but the virtuous; none others are the heirs of future happiness. 5. What God wrought for the apostle Paul and other primitive Christians, was intended for a pattern to all future ages, for their instruction and excitement; Ephesians 2:7. 1 Timothy 1:16. it is natural to expect, that the first fruits of the church specially recorded in history, and in that book which is the steady rule of the church in all things pertaining to salvation, should be a pattern to after-ages in those things, those privileges, which equally concern all. Or if it be said, that as soon as men take up a strong resolution, they are accepted and looked upon by God as penitents and converts; it may be inquired, is there a good man without good habits, or principles of virtue and goodness in his heart? 6. Turnbull speaks of good men as born again; i.e. changed by culture:

Christian Philosophy, p. 282. Is there a good man without such principles as love to God and men, or charity, humility, etc.? How comes that resolution to be so good, if no Principle of virtue be exercised in it?

If it be said, Paul was a good man before he was converted, it may be answered, he did not believe in Christ, and therefore was in a state of condemnation. Besides, he speaks of himself as being then a wicked man. 7. Concerning the sup position advanced by Bishop Butler, and by Turnbull in his Christian Philoaophy, that all that God does, even miracles themselves, are wrought according to general laws, such as are called the laws of nature, though unknown to us; and the supposition of Turnbull, that all may be done by angels acting by general laws, I observe, this seems to be unreasonable. 1f angels effect these works, acting only by general laws, then they must do them without any immediate, special interposition at all, even without the smallest intimation of the divine mind, what to do, or upon what occasion God would have any thing to be done. And what will this doctrine bring inspiration to, which is one kind of miracle?

According to this, all significatioris of the divine mind, even to the prophets and apostles, must be according to general laws, wit out any special interposition at all of the divine agency. 8. Acts 12:23. God was so angry with Herod for not giving him the glory of his eloquence, that the angel of the Lord smote him immediately, and he died a miserable death; he was eaten of worms, and gave up the ghost. But if it be very sinful for a man to take to himself the glory of such a qualification as eloquence, how much more a man’s taking to himself the glory of divine grace, God’s own image, and that which is infinitely God’s most excellent, precious, and glorious gift, and man’s highest honour, excellency, and happiness, whereby he is partaker of the divine nature, and becomes a God-like creature? If God was so jealous for the glory of so small a gift, how much more for so high an endowment, this being that alone, of all other things, by which man becomes like God? If man takes the glory of it to himself, he thereby will be in the greatest danger of taking the glory to himself that is due to God, and of setting up himself as standing in competition with God, as vying with the Most High, and making himself a god, and not a man. If not giving God the glory of that which is least honourable, provokes God’s jealousy; much more must not giving God the glory of that which is infinitely the most honourable, It is allowed, the apostle insists upon it, that the primitive Christians should be sensible that the glory of their gifts belonged to God, and that they made not themselves to differ. But how small a matter is this, if they make themselves to differ in that, which the apostle says is so much more excellent than all gifts! 9. How much more careful has God shown himself, that men should not be proud of their virtue, than of any other gift! See Deuteronomy 9:4. Luke 18:9. and innumerable other places. And the apostle plainly teaches us to ascribe to God the glory, not only of our redemption, but of our wisdom, righteousness, and sanctification; and that no flesh should glory in themselves in these things, I Corinthians 1:29, 30, 31. Again, the apostle plainly directs, that all that glory in their virtue, should glory in the Lord, Corinthians 10:17. It is glorying in virtue and virtuous deeds he is there speaking of; and it is plain, that the apostle uses the expression of glorying in the Lord, in such a sense, as to imply ascribing the glory of our virtue to God. 10, The doctrine of men’s being the determining causes of their own virtue, teaches them, not to do so much, as even the proud Pharisee did, who thanked God for making him to differ from other men in virtue, Luke 18.

See Genesis 41:15,16. Job 11:12. Daniel 2:25, etc. 2 Corinthians 3:5,6. Corinthians 4:7. 2 Corinthians 10:17. Proverbs 20:12. “The hearing ear, and the seeing eve, the Lord hath made, even both of them:” compared with many parallel places that speak about God’s giving eyes to see, and ears to hear, and hearts to understand, etc. 11. The Arminian doctrine, and the doctrine of our new philosophers, concerning habits of virtue being only by custom, discipline, and gradual culture, joined with the other doctrine, that the obtaining of these habits in those that have time for it, is in every man’s power, according to their doctrine of the freedom of will, tends exceedingly to cherish presumption in sinners, while in health and vigour, and tends to their utter despair, in sensible approaches of death by sickness or old age. 12. Observe that the question with some is, whether the Spirit of God does any thing at all in these days, since the Scriptures have been completed.

With those that allow that he does any thing, the question cannot be, whether his influence be immediate; for, if he does any thing at all, his influence must he immediate. Nor can the question be, whether his influence, with regard to what he intends to do, be efficacious.

The questions relating to efficacious grace, controverted between us and the Arminians, are two: 1. Whether the grace of God, in giving us saving virtue, be determining and decisive. 2. Whether saving virtue be decisively given by a supernatural and sovereign operation of the Spirit of God; or, whether it he only by such a divine influence or assistance, as is imparted in the course of common providence, either according to established laws of nature, or established laws of God’s universal providence towards mankind; i.e. either, 1. Assistance which is given in all natural actions, wherein men do merely exercise and improve the principles of nature and laws of nature, and come to such attainments as are connected with such exercises by the mere laws of nature. For there is an assistance in all such natural actions; because it is by a divine influence that the laws of nature are upheld; and a constant occurrence of divine power is necessary in order to our living, moving, or having a being. This we may call a natural assistance. Or, 2. That assistance, which though it be something besides the upholding of the laws of nature, (which take place in all affairs of life,) is yet, by a divine, universal constitution in this particular affair of religion, so connected with those voluntary exercises which result from this mere natural assistance, that by this constitution it indiscriminately extends to all mankind, and is certainly connected with such exercises and improvements, as those just mentioned, by a certain, established, known rule, as much as any of the laws of nature. This kind of assistance, though many Arminians call it a supernatural assistance, differs little or nothing from that natural assistance that is established by a law of nature. The law so established, is only a particular law of nature; as some of the laws of nature are more general, others more particular: but this establishment, which they suppose to be by divine promise, differs nothing at all from many other particular laws of nature, except only in this circumstance, of the established constitutions being revealed in the word of God, while others are left to be discovered only by experience.

The Calvinists suppose otherwise; they suppose that divine influence and operation, by which saving virtue is obtained, is entirely from, and above common assistance, or that which is given in a course of ordinary providence, according to universally established laws of nature. They suppose a principle of saving virtue is immediately imparted and implanted by that operation, which is sovereign and efficacious in this respect, that its effect proceeds not from any established laws of nature. I mention this as an entirely different question from the other, viz. Whether the grace of God, by which we obtain saving virtue, is determining or decisive. For that it may be, if it he given wholly in a course of nature, or by such an operation as is limited and regulated perfectly according to established, invariable laws. For none will dispute that many things are brought to pass by God in this manner, that are decisively ordered by him, and are brought to pass by his determining providence.

The controversy, as it relates to efficacious grace, in this sense, includes in it these four questions. 1. Whether saving virtue differs from common virtue, or such virtue as those have that are not in a state of salvation, in nature and kind, or only in degree and circumstances? 2. Whether a holy disposition of heart, as an internal governing principle of life and practice, be immediately implanted or infused in the soul, or only be contracted by repeated acts, and obtained by human culture and improvement? 3. Whether conversion, or the change of a person from being a vicious or wicked man, to a truly virtuous character, be instantaneous or gradual? 4. Whether the divine assistance or influence, by which man may obtain true and saving virtue, be sovereign and arbitrary, or, whether God, in giving this assistance and its effects, limits himself to certain exact and stated rules, revealed in his word, and established by his promises? 13. Ephesians 1:19,20. “What is the exceeding greatness of his power to us-ward, according to the working of his mighty power,” or the effectual working, as the word signifies-These words, according to the effectual working of his power, we shall find applied to conversion, to growth in grace, and to raising us up at last. You have them applied to conversion, Ephesians 3:7. “ Whereof I was made a minister, according to the gift of the grace of God, given to me, by the effectual working of his power.” — So likewise to grow in grace, Ephesians 4:10. “The whole body increaseth with the increase of God, by the effectual working in the measure of every part.” — And to the resurrection to glory at the last day, Philippians 3:21. “He will change our vile bodies, according to the effectual working of his mighty power, whereby he is able to subdue all things to himself.”

And that the power of God in conversion, or in giving faith and the spiritual blessings that attend it, is here meant, may be argued from the apostle’s change of phrase, that whereas in the foregoing verse, he spoke of the riches of the glory of Christ’s inheritance in the saints, he does not go on to say,” and what is the exceeding greatness of his power towards them,” (i.e. the saints,) which surely would have been most natural, if he still had respect only to the power of God in bestowing the inheritance of future glory. But, instead of that, we see he changes the phrase; “and what is the exceeding greatness of his power to usward who believe;” plainly intimating some kind of change of the subject, or a respect to the subject of salvation with regard to something diverse; that whereas before he spoke of saints in their future state only, now he speaks of something that the saints, we that dwell in this world that believe, are the subjects of And as the apostle includes himself, so it is the more likely he should have the mighty power of God in conversion in his thought; his conversion having been so visible and remarkable an instance of God’s marvellous power.

Again, the apostle, in praying that they “knowing the exceeding greatness of God’s power,” etc. prays for such a knowledge and conviction of the power of God to bring them to life and glory, which was a most special remedy against such doubts as the church in the then present state was most exposed to, 6:that their being preserved to glory and salvation through all their trials, persecutions, and the great opposition that was made by the enemies of Christ and their souls. Therefore, after mentioning the glory of their inheritance, he, for their comfort and establishment, mentions the power of God to bring them to the possession of this inheritance, as the apostle Peter does, 1 Peter 1:4,5. “To an inheritance incorruptible-who are kept by the power of God through faith unto salvation.” He speaks to their hearts, for here was their difficulty and temptation to doubting. But if the keeping them in faith showed such great power, much more did the first bringing them from heathenism and the power of sin, darkness, and spiritual death and ruin, into a state of faith and salvation, quickening them when dead in trespasses and sins; as it is a greater instance of divine power to raise the dead, than to maintain life that is exposed to danger; a greater work to reconcile us being enemies, than to keep us friends being reconciled. It was natural for the apostle to put them in mind of the power of God manifested in their conversion, as he would strengthen their faith in his power to raise them at the last day, and glorify them to eternity. Dr. Goodwin says, he finds most of the Greek fathers ran this way in interpreting the place. He mentions Theophylact and Chrysostom, and cites these words of Chrysostom “The apostle’s scope is to demonstrate by what already was manifested in them, viz. the power of God in working faith, and to raise up their hearts to believe what was not manifested, viz. the raising of them from death to life. it being (saith he) a far more wonderful work to persuade a soul to believe in Christ, than to raise up a dead man, a far more admirable work of the two.” Besides, what the apostle says in the continuation of his discourse, explains his meaning, and puts the matter of his intending to include the power of God manifested in their conversion, out of all doubt, as, in the very next sentence, “and you hath he quickened, who were dead in trespasses and sins;” and every word that follows, to the end of the second chapter, confirms the same thing. I shall mention a few of them: Ver. 2. “Wherein in time past ye walked-according to the prince of the power of the air, the spirit that now worketh effectually in the children of disobedience.” This shows the exceeding greatness of power in their being delivered from such a state, wherein they were held by the great power of so strong an enemy.

Verses 5 and 6. “Even when we were dead in sins, hath quickened us together in Christ, and hath raised us tip together, and made us sit together in heavenly places in Christ Jesus.” These things tend to show how the power of God in their conversion, and the happy, honourable, and glorious change of their state by it, was according to the power that wrought in Christ when he was quickened, raised up, and made to sit in heavenly places, as chap. 1:19, 20, 21. Now to back this with a parallel place, as here in this place the apostle speaks of the greatness of God’s power in working faith, and parallels it with the power that raised up Christ from the dead; so we find he says the very same thing in Colossians 2:12,13. “Ye are buried with him in baptism, wherein also ye are risen with him through the faith of the operation of God, who hath raised him from the dead.” In that text in Ephesians the apostle speaks of faith, “the power that works in us that believe.” So in this text in Colossians, “ye are risen through faith.”

Again, 2ndly, in Ephesians, together with what there follows, chap. 2:he compareth believing to a rising from the dead. So here in Colossians, “ye are risen with him through faith.” Thirdly, as in Ephesians the apostle speaks of the work of God in giving faith, as parallel with his works in raising Christ, so he does here in Colossians: “Ye are risen with him, through the faith of the operation of God, who hath raised him from the dead.” Fourthly, as we in Ephesians are said to believe, according to the efficacious working of God, the word is also used here in Colossians. It is called faith of the operation or effectual working of God, and as there God is said to be the author, the same that raised up Christ, and to work faith in them, so here it is the faith of the operation of God who raised Christ from the dead, so that, every way, one place is parallel with the other.

Some pretend, that in that expression, through the faith of the operation of God, there is no respect to God’s operation as the efficient cause of faith, but only to the operation of God that raised Christ as the object of faith, which believes that power and operation as it was manifested in raising Christ, and which is believed to be sufficient to raise us up also. But that the apostle means the operation of God in giving faith, appears by verse 11. which introduces these words, where the apostle says, “ In whom ye are circumcised with the circumcision made without hands, in putting off the body of the sins of the flesh by the circumcision of Christ.” The phrase, mode without hands, in Scripture, always denote God’s immediate power, above the course of nature, and above second causes. Thus, when he speaks of heaven, 2 Corinthians 5:1. he calls it “a house not made with hands,” and in Hebrews 9:11. the human nature of Christ, which was framed by so wonderful and supernatural a power of the Holy Ghost, is said to be a “tabernacle made without hands.’

Note. The foregoing remarks, concerning the texts in Ephesians 1:19,20. and in Coloss. 11, 12, 13. are taken chiefly from Dr. Goodwin’s Works, vol. 1. p. 298, etc. 14. It is a doctrine mightily in vogue, that God has promised his saving grace to men’s sincere endeavours in praying for it, and using proper means to obtain it; and so that it is not God’s mere will that determines the matter, whether we shall have saving grace or not; but that the matter is left with us, to be determined by the sincerity of our endeavours.

But there is vast confusion in all talk of this kind, for want of its being well explained what is meant by sincerity of endeavour, and through men’s deceiving themselves by using words without a meaning. I think the Scripture knows of but one sort of sincerity in religion, and that is a truly pious or holy sincerity. The Bible suggests no notion of any other sort of sincere obedience, or any other sincerity of endeavours, or any doings whatsoever in religion, than doing from love to God and true love to our duty. As to those that endeavour and take pains, (let them do ever so much,) that yet do nothing freely, or from any true love to or delight in God, or free inclination to virtue, but wholly for by-ends, and from sinister and mercenary views, as being driven and forced against their inclination, or induced by regard to things foreign; I say, respecting such as these, I find nothing in Scripture that should lead us to call them honest and sincere in their endeavours.. I doubt not but that the Scripture promises supernatural, truly divine, and saving blessings, to such a sincerity of endeavour as arises from true love to our duty. But then, as I apprehend, this is only to promise more saving grace to him that seeks it in the exercise of saving grace, agreeably to that repeated saying of our Saviour, “ to him that hath shall be given, and he shall have more abundance.” Persons, in seeking grace with this sincerity, ask in faith; they seek these blessings in the exercise of a saving faith, the great condition of the covenant of grace.

And I suppose, promises are made to no sincerity, but what implies this.

And whoever supposes that divine promises are made to any other sincerity than this, I imagine he never will be able to make out his scheme, and that for two reasons: 1. On such a supposition, the promises must, be supposed to be to an undetermined condition. And, 2. Even on the supposition that the promises are made to some other sincerity than a truly pious sincerity, the sovereign grace and will of God must determine the existence of the condition of the promises; and so the whole must still depend on God’s determining grace.

I. On the supposition that the promises of saving grace are made to some other sincerity of endeavour than that which implies true and saving piety of heart, they must be made to an undetermined condition, and so be in effect no promises at all.

If there be any thing else worthy to be called sincerity in endeavours after holiness, but a free, pious inclination, or true regard or love to holiness, nothing better can be mentioned than this, viz. endeavours after holiness, from a real willingness of heart to put forth those endeavours for the agent’s own sake, yet for such ends as prudence and self-love would propose; such as his own eternal interest, salvation from everlasting misery, etc.

So that by sincerity here, is not meant any holy freedom or virtuous disposition or desire: but it signifies no more than reality of disposition and will to endeavour for some end, only provide the end be subservient to self-preservation. But the thing that truly in this case denominates the endeavour sincere, is the reality of the will or disposition of heart to endeavour, and not the goodness of the will or disposition. Now if this be the sincerity of endeavour which is meant, when men talk of its being the condition of peremptory and decisive promises of saving grace, then it never has (as I know of) yet been told, and I suppose never will or can be told, what the condition of the promise is.

The thing that needs to be determined, in order to know this condition, is, how great a degree of this sort of sincerity, or real willingness of heart to endeavour, a man must have, to be entitled to the promise. For there can be no question, but that multitudes that live in gross wickedness, and are men of a very debauched, flagitious behaviour, have some degree of it; and there are none, even of those that are the most strict and painful in their endeavour, but have it in a very imperfect degree, and, in many things, fail of this sincerity of endeavour. For it must be kept in mind, that the sincerity of heart we are speaking of, attending religious duties, is only a reality of willingness to use endeavours. And every man whatsoever, that uses any endeavour at all for his salvation, or ever performs any religious duty, to the end that he may go to heaven and not to hell, has this sincerity. For whatever men do voluntarily for this end, they do from a real willingness and disposition of heart to do it; for if they were not willing to do it, they would not do it. There surely are no voluntary actions performed without men’s being willing to perform them. And is there any man that will assert that God has absolutely or peremptorily promised his saving grace to any man that ever stirs hand or foot, or thinks one thought in order to his salvation?

And on the other baud, as to those that go farthest in their endeavours, still they fail, in numberless instances, of exercising this kind of sincerity, consisting in reality of will. For such are guilty of innumerable sins; and every man that commits sin, by so doing, instead of being sincerely willing to do his duty, sincerely wills the contrary. For so far as any actions of his are his sin, so far his will is in what he does. No action is imputed to us any further than it is voluntary, and involves the real disposition of the heart.

The man, in this painful endeavour, fails continually of his duty, or (which is the same thing) of perfect obedience. And so far as he does so, he fails of sincerity of endeavour. No man is any further defective in his obedience, than as he is defective in sincerity; for there the defect lies, viz, in his will, and the disposition of his heart. If men were perfect in these, that would be the same thing as to be perfect in obedience, or complete in holiness.

Nothing, either of omission or commission, is sin, any farther than it includes the real disposition and will; and therefore, no men are any farther sinful, than as they are sincere in sinning; and so far as they are sincere in sinning, so far they are deficient of sincerely endeavouring their duty. Now, therefore, where are the bounds to which men must come in order to be entitled to the promise? Some have a faint sincerity of endeavour, who none do suppose are entitled to the promise. And those that have most sincerity of endeavour, do greatly fail of that degree of sincerity that they ought to have, or fall short of that which God requires. And there are infinite degrees between these two classes. And if every degree of strength of endeavour is not sufficient, and yet some certain degree of it, greatly short of that which God requires, is sufficient, then let it be determined what that degree is.

Some have determined thus, that if men sincerely endeavour to do what they can, God has promised to help them to do more, etc. But this question remains to be resolved, whether the condition of the promise be, that he shall sincerely endeavour to do what he can, constantly, or only sometimes.

For there is no man that sincerely endeavours to do his duty to the utmost constantly, with this sort of sincerity consisting iii reality of will so to do. If he did, he would perfectly do his duty at all times. For, as was observed before, nothing else is required but the will; and men never fail of their duty, or commit sin, but when their real will is to sin.

But if the condition of the promise be sincerely doing what they can sometimes, then it should be declared how often, or how great a part of the time of man’s life, he must exercise this sincerity, It is manifest that men fail of their duty every day, yea continually; and therefore, that there is a continual defect of sincerity of endeavor in the practice of duty.

If it should be said that the condition of the promise of saving grace is, that, take one time with another, and one duty with another, the sincerity of their will should be chiefly in favour of their duty; or, in other words, that they should be sincere in endeavours to do more than half their duty, though they sincerely neglect the rest; I would inquire where they find such promises as these in the Bible? Besides, I think it can be demonstrated that there is not a man on earth, that ever comes up half way to what the law of God requires of him; and consequently, that there is in all more want of sincerity, than any actual possession of it. But whether it be so or no, how does it appear, that if men are sincere in endeavours with respect to more than half their duty, God has promised them saving mercy and grace, though, through a defect of their sincerity, the rest be neglected?

But if we suppose the sincerity to which divine promises are made, implies a true freedom of the heart in religious endeavours and performances, consisting in love to God and holiness, inclining our hearts to our duty for its own sake, here is something determinate and precise; as a title to the benefit promised does not depend on any particular degree of sincerity to be found out by difficult and unsearchable rules of mathematical calculation, but on the nature of it; this sincerity being a thing of an entirely distinct nature and kind from any thing that is to be found in those men who have no interest in the promises. If men know they have this sincerity, they may know the promises are theirs, though they may be sensible they have very much of a contrary principle in their hearts, the operations of which are as real as of this. This is the only sincerity in religion that the Scripture makes any account of. According to the word of God, then, and then only, is there a sincere universal obedience, when persons love all God’s commands, and love all those things wherein holiness consists, and endeavour after obedience to every divine precept, from love and of free choice. Otherwise, in scripture account, there is nothing but sincere disobedience and rebellion, without any sincerity of the contrary. For their disobedience is of free choice, from sincere love to sin, and delight in wickedness. But their refraining from some sins, and performing some external duties, is without the least degree of free choice or sincere love.

If here it should be said, that men who have no piety of heart in a saving degree, yet may have some degree of love to virtue; and it should. be insisted that mankind are born with a moral sense, which implies a natural approbation of and love to virtue; and therefore, men that have not the principle of love to God and virtue established to that degree as to be truly pious men, and entitled to heaven, yet may have such degrees of them as to engage them, with a degree of ingenuous sincerity and free inclination, to seek after farther degrees of virtue, and so with a sincerity above that which has been mentioned, viz. a real willingness to use endeavors from fear and self-interest. It may be replied, If this be allowed, it will not at all help the matter. For still the same question returns, viz, what degree of this sincerity is it that constitutes the precise condition of the promise? It is supposed that all mankind have this moral sense; but yet it is not supposed that all mankind are entitled to the promises of saving mercy. Therefore the promises depend, as above noticed, on the degree of sincerity, under the same difficulties, and with the same intricacies, and all the forementioned unfixedness and uncertainty. And other things concerning this sincerity, besides the degree of it, are undetermined, viz. how constant this degree of sincerity of endeavour must be; how long it must be continued; and how early it must be begun.

Thus, it appears that, on the supposition of God’s haying made any promises of saving grace to the sincere endeavours of ungodly men, it will follow, that such promises are made to an undetermined condition.

But a supposed promise to an undetermined condition, is truly no promise at all. It is absurd to talk of positive determinate promises made to something not determined, or to a condition that is not fixed in the promise. If the condition be not decided, there is nothing decisive in the affair.

If the master of a family should give forth such a pretended promise as this to his servants, “ I promise, that if any of you will do something, though I tell you not what, that I will surely give him an inheritance among my children:” would this be truly any promise at all?

I proceed now to observe, II. On the supposition, that the promises of saving grace are made to some other sincerity of endeavour, than that which implies truly pious sincerity, the sovereign grace and will of God must determine the existence of the condition of the promises; and so the whole must still depend on God’s determining grace; and that, of whatever kind this sincerity; short of truly pious and saving sincerity, is supposed to be; whether it consists only in a reality of will, arising from foreign motives, for a certain degree of endeavours or use of means; or whether it be a certain sincerity or reality of willingness to use endeavours, arising from a natural love of virtue. For all suppose the sincerity, to which the promises are made, to be suppose in which some are distinguished from others; none supposing that all mankind, without exception, have this sincerity which is the condition of the promises. Therefore, this sincerity must be a distinguishing attainment.

And how is it that some attain to it, and not others? It must be in one of these two ways; either by the sovereign gift of God’s will, or by their endeavours. To say the former, is to give up the point, and to own that the sovereign grace and will of God determines the existence of the condition of the promises. But if it be said, that this distinguishing sincerity of endeavour is obtained by men’s own endeavour, then I ask, what sort of endeavour is it attained by? Sincere endeavour, or insincere? None will be so absurd, as to say, that this great condition of saving promises is attained to by insincere endeavours. For what tendency, either natural or moral, can the exercise of insincerity have, to produce or attain to sincerity? But if it be said, that distinguishing sincerity of endeavour is attained to by distinguishing sincere endeavour, this is to run rotund in a ridiculous circle; and still the difficulty remains, and the question returns, how the distinguishing sincerity that first of all took place in the affair came to have existence, otherwise than by the determining grace of God?

And if it be said, that there is no need of supposing any such thing as any previous, habitual sincerity, or any such sincerity going be ore as shall be an established principle, but that it is sufficient that the free will does sincerely determine itself to endeavour after holiness-I answer, whether we suppose the sincerity that first entitles to the promises, to be a settled habit or established principle, or not, it does not in the least remove the difficulty, as long as it is something, in which some men are distinguished from others, that precedes the distinguishing endeavour which entitles to the promises, and is the source and spring of those endeavours. This first distinguishing sincerity, which is the spring of the whole affair, must have existence by some means or other; and it must proceed either from some previous sincere endeavour of the man’s own, which is a contradiction; or from God, which is the point required; or it must be the effect of chance, in other words, of nothing.

If we suppose that distinguishing sincerity of endeavour by which some men are interested in the promises of saying grace, and not others, to be some certain degree of love to virtue, or any thing else in the disposition or exercise of the heart; yet it must be owned, that all men either are alike by nature, as to love to virtue, or they are not. If they are not, but some have naturally a greater love to virtue than others, and this determines some, rather than others, to the requisite sincerity of endeavour after saving grace; then God determines the affair by his sovereign will; for he, and not men themselves, determines all distinguishing qualifications or advantages that men are born with. Or if there be no difference naturally, but one man is born with the same love to virtue as another; then, how do some men first attain to more of this love to virtue than others, and so possess that distinguishing sincerity of endeavour which consists in it? To say it arises from a previous, distinguishing sincerity of endeavour, attempt, desire, or will, is a contradiction. Therefore, it must proceed from the determining grace of God; which being allowed, the great point in dispute is allowed. 15. Ephesians 2: “By grace are ye saved, through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God.” Mr. Beach observes, “this text does not mean that their faith is so God’s gift, as not to be of themselves, as is most evident to any who reads the original.” This is certainly a great mistake.

What I suppose he means, is, that the relative that, being of the neither gender, and the word of the feminine, they do not agree together. But if he would translate the Greek relative that thing, viz. the thing last spoken of, all the difficulty vanishes. Vid. Beza, in Icc. Such Scriptures as these, I Corinthians 15:10. “Not I, but the grace of God that was with me;” Galatians 2:20. “Not I, but Christ liveth in me;” prove efficacious grace.

The virtuous actions of men that are rewardable, are not heft to men’s indifference, without divine ordering and efficacy, so as to be possible to fail, They are often in the Scripture the matter of God’s promises. How often does God promise reformations! How often does God promise that great revival of religion in the latter days! Dr. Whitby seems to deny any physical influence at all of the Spirit of God, on the will; and allows an influence by moral suasion and moral causes only, p. 344. This is to deny that the Spirit of God (hoes any thing at all, except inspiring the prophets, and giving the means of grace, with God’s ordination of this in his providence. If God do any thing physically, what he does must be efficacious and irresistible.

Such an assistance Dr. Whitby maintains, and, concerning it, says the following things — p. 221, 222. 1st , “Then I say it must be granted, that in raising an idea in my brain by the Holy Spirit, and the impression made upon it there, the action is truly physical. 2nd , That in those actions I am wholly passive; that is, I myself do nothing formally to produce those ideas; but the good Spirit, without my operation, doth produce them in me. 3d , That these operations must be irresistible in their production, because they are immediately produced in us without our knowledge of them, and without our will, and so without those faculties by which we are enabled to act.”

Though it should be allowed that God assists man with a physical assistance, and yet an obliged and promised assistance only; then God does not do, or effect, or give the thing assisted to, any more than if he operated and assisted men only according to the established laws of nature; and men may as properly be said to do it of themselves, and of their own power.

The doing of the thing, is in the same manner in their power. The assistance by which God assists a drunkard that goes to the tavern, and there drinks excessively, or by which he assists an adulterer or pirate in their actions, is, that he upholds the laws of nature, the laws of the nature of the human soul, whereby it is able to perform such and such acts in such order and dependence; and the laws of the union of soul and body; and moves the body in such a stated manner in consequence of such acts of the soul, and upholds the laws of motion, and causes that there shall be such and such effects in corporeal things, and also of men’s minds in consequence of such motions. All the difference is, that the assistance which he grants in the duties of religion, is according to a newer establishment than the other, according to a method established a little later; and also, that the method of assistance, in the one case, is written and revealed by way of promise or covenant, and not in the other.

But if it be said, that though God has promised assistance, yet he has not promised the exact degree, as, notwithstanding his promise, he has left himself at liberty to assist some, much more than others, in consequence of the very same endeavour-I answer, that this will prove a giving tip of their whole scheme, and will infallibly bring in the Calvinistical notion of sovereign and arbitrary grace; whereby some, with the very same sincerity of endeavour, with the same degree of endeavour, and the same use of means, nay, although all things are exactly equal in both cases, both as to their persons and behaviour; yet one has that success by sovereign grace and God’s arbitrary pleasure, that is denied another. If God has left himself no liberty of sovereign grace in giving success to man’s endeavours, but his consequent assistance be always tied to such endeavours precisely, then man’s success is just as much in his own power, and is in the same way the fruit of his own doings, as the effect and fulfilment of his endeavours to commit adultery or murder; and indeed much more. For his success in those endeavours is not tied to such endeavours, but may be providentially disappointed. Although particular motions follow such and such acts of will, in such a state of body, exactly according to certain laws of nature; yet a man’s success in such wickedness is not at all tied to his endeavours by any divine establishment, as the Arminians suppose success is to man’s endeavours after conversion.

For the Spirit of God, by assisting in the alleged manner, becomes not the efficient cause of those things, as the Scriptures do certainly represent him.

If God be not the proper bestower, author, and efficient cause of virtue, then the greatest benefits flow not from him; are not owing to his goodness; nor have we him to thank for them. “Christ upbraids the cities wherein most of his mighty works were done, that they were worse than Sodom, etc. and the Jews of that generation, that they were worse than the men of Nineveh; and the Pharisees, that the publicans and harlots went into the kingdom of God be ore them. But why did he do this, if the only reason was, that the one was brought to repent by effectual grace, and the other not?” (See Whitby, p. 169, 170, 171.) I answer, the unbelief and impenitence of those cities, of that generation, and of those Pharisees, when, on the contrary, the publicans and Nineveh repented, and the men of Sodom would have repented, was an argument that they were worse, more perverse, and hard-hearted than they. Because, though repentance is owing to special, efficacious assistance, yet in his ordinary methods of proceeding with men, God is wont much more rarely to bestow it on those that are more perverse, hard-hearted, and rooted in evil, than others. So much the more as their hearts are hardened, so much the less likely are they to be brought to repentance. And though there be oftentimes exceptions of particular persons, yet it still holds good as a general mule; and especially with regard to societies, nations, cities, and ranks of men: so that Christ might well, from the fact that he mentions, draw an argument of the greater perverseness and stubbornness of those societies and ranks of men that he spoke of. 16. A command and a manifestation of will are not the same thing. A command does not always imply a true desire that the thing commanded should be done. So much at least is manifest by time instance of Abraham commanded to offer up Isaac. That command was not such an effect of the divine will, as the commands to believe and repent, &e. 17. Either the stronger the habitual inclination to good is, the more virtuous; and the stronger the disposition to evil, the more vicious; or, if it be otherwise, then indifference or want of inclination is essential to both virtue and vice. 18. Dr. Whitby’s inconsistence appears in that one while, when he is disputing against the decree of election, he maintains that the epistles, where the apostle speaks to the elect, are not written to the converted only; because then it suits his turn that the persons addressed should not be converted. But afterwards, when disputing against efficacious grace, he maintains that where the apostle says, “ God worketh in you both to will and to do,” etc. Philippians 2:13. he speaks only to them that are converted, p. 228. Again, when it suits the Doctor’s turn, when writing about perseverance, then all whom the apostles write to are true saints. As particularly those the apostle Peter writes to, that had precious faith; p. 399, And the Galatians addressed in Paul’s epistle, p. 401, 402. 19. When the psalmist prays, “Make me to go in the way of thy statutes;” is it indeed meaning that God would give him the general grace which he gives to all, and which is sufficient for all if they will but improve it? And is this all 20. Arminmians argue that God has obliged himself to bestow a holy and saving disposition, on certain conditions, and that what is given in regeneration, is given either for natural men’s asking, or for the diligent improvement of common grace; because, otherwise, it would not be our fault that we are without it, nor our virtue that we have it. But if this reasoning is just, the holy qualities obtained by the regenerate, are only the fruits of virtue, not virtues themselves. All the virtue lies in asking, and in the diligent improvement of common grace. 21. Proverbs 21:1. “The heart of the king is in the hand of the Lord, as the rivers of water; he turneth it whithersoever he will.” This shows that the Arminian notion of liberty of will, is inconsistent with the scripture notion of God’s providence and government of the world. See also Jeremiah 31:18. “Turn me, and I shall be turned.” Matthew 7:18.” A good tree cannot bring forth evil fruit; neither can a corrupt tree bring forth good fruit.” Let us understand this how we will, it destroys the Arminian notion of liberty, and virtue, and vice. For, if it means only a great difficulty; then so much the less liberty, and therefore so much the less virtue or vice. And the preceding verse would be false, which says “ every tree bringeth forth good fruit,” etc. Romans 8:6,7,8,9. “ For to be carnally minded is death; but to be spiritually minded is life and peace: because the carnal mind is enmity against God; for it is not subject to the law of God, neither indeed can be. So then they that are in the flesh cannot please God. But we are not in the flesh, but in the spirit, if so be thiat the Spirit of God dwell in you.

Now, if any maim have not the Spirit of Christ, he is none of his.” The design of the apostle in this place overthrows Arminian notions of liberty, virtue, and vice. It appears from Scripture, that God gives such assistance to virtue and virtuous acts, as to be properly a determining assistance, so as to determine the effect; which is inconsistent with Arminian notions of liberty, The Scripture shows that God’s influence in the case is such, that he is the cause of the effect; he causes it to be: which shows that his influence determines the matter, whether it shall be or not. Otherwise innumerable expressions of Scripture are exceedingly improper, and altogether without a meaning. 22. Dr. Whitby’s notion of the assistance of the Spirit is of the same sort with inspiration. Whereas that which I suppose is the true notion, is entirely different. Consequently their notion is much more enthusiastical, does much better agree with, and much more expose to, pernicious enthusiasm, than ours. Hence we find that the grossest enthusiasts, such as Quakers and others, are generally Arminians in the doctrines of free will, etc. 23. Scripture expressions are every where contrary to the Arminian scheme, according to all use of language of the world in these days. But then they have their refuge here. They say, the ancient figures of speech are exceedingly diverse from ours; and that we in this distant age cannot judge at all of the true sense of expression used so long ago, but by a skill in antiquity, and being versed in ancient history, and critically skilled in the ancient languages; not considering that the Scriptures were written for us in these ages on whom the ends of the world are come; yea, were designed chiefly for the latter age of the world, in which they shall have their chief, and comparatively almost all their effect. They were written for God’s people in those ages, of whom at least ninety-nine in a hundred must be supposed incapable of such knowledge, by their circumstances and education; and nine hundred and ninety-nine in a thousand of God’s people, that hitherto have been saved by the Scriptures, It is easy, by certain methods of interpretation, to refine and criticise any book to a sense most foreign to the mind of the author. 24. If God be truly unwilling that there should be any moral evil in the world, why does not he cause less moral evil to exist than really does? If it be answered, as is usual to such kind of objections, that though God is unwilling there should be moral evil, yet he will not infringe on man’s liberty, or destroy his moral agency to prevent it; then I ask, if this be all, why does God cause so much less to exist at some certain times; on the contrary, causes virtue gloriously to prevail? Other times are spoken of and promised, wherein it shall prevail yet vastly more. And this is spoken of as of God’s effecting, and is abundantly so spoken of and promised, as what God would do, and none should hinder, etc.

The Arminian principles, denying the efficacious, determining grace of God, as the cause of men’s virtue and piety, are wholly inconsistent with the promises and prophecies of the future flourishing of religion and virtue in the world, and never can be made consistent therewith. This flourishing of religion is spoken of as what God will effect; and is made the matter of his abundant promise; is spoken of as his glorious work, the work of his almighty power; what he will effect, and none shall hinder; what he will effect against all opposition, removing and overcoming the wickedness of men, etc. 25. Dr. Stebbing says, page 104. “ So much grace as necessary to lead us to that obedience which is indispensably required in order to salvation, God will give to every one, who humbly and devoutly prays to him for it; for this is the condition, and the only condition prescribed by our Saviour, Luke 11:9-13. ‘And I say unto you, Ask, and it shall be given you; seek, and ye shall find; knock, and it shall be opened unto you. For every one that asketh, receiveth; and he that seeketh, findeth; and to him that knocketh, it shall be opened. If then ye, being evil, know how to give good gifts unto your children; how much more shall your heavenly Father give the Holy Spirit to them that ask him?’-where the promise of the Spirit is made.” Here humility and devotion are mentioned as the condition of that obedience which is indispensably required in order to salvation, By that obedience which is required in order to salvation must be meant, either, 1. That sort of virtue and obedience that is requisite, or, 2. Perseverance in it.

If he means that sort of virtue which is requisite in order to salvation; then I would ask, what sort of humility and devotion is that, to which God has promised the grace which is necessary to their obtaining that virtue which is the condition of salvation? Must it not be real, sincere humility and devotion? Surely if God has promised so great a gift to any humility and devotion, it must be to that which is sincere and upright. Because that which is not sincere, is nothing; it is hypocritical; a mere show of that which is really wanting. And it would be very unreasonable to suppose that God promises such infinite rewards to hypocrisy, which he has often declared to be abominable to him; and which only provokes him the more.

But if it be true, sincere, upright humility and devotion, it is unreasonable to suppose that God makes this the condition of that grace which is necessary to his obtaining that kind of virtue which is requisite to salvation.

Because he, who has this humility and devotion, has that kind of virtue already. The Scripture every where speaks of uprightness and sincerity of heart, as that virtue that is saving, He that sincerely asks for grace to obey, has that sincerity and uprightness of heart that is exercised in sincere obedience; for he that sincerely asks this, is sincerely willing to obey, or sincerely desirous of obeying. Or, 2. If the Doctor, by that obedience that is indispensably required in order to salvation, means perseverance in sincere virtue, and this be promised to devoutly and sincerely asking it; then hereby must be meant, either devoutly and sincerely asking it once, or final perseverance in this sincere asking, or a certain limited continuance in that asking. If a final perseverance in asking be the condition of grace to lead us to persevere, saving virtue is, as said before, the condition of itself.

For persevering sincerity is the condition of obtaining persevering sincerity.

If in be only once asking, or asked a limited number of times, or a limited continuance in asking, this is contrary to the Arminian doctrine about perseverance. For it supposes a person in this life, on a past condition, to be already, before the end of the day of his probation, so confirmed in obedience that it is impossible for him to fall away. 26. One danger of these Arminian notions is, that they strongly tend to prevent conviction of sin. 27. The vast pretences of Arminian to an accurate and clear view of the scope and design of the sacred penmen, and a critical knowledge of the original, will prove for ever vain and insufficient to help them against such clear evidence as the Scripture exhibits concerning efficacious grace. I desire it may be shown, if it can be, that ever any terms, that are fuller and stronger, are used more frequently, or in greater variety, to signify God’s being the author, efficient, and bestower of any- kind of benefit, than as to the bestowment of true virtue or goodness of heart; whether concerning the deliverance out of Egypt, or the manna that was rained down from heaven, or the bestowment of the blessings of Canaan, or saving Noah and his family in the ark; or the raising any from the dead, or Christ’s giving health to the sick, or sight to the blind, or bread to the hungry in the wilderness, or any thing else whatsoever; or the giving being to mankind in their creation; the giving reason to them, with their other natural faculties; the giving them life and breath; the giving them the beautiful form of their bodies; the giving them life at the general resurrection; the giving them their glory and happiness in heaven; the prophets, and the word of God by the prophets and others; the giving the means of grace and salvation; the giving Christ, and providing means of salvation in him. Yea, I know of no one thing in Scripture wherein such significant, strong expressions are used, in so great variety, or one half so often, as the bestowment of this benefit of true goodness and piety of heart. But after all, we must be faced down in it with vast confidence, that the Scriptures do not imply any more than only exhibiting means of instruction, leaving the determining and proper causing of the effect wholly with man, as the only proper, efficient, and determining cause; and that the current of Scripture is all against us, and that it is because we do not understand language, and are bigots and fools for imagining any such thing as that the Scriptures say any thing of that nature, and because the divines on our side do not understand Greek, and do not lay the Scripture before them, nor mind the scope of Scripture, nor consider the connexion, etc. etc. Perhaps it will be said, that every one of those scriptures, which are brought to prove efficacious grace, may have another interpretation, found out by careful and critical examination. But, alas! is that the way of the Most High’s instructing mankind, to use such a multitude of expressions, in different languages, and various different ages, all which, in their natural and most common acceptation, in all languages, nations, and ages, must undoubtedly be understood in a particular sense; yea, the whole thread and current of all that God says, according to the use of speech among mankind, tends to lead to such an understanding, and so unavoidably leads his people in all ages into such an understanding; but yet, that he means no such thing; intending only that the true meaning should not be found out, but by the means of acute criticism, which might possibly hit upon the strange, unusual, and surprising meaning? 28. Instead of persons being the determining and efficient causes of their own virtue and piety, after all the moral means God uses with man, let us suppose some third person between God and the subject of this gift of virtue, to be in the very same manner the sovereignly determining cause and efficient of virtue; that he had power to bestow it on us, or cause us to be the subjects of it, just in the same manner as the Arminians suppose we ourselves have power to be the causes of our being the subjects of virtue; and that it depended on this third person’s free will, just in the same manner as now they suppose our having virtue depends on our own flee will; and that God used moral means with that third person to bestow virtue on us, just in the same manner that be used moral means to persuade us to cause virtue in ourselves, and the moral means had the like tendency to operate on his will as on ours; but finally, it was left entirely to his free will to be the sole determining cause whether we should have virtue, without any such influence on his will as in the least to insure his sovereignty, and arbitrary disposal, and perfectly free self-determination; and it should be left contingent, whether he would bestow it or not; and, in these circumstances, this third person should happen to determine in our favour, and bestow virtue: now I ask, would it be proper to ascribe the matter so wholly to God, in such strong terms, and in such a great variety; to ascribe it so entirely to him as his gift; to pray to him beforehand for it; to give him thanks, to give him all the glory, etc.? On the contrary, would not this determining cause, whose arbitrary, self-determined, selfpossessed, sovereign will, decides the matter, be properly looked upon as the main cause, vastly the most proper cause, the truest author and bestower of the benefit? Would not he be, as it were, all in the cause?

Would not the glory properly belong to him, on whose pleasure the determination of the matter properly depended? 29. By regeneration, being new creatures, raised from death in sin, in the New Testament, is not meant merely persons’ being brought into the state and privileges of professing Christians, according to Dr. Taylor, When Christ says unto Nicodemus, John 3:3. “Verily, verily, I say unto thee, except a man be born again he cannot see the kingdom of God;” he does not mean merely, that unless a man be brought to a participation of the new state and privileges of the christian church, he cannot enter on the possession and privileges of the christian church; for that would be nonsense, and only to say, unless a man be born again, he cannot be born again; or, unless a man enter into the new state of things, as erected by the Messiah, he cannot enter on the new state of things as erected by the Messiah. Nor can he mean, that unless a man be a professing Christian, he cannot see the future and eternal kingdom of heaven, for he supposes many see the kingdom of God in that sense.

And how unreasonable would it be to suppose that Christ would teach this doctrine of the necessity of being instated in his new-modelled church, as such a great, important, and main doctrine of his!

Talor, to make out his scheme, is forced to suppose, that by being born of God is meant two things in the New Testament, (see p. 127. of his Key, and on Original Sin, P. 144, etc.) So he is forced to suppose, that by the kingdom of God is meant two things, (p. 125. marginal note, and other places,) and so he supposes two senses of our being of the truth, our being of or in God, and knowing God, (see p. 127. marginal note.) He is forced to suppose that many of the expressions, signifying antecedent blessings, are to be taken in a double sense, (see p. 138. No. 243, etc.) See how evidently being born of God signifies something else than a being brought into the state of professing Christians, I John 2:29. “if ye know that he is righteous, ye know that every one that doth righteousness is born of him.”

Chap. 3:”Whatsoever is born of God, doth not commit sin; for his seed remaineth in him, and he cannot sin, because he is born of God.” Chap. 4:8. “Every one that loveth is born of God, and knoweth God.” Chap. 5:4. “ Whatsoever is born of God, overcometh the world.” Ver. 18. “We know that whosoever is born of God, sinneth not; but he that is begotten of God, keepeth himself; and that wicked one toucheth him not.”

So it is exceeding apparent, that knowing God, and being of God, and in God, having this hope in him, etc. mean something beside our christian profession, and principles, and privileges. 1 John 2:3, etc. “Hereby do we know that we know him, if we keep his commandments. Whoso keepeth his word, in him verily is the love of God perfected. Hereby know we that we are in him.” Chap. 3 “Every one that bath this hope in him, purifieth himself, even as he is pure.” Chap. 3:14. “We know that we have passed from death unto life, because we love the brethren.’ Chap. 4:12. “If we love one another, God dwelleth in us.” Taylor supposes that this same apostle, by being born of God, means being received to the privileges of professing Christians. John 1:12. (p. 49.) I John 5:1. and ver. 18. (p. 48.) John 3:1. (p. 49.) 30. Why does the apostle say, concerning apostates, “they were not of us: if the ha been of us, they would no doubt have continued with us; but they went out, that they might be made manifest that they were not all of us if it be, as Dr. Taylor supposes, that professing Christians are indeed of the society of Christians to all intents and purposes, have all their privileges, are truly the children of God, members of Christ, of the household of God, saints, believers that have obtained like precious faith, are all one body, have one spirit, one faith, one inheritance, have their hearts purified and sanctified, are all the children of light, are all of the household of God, fellow-citizens with the saints, have all fellowship with Christ, etc.? 31. It is true, the nation of the Jews are in the Old Testament said to be elected, called, created, made, formed, redeemed, delivered, saved, bought, purchased, begotten. But particular Jews are no where so spoken of, at least with reference to the same thing, viz, their national redemption, when they were brought out of Egypt, etc.

David, in the book of Psalm, though he is so abundant there in giving thanks to God for his mercies, and is also so frequent in praising God for God’s redeeming his people out of Egypt, and the salvation God wrought for the nation and church of Israel at that time vet he never once blesses God (having respect to that salvation) that God had chosen him and redeemed him, bought him, regenerated him; never (having reference to that affair) speaks in the language of the apostle, “ He loved me, and gave himself for me:” though he often speaks of the blessedness of those men God had chose, and caused to come nigh unto him, agreeably to the language of the New Testament, and often blesses God for redeeming and saving him in particular; but never, in any of these things, has he respect to those national privileges, nor indeed any other of the penmen of the Psalm; which is very strange, if the privilege of being bought, made, created; etc. as plied to the nation of the Jews, be that which the apostle in the New Testament applies to himself in particular, and which this and the other apostles applied to many other particular persons. 32. That professing Christians are said to be sanctified, washed, etc. does not argue, that all professing Christians are so in fact. For Taylor himself says, “it should be carefully observed, that it is very common in the sacred writings to express not only our christian privileges, but also the duty to which they oblige, in the present or preterperfect tense; or to speak of that as done, which only ought to be done, and which, in fact, may possibly never be done: as in Matthew 5:13. “Ye are the salt of the earth,” that is, ye ought to be. Romans 2:4. “ The goodness of God leadeth thee to repentance;” that is, ought to lead thee: chap. 6:2. chap. 8:9. Colossians 3:3. 1 Peter 1:6. “Wherein ye greatly rejoice;” i.e. ought to rejoice. Corinthians 3:18. “We all with open face (enjoying the means of) beholding, as in a glass, the glory of the Lord, are (ought to be, enjoy the means of being) changed into the same image from glory to glory.” Corinthians 5:7. “Ye are unleavened,” i.e. obliged by the christian profession to be. Hebrews 13:14. We seek (i.e. we ought to seek, or according to our profession, we seek) a city to come.” 1 John 2:12-15. 3:9. 5:4-18. and in other places. See Taylor’s Key, p. 139. No. 244. and p. 144.

No. 246. This overthrows all his supposed proofs, that those which he calls antecedent blessings do really belong to all professing Christians . 33. The case was quite otherwise in the christian church with regard to election, redemption, creation, etc. from what it was with the Jews. With the Jews, election, their redemption out of Egypt, their creation, was a national thing; it began with them as a nation, and descended, as it were, from the nation, to particular persons. Particular persons were first of the nation and church of the Jews; so, by that means had an interest in their election, redemption, etc. that God wrought of old. The being of the nation and church of Israel, was the ground of a participation in these privileges.

But it is evident it is contrariwise in Christians. With regard to them, the election, redemption, creation, regeneration, etc. are personal things. They begin with particular persons, and ascend to public societies. Men are first redeemed, bought, created, regenerated, and by that means become members of the christian church; and this is the ground of their membership. Paul’s regeneration, and Christ’s loving him, and giving himself for him, was the foundation of his being of the christian church, that holy nation, peculiar people, etc. whereas, David’s being one of the nation of Israel, is the proper ground of his participation in Israel’s redemption out of Egypt, and of that birth and formation of the people that were at that time. It is apparent the case was thus. It cannot be otherwise.

It is evident that the new creation, regeneration, calling, and justification, are personal things, because they are by personal influences; influences of God’s Spirit on particular persons, and personal qualifications.

Their regeneration was a personal thing, and therefore, it is not called simply an entering into the new creation, or obtaining a part in the new world or new Jerusalem, etc. hurt a putting off the old man, and putting on the new man. They are first raised from the dead, and by that means come to belong to the church of Christ, They are first lively or living stones, and by that means come to belong to the spiritual house, and the holy temple; by being lively stones, they come to be parts of the living temple, and capable of it. So that their being alive, is prior to their belonging to the christian church. The christian calling is represented as being the ground of their belonging to the church. They are called into the church, called into the fellowship of Jesus Christ. Their spiritual baptism or washing, is prior to their being in the church. They are by one spirit baptized into one body.

They put on Christ, and so become interested in Christ, and sharers with those that had a part in him. By such a personal work of the Spirit of God, they were first made meet to be partakers with the saints in light, before they were partakers. 34. It will follow from Taylor’s scheme, that Simon the sorcerer had an interest in all the antecedent blessings. Yet the apostle tells him he was at that time in the gall of bitterness, and in the bond of iniquity. If he was really justified, washed, cleansed, sanctified; how was he at that time in the bond of iniquity? Justification, forgiveness, etc. is a release from the bond of iniquity. If the heart be purified by faith, it does not remain in the gall of bitterness. 35. Saving grace differs from common grace, in nature and kind. To suppose only a gradual difference, would not only be to suppose, that some in a state of damnation are, with in an infinitely little, as good as some in a state of salvation, (which greatly disagrees with the Arminian notion of men’s being saved by their own virtue and goodness,) but this, taken with the Arminian notion of men’s falling from grace, will naturally lead us to determine, that many that are once in a state of salvation, may be in such a state, and out of it, scores of times in a very short space. For though a person is in a state of salvation, he may be but just in it, and may be infinitely near the limits between a state of salvation and damnation; and as the habits of grace are, according to that scheme, only contracted and raised by consideration and exercise, and the exertion of the strength of the mind, and are lost when a man falls from grace by the intermission or cessation of these, and by contrary acts and exercises; and as the habits and principles of virtue are raised and sunk, brought into being and abolished by those things, and both the degree of them and the being of them wholly depend on them; the consequence will naturally be, that when a man is first raised to that degree of a virtuous disposition, as to be in a state of salvation, and the degree of virtue is almost infinitely near the dividing line, it will naturally be liable to be a little raised or sunk every hour, according as the thoughts and exercises of the mind are; as the mercury in the thermometer or barometer is never perfectly at rest, but is always rising or subsiding, according to the weight of the atmosphere, or the degree of heat. 36. The dispute about grace’s being resistible or irresistible, is perfect nonsense. For the effect of grace is upon the will; so that it is nonsense, except it be proper to say, that a man with his will can resist his own will, or except it be possible for him to desire to resist his own will; that is, except it be possible for a man to will a thing and not will it at the same time, and so far as he does will it. Or if you speak of enlightening grace, and say this grace is upon the understanding; it is nothing but the same nonsense in other words. For then the sense runs thus, that a man, after he has seen so plainly that a thing is best for him that he wills it, yet he can at the same time will it. If you say he can will any thing he pleases, this is most certainly true; for who can deny, that a man can will any thing he doth already will? That a man can will any thing that he pleases, is just as certain as what is, is. Wherefore it is nonsense to say, that after a man has seen so plainly a thing to be so much best for him that he wills it, he could have not willed it if he had pleased; that is to say, if he had not willed it, he could have not willed it. It is certain that a man never doth any thing but what he can do. But to say, after a man has willed a thing, that he could have not willed it if he had pleased, is to suppose two wills in a man; the one to will which goes first; the other to please or choose to will. And so with the same reason we may say, there is another will to please; to please to will; and so on to a thousand. Wherefore, to say that the man could have willed otherwise if he had pleased, is just all one as to say, that if he had willed otherwise, then we might be sure he could will otherwise. 37. Those that deny infusion of grace by the Holy Spirit, must, of necessity, deny the Spirit to do any thing at all, By the Spirit’s infusing, let be meant what it will, those who say there is no infusion contradict themselves. For they say the Spirit doth something in the soul; that is, he causeth some motion, or affection, or apprehension to arise in the soul, that, at the same time, would not be there without him. Now, God’s Spirit doeth what he doeth; he doth as much as he doth; or he causeth in the soul as much as he causeth, let that be how little soever. So much as is purely the effect of his immediate motion, that is the effect of his immediate motion, let that be what it will; and so much is infused, how little soever that be. This is self-evident. For suppose the Spirit of God only to assist the natural powers, then there is something done betwixt them. Men’s own powers do something, and God’s Spirit doth something; only they work together. Now that part that the Spirit doth, how little soever it be, is infused. So that they that deny infused habits, own that part of the habit is infused. For they say, the Holy Spirit assists the man in acquiring the habit; so that it is acquired rather sooner than it would be otherwise. So that part of the habit is owing to the Spirit; some of the strength of the habit was infused, and another part is owing to the natural powers of the man. Or if you say not so, but that it is all owing to the natural power assisted; how do you mean assisted? To act more lively and vigorously than otherwise?

Then that liveliness and vigorousness must be infused; which is a habit, and therefore an infused habit. It is grace, and therefore infused grace. Grace consists very much in a principle that causes vigorousness and activity in action; This is infusion, even in the sense of the opposite party. So that, if any operation of the Holy Spirit at all is allowed, the dispute is only, how much is infused? The one says, a great deal; the other says, but little. 38. 1st . The main thing meant by the word efficacious, is this, it being decisive. This seems to be the main question. 2nd . Its being immediate and arbitrary in that sense, as not to be limited to the laws of nature. 3nd . That the principles of grace are supernatural in that sense, that they are entirely different from all that is in the heart before conversion. 4th . That they are infused, and not contracted by custom and exercise. 5th . That the change is instantaneous, and not gradual.

These four last heads may be subdivisions of a second general head; so that the divisions may be thus: 1st . The main thing meant is, that it is decisive: 2nd , That it is immediate and supernatural. The four last of the heads mentioned above, may be subdivisions of this last.

So that there are two things relating to the doctrine of efficacious grace, wherein lies the main difference between the Calvinists and Arminiarms as to this doctrine. First, That the grace of God is determining and decisive as to the conversion of a sinner, or a man’s becoming a good man, and having those virtuous qualifications that entitle to an interest in Christ and his salvation. Secondly, That the power, and grace, and operation of the Holy Spirit, in, or towards, the conversion of a sinner, is immediate: that the habit of true virtue or holiness is immediately implanted or infused; that the operation goes so far, that a man has habitual holiness given him instantly, wholly by the operation of the Spirit of God, and not gradually by assistance concurring with our endeavours, so as gradually to advance virtue into a prevailing habit. And besides these, Thirdly, It is held by many of late, that there is no immediate interposition of God; but that all is done by general laws.

The former is that which is of greatest importance or consequence in the controversy with Arminians, (though the others are also very important,) and this, only, is what I shall consider in this place; perhaps the others may be considered, God willing, in some other discourse. 39. Concerning what the Arminians say, that these are speculative points; all devotion greatly depends on a sense and acknowledgment of our dependence on God. But this is one of the very chief things belonging to our dependence on God: how much stress do the Scriptures lay on our dependence on God! All assistance of the Spirit of God whatsoever, that is by any present influence or effect of the Spirit; any thing at all that a person that is converted from sin to God is the subject of, through any immediate influence of the Spirit of God upon him, or any thing done by the Spirit, since the completing and confirming the canon of the Scriptures, must be done by a physical operation, either on the soul or body.

The Holy Spirit of God does something to promote virtue in men’s hearts, and to make them good beyond what the angels can do. But the angels can present motives; can excite ideas of the words of promises and threatenings, etc. and can persuade in this way by moral means; as is evident, because the devils in this way promote vice. 40. There is no objection made to God’s producing any effects, or causing any events, by any immediate interposition, producing effects arbitrarily, or by the immediate efforts of his will, but what lies equally against his ordering it so, that any effects should be produced by the immediate interposition of men’s will, to produce effects otherwise than the established laws of nature would have produced without men’s arbitrary interposition.

I beg the reader’s attention to the following quotations — “That otherwise, the world cannot be the object of inquiry and science, and far less of imitation by arts: since imitation necessarily presupposes a certain, determinate object, or fixed ascertainable relations and connexions of things; and that, upon, the contrary supposition, the world must be absolutely unintelligible. Nature, in order to be understood by us, must always speak the same language to us. It must therefore stedfastly observe the same general laws in its operations, or work uniformly, and according to stated, invariable methods and rules. Those terms, order, beauty, general good, etc. plainly include, in their meaning, analogy; and constancy, uniformity amidst variety; or, in other words, the regular observance of general settled laws, in the make and economy, production, and operations or effects, of any object to which they are ascribed. Wherever order, fixed connexions, or general laws and unity of design take place, there is certainty in the nature of such objects, and so knowledge may be acquired.

But where these do not obtain, there can be nothing but unconnected independent parts. All must be disorder and confusion; and consequently such a loose disjointed heap of things must be an inexplicable chaos. In one word, science, prudence, government, imitation, and art, necessarily suppose the prevalence of general laws throughout all the objects in nature to which they reach. No being cars know itself, project or pursue any scheme, or lay down any maxims or its conduct, but so far as its own constitution is certain, and the connexion of things relative to it are fixed and constant. For so far only are things ascertainable; and therefore, so far only can rules be drawn from them.” Turnbull’s Mor. Philippians Part. I.

Introd. “The exercise of all moral powers, dispositions, and affections of mind, as necessarily presuppose an established order of nature or general laws settled by the author of nature with respect to them, as the exercise of our bodily senses about qualities and effects of corporeal beings do with regard to them. We could neither acquire knowledge of airy kind, contract habits, or attain to airy moral perfection whatsoever, unless the author of our nature had appointed and fixed certain laws relating to our moral powers, and their exercises and acquisitions.” Ibid. p. 13, 14. Yet this Turnbull strenuously holds a self-determining power in the will of man. Such hike arguments, if they are valid against any interposition at all, will prevail against all interposition of God or man, and against the interposition of God ever to bring the world to an end, or amend it; and prove that all shall be according to general laws. And they might as well argue that the making of the world too was by general laws. If it be said, that it is of great importance and absolute necessity that God should at last interpose and rectify the course of nature — I answer, this is yielding the point, that, in cases of great importance, it is reasonable to suppose there may be an interposition that may be arbitrary, and not by general laws. 41. It is not necessary that men should be able, by the connexions of things, to know all future events; nor was this ever in the Creator’s designs. If it had been so, he could have enabled them to know the future volitions of men, and those events that depend upon them, which are by far the most important. 42. The nature of virtue being a positive thing, can proceed from nothing but God’s immediate influence, and must take its rise from creation or infusion by God. For it must be either from that, or from our own choice and production, either at once or gradually, by diligent culture. Birt it cannot begin or take its rise from the latter, viz, our choice or voluntary diligence. For if there exist nothing at all of the nature of virtue before, it cannot come from cultivation; for by the supposition there is nothing of the nature of virtue to cultivate, it cannot be by repeated and multiplied acts of virtuous choice, till it becomes a habit. For there can be no one virtuous choice unless God immediately gives it. The first virtuous choice, or a disposition to it, must be immediately given, or it must proceed from a preceding choice. If the first virtuous act of will or choice be from a preceding act of will or choice, that preceding act of choice must be a virtuous act of choice, which is contrary to the supposition. For then there would be a preceding act of choice before the first virtuous act of choice.

And if it be said the first virtuous act of choice is from a preceding act of will which is not virtuous, this is absurd. For an act of will not virtuous, cannot produce another act of will of a nature entirely above itself, having something positive in it which the cause has nothing of, and more excellent than it is; any more than motion can produce thought or understanding; or the collision of two bodies can produce thought; or stones and lead can produce a spirit; or nothing can produce something. 43. As to man’s inability to convert himself-In them that arc totally corrupt there can be no tendency towards their making their hearts better, till they begin to repent of the badness of their hearts. For if they do not repent they still approve of it; and that tends to maintain their badness and confirm it.

But they cannot begin sincerely to repent of the badness of their hearts till their hearts begin to be better, for repentance consists in a change of the mind and heart. So that it is not men’s repentance that first gives rise to their having a better heart; and therefore it cannot be any tendency in them to make their hearts better, that gives rise to it. The heart can have no tendency to make itself better, till it begins to have a better tendency; for therein consists its badness, var. its having no good tendency or inclination, And to begin to have a good tendency, or, which is the same thing, a tendency and inclination to be better, is the same thing as to begin already to be better. And therefore the heart’s inclination to be good, cannot be the thing that first gives rise to its being made good. For its inclination to be better, is the same thing with its becoming better. 44. If there be any immediate influence or action of the Spirit of God at all on any created beings, in any part of the universe since the days of the apostles, it is physical. If it be in exciting ideas of motives, or in any respect assisting or promoting any effect, still it is physical; and every whit as much so, as if we suppose the temper and nature of the heart is immediately changed. And it is as near akin to a miracle. If the latter be miraculous, so is the former. 45. Who ever supposed that the term irresistible was properly used with respect to that power by which an infant is brought into being; meaning, irresistible by the infant? Or who ever speaks of a man’s waking out of a sound sleep irresistibly, meaning, that he cannot resist awaking? Or who says, that Adam was formed out of the dust of the earth irresistibly? See what I have said of the use of such terms as irresistible, unfrustrable, etc. in my Inquiry about Liberty. 46. The opponents of efficacious grace and physical operation, may be challenged to show that it is possible that any creature should become righteous without a physical operation, either a being created with the habit of righteousness, or its being immediately infused. See what I have written in my book of Original Sin, in those sections wherein I vindicate the doctrine of original righteousness, and argue, that if Adam was not created righteous, no way can be invented how he could ever become righteous. 47. As to that, Matthew 7:7.” Seek and ye shall find;” it is explained by such places as that, Deuteronomy 4:29. “ But if from thence thou shalt seek the Lord thy God, thou shalt find him, if thou seek him with all thy heart and with all thy soul.” And by Deuteronomy 30:2-6. “ If thou shalt return unto the Lord thy God, and shalt obey his voice with all thy heart and with all thy soul; the Lord thy God will circumcise thine heart, and the heart of thy seed, to love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul;” which is very parallel with that,” to him that hath shall be given.” 48. The Scripture teacheth that holiness, both in principle and fruit, is from God. “ It is God who worketh in you, both to will and to do of his good pleasure.” And Proverbs 16:1 “The preparation of the heart in man, and the answer of the tongue, is from the Lord.” Comparing this with other parts of the book of Proverbs, evinces that it is a moral preparation, and the answer of the tongue in moral regards, that is meant. 49. Reason shows that the first existence of a principle of virtue cannot be from man himself, nor in any created being whatsoever; but must be immediately given from God; or that otherwise it never can be obtained, whatever this principle be, whether love to God or love to men. It must either be from God, or be a habit contracted by repeated acts. But it is most absurd to suppose that the first existence of the principle of holy action, should be preceded by a course of holy actions. Because there can be no holy action without a principle of holy inclination. There can be no act done from love, that shall be the cause of first introducing the very existence of love. 50. God is said to give true virtue and piety of heart to man; to work it in him, to create it, to form it, and with regard to it we are said to be his workmanship. Yea, that there may be no room to understand it in some improper sense, it is often declared as the peculiar character of God, that he assumes it as his character to be the author and giver of true virtue, in his being called the Sanctifier; he that sanctifieth us. “ I am he that sanctifieth you.” This is spoken of as the great prerogative of God, Leviticus 20:8. and other parallel places. He declares expressly that this effect shall be connected with his act, or with what he shall do in order to it. “ I will sprinkle clean water, and you shall be clean.” What God does is often spoken of as thoroughly effectual; the effect is infallibly consequent. “Turn us, and we shall be turned.” Jesus Christ has the great character of a Saviour on this account, that” he saves his people from their sins.” See Romans 11:26,27. “And so all Israel shall be saved; as it is written, there shall come out of Zion a deliverer, and shall turn away ungodliness from Jacob. For this is my covenant unto them, when I shall take away their sins.” God says, “ I will put my law into their heart; I will write my law in their inward parts, and they shall not depart away from me; I will take away the heart of stone, and give them a heart of flesh; I will give them a heart to know me; I will circumcise their hearts to love me; oh, that there were such a heart in them!” And it is spoken of as his work, to give, to cause, to create such a heart, to put it in them. God is said to incline their hearts, not only to give statutes, but to incline their hearts to his statutes.

Moses speaks of the great moral means that God had used with the children of Israel to enlighten them, and convince and persuade them; but of their being yet unpersuaded and unconverted, and gives this as a reason, that God had not given them a heart to perceive, as Deuteronomy 29:4. “Yet the Lord hath not given you a heart to perceive, and eyes to see, and ears to hear, unto this day.” The Scripture plainly makes a distinction between exhibiting light, or means of instruction and persuasion, and giving eves to see, circumcising the heart, etc. 51. W hy should Christ teach us to pray in the Lord’s prayer,” Thy will be done on earth as it is in heaven,” if it is not God’s work to bring that effect to pass, and it is left to man’s free will, and cannot be otherwise, because otherwise it is no virtue, and none of their obedience, or doing of God’s will; and God does what he can oftentimes consistently with man’s liberty, and those that enjoy the means he uses, do generally neglect and refuse to do his will? He does so much, that he can well say, what could I have done more? And yet almost all are at the greatest distance frorn doing his will.

See Colossians 1:9,10. 52. If it be as the Arminians suppose, that all men’s virtue is of the determination of their own free will, independent on any prior determining, deciding, and disposing of the event; that it is no part of the ordering of God, whether there be many virtuous or few in the world, whether there shall be much virtue or little, or where it shall be, in what nation, country, or when, or in what generation or age; or whether there shall be any at all: then none of these things belong to God’s disposal, and therefore, surely it does not belong to him to promise them. For it does not belong to him to promise in an affair, concerning which he, has not the disposal.

And how can God promise, as he oftentimes does in his word, glorious times, when righteousness shall generally prevail, and his will shall generally be done; and yet that it is not an effect which belongs to him to determine; it is not left to his determination, but to the sovereign, arbitrary determination of others, independently on any determination of him; and therefore surely they ought to be the promisers? For him to promise, who has it not in his hand to dispose and determine, is a great absurdity; and yet God oftentimes in promising, speaks of himself as the sovereign disposer of the matter, using such expressions as abundantly imply it. “I the Lord do hasten it in its time.” (Isaiah 60:22.)

Surely this is the language of a promiser, and not merely a predicter. God promises Abraham, that “all the families of the earth shall be blessed in him.” God swears “every knee shall bow, and every tongue confess.” And it is said to be given to Christ, that every nation, etc. should serve and obey him, Daniel 7 After what manner they shall serve and obey him, is abundantly declared in other prophecies, as in Isaiah 11:and innumerable others. These are spoken of in the next chapter, as excellent things that God does. 53. If God is not the disposing author of virtue, then he is not the giver of it. The very notion of a giver implies a disposing cause of the possession of the benefit. 1 John 4:4. “Ye are of God, little children, and have overcome them, (i. c. have overcome your spiritual enemies,) because greater is he that is in you, than he that is in the world;” that is, plainly, he is stronger, and his strength overcomes. But how can this be a reason, if God does not put forth an overcoming, effectual strength in the case, but leaves it to free will to get the victory, to determine the point in the conflict? 54. There are no sort of benefits that are so much the subject of the promises of Scripture, as this sort, the bestowment of virtue, or benefits which imply it. How often is the faith of the Gentiles, or their coming into the christian church, promised to Christ in the Old Testament, Isaiah 49:6. and many other places; and he has promised it to his church, chap. 49:18- 21. and innumerable other places. See Romans 15:12,13. What a promise have we, Isaiah 60:21. “Thy people also shall be all righteous, they shall inherit the land for ever, the branch of my planting, the work of my hand, that I may be glorified”-compared with the next chapter, 3rd verse,” That they may be called the trees of righteousness, the planting of the Lord, that he might be glorified.” See also ver. 8th of the same chapter. Likewise chap. 60:17, 18. “ I will make thy officers peace, and thy exactors righteousness; violence shall no more be heard in thy land, wasting nor destruction within thy border, but thou shalt call thy walls Salvation, and thy gates Praise.” Here it is promised that the rulers shall be righteous; and then, in the 21st verse following, it is promised that the people shall be so.

The change of men to be of a peaceable disposition is promised, as in places innumerable, so in Isaiah 11:6-11. “The wolf also shall dwell with the lamb, and the leopard shall lie down with the kid,” etc. Isaiah 55:5.”

Behold, thou shalt call a nation that thou knowest not, and nations that knew not thee shall run unto thee, because of the Lord thy God, and for the Holy One of Israel, for he hath glorified thee.” Jeremiah 3:15.” And I will give you pastors according to mine heart, which shall feed you with knowledge and understanding.” This implies a promise that there should be such pastors in being, and that they should be faithful to feed the people with knowledge and understanding. Jeremiah 10:23. “ The way of man is not in himself.” Stebbing owns, that on Arminian principles, conversion depending on the determination of free will, it is possible, in its own nature, that none should ever be converted, (p. 235.) Then all the promises of virtue, of the revival of religion, etc. are nothing. Jeremiah 31:18. “Turn thou me, and I shall be turned,”-compared with Jeremiah 17:14.

Heal me, O Lord, and I shall be healed; save me, and I shall be saved; for thou art my praise.” Which shows the force and meaning of such a phraseology to be, that God alone can be the doer of it; and that if he undertakes it, it will be effectually done. Jeremiah 31:32-35.” Not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers, in the day that I took them by the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt; (which my covenant they brake, although I was a husband unto them, saith the Lord;) but this shall be the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, saith the Lord, I will put my law in their inward parts, and write it in their hearts, and I will be their God, and they shall be my people. And they shall teach no more every man his neighbour, and every man his brother, saying, Know the Lord; for they shall all know me, from the least of them unto the greatest of them, saith the Lord; for I will forgive their iniquity, and I will remember their sin no more.” The prophet elsewhere tells what is connected with knowing God, var. doing judgment and justice, and showing mercy, etc. Chap. 22:16. Jeremiah 32:39,40. “And I will give them one heart and one way, that they may fear me for ever, for the good of them and their children after them; and I will make an everlasting covenant with them, that I will not turn away from them to do them good.

But I will ptit my fear in their hearts, and they shall not depart from me.”

Jeremiah 33:2. “Thus saith the Lord, the maker thereof, the Lord that formed it.” Verse 8. “ And I will cleanse them from all their iniquity, whereby they have sinned against me.” Ezekiel 11:18-20. “And they shall come thither, and they shall take away all the detestable things thereof, and all the abomination thereof from thence. And I will give them one heart, and I will put a new spirit within you; and I will take the stony heart out of their flesh, and I will give them a heart of flesh; that they may walk in my statutes, and keep mine ordinances, and do them; and they shall be my people, and I will be their God.”

Zechariah 12:10, to the end. “And I will pour upon the house of David, and upon the inhabitants of Jerusalem, the spirit of grace and of supplications; and they shall look upon me whom they have pierced,” etc.

So in the next chapter at the beginning,” I will cut off the names of the idols out of the land, and they shall be no more remembered;” and also, “ I will cause the prophets, and also the unclean spirits, to pass out of the land.”

Malachi 3:3,4. “ And he shall sit as a refiner and purifier of silver; and he shall purify the sons of Levi, and purge them as gold and silver, that they may offer unto the Lord an offering in righteousness. Then shall the offering of Judah and Jerusalem be pleasant unto the Lord, as in the days of old, and as in the former years.” 55. We are told, Job 28:28. that “the fear of the Lord is wisdom, and to depart from evil is understanding.” The same is also abundantly declared in other places. But it is equally declared, that God is the author and giver of wisdom, and that he is the author wholly and only; which is denied of other things. It is also abundantly declared in this 28th chapter of Job, that it cannot be obtained of any creature by any means; and it is implied in the end of the chapter, that it is God that gives wisdom, as is asserted, Proverbs 2:6. “For the Lord giveth wisdom; out of his mouth cometh knowledge and understanding.” It is the promise of God the Father, Psalm 110:2. “Thy people shall be willing in the day of thy power.” Psalm 119:35. “Make me to go in the way of thy commandments.” Verse 36. “Incline my heart unto thy testimonies.” 56. We are directed earnestly to pray and cry unto God for wisdom, and the fear of the Lord; for this reason, that it is he that giveth wisdom, Proverbs 2, at the beginning. Compare Job 28 with Proverbs 21:1. “ The king’s heart is in the hand of the Lord, as the rivers of water; he turneth it whithersoever he will.” Here it is represented that the will of God determines the wills of men, and that when God pleases to interpose, he even directs them according to his pleasure, without failure in any instance.

This shows that God has not left men’s hearts so in their own hands, as to be determined by themselves alone, independently on any antecedent determination.

Proverbs 28:26. “ He that trusteth in his own heart is a fool.” A man is to be commended for making a wise improvement of his outward possessions, for his own comfort; yet this is the gift of God. Ecclesiastes 2:24-26. “There is nothing better for a man, than that he should eat and drink, and that he should make his soul enjoy good in his labour. This also I saw that it was from the hand of God.”

John 1:12,13. “ As many as received him, to them gave be power to become the sons of God; which were born, not of the will of man, but of God.” Thus also we children unto Abraham.” John 3:3.” Except a man be read, Luke 3:8.” God is able of these stones to raise up born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God.’ Verse 5.

Except a man be born of water, and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God. That which is born of the flesh is flesh, and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit.” Verse 8. “The wind bloweth where it listeth, and thou hearest the sound thereof, but canst not tell whence it cometh, and whither it goeth; so is every one that is born of the Spirit.” Jam. 1:18. “Of his own will begat he us with the word of truth, that we should be a kind of first-fruits of his creatures.”

What Christ meant by being born again, we may learn by the abundant use of the like phrase by the same disciple that wrote this gospel, in his first epistle, who doubtless learned his language from his Master; and particularly from those sayings of his concerning the new birth, which he took more special notice. of, and which left the deepest impressions on his mind, which we may suppose are those he records, when he writes the history of his life. Matthew 4:19. “I will make you fishers of men.” So Mark 1:16,20. together with Luke 5:”From henceforth thou shalt catch men.” Compared with the foregoing story of Christ’s giving them so great a draught of fishes, which was wholly his doing, and ascribed to him.

Matthew 6:10. “Thy kingdom come; thy will be done.” Matthew 11:25-27. “At that time Jesus answered and said, I thank thee, O Father, Lord of heaven and earth, that thou hast hid these things from the wise and prudent, and hast revealed them unto babes. Even so, Father, for so it seemed good in thy sight. All things are delivered unto me of my Father; and no man knoweth the Son, but the Father; neither knoweth any man the Father, save the Son, and he to whomsoever the Son will reveal him.” So Luke 10:21,22. John 6:37. “All that the Father giveth me shall come unto me.” Verse 44.” No man can come unto me, except the Father which hath sent me draw him.”

John 10:16. “Other sheep I have, which are not of this fold; them also I must bring; and there shall be one fold and one shepherd.” Verse 26-29.”

But ye believe not, because ye are not of my sheep, as I said unto you; my sheep hear my voice, and I know them, and they follow me; and I give unto them eternal life, and they shall never perish, neither shall any pluck them out of my hands. My Father which gave them me,” etc.

Acts 15:3,4. “Declaring the conversion of the Gentiles: — and they declared all things that God had done with them.” Verse 9. “And put no difference between us and them, purifying their hearts by faith.” Therefore it is not probable, that the heart is first purified, to fit it for faith. John 14:12.” Greater works than these shall he do, that the Father may be glorified in the Son.” The meaning of it is confirmed from John 12:23,24, 28-32. and John 17:1,2,3. Isaiah 49:3,5. and 26:15. and Isaiah 16:14.

Isaiah 17:3,4,5. and 16, 17. and 22, 24. (especially Isaiah 55:4,5.)

Jeremiah 30:19. Romans 9:16. “ It is not of him that willeth, nor of him that runneth, but of God that showeth mercy.” By such an expression in the apostle’s phraseology, from time to time, is meant the use of endeavours, whereby they seek the benefit they would obtain. So what he here says, is agreeable to what he says in chap. 11:4, 5, 6, 7. where he particularly shows, that it is God that preserves the remnant, and that it is of the election of his grace and free kindness, and not of their works; but in such a way of freedom, as is utterly inconsistent with its being of their works, And in verse 7. that it is not determined by their seeking, but by God’s election. The apostle here, as Dr. Taylor says, has respect to bodies of men, to the posterity of Esau and Jacob, etc. Yet this he applies to a distinction made in those days of the gospel, and that distinction made between those that were in the christian church, and those that were not, and particularly some of the Jews that were in the christian church, and others of the same nation that were not; which is made by some believing and accepting Christ, and others rejecting him; by that faith which they professed to exercise with all their hearts; that faith which was a mercy and virtue, and the want of which was a fault; as appears by the Objection the apostle supposes, verse 19. “ Why doth he yet find fault?” The want of which faith argued hardness of heart, verse 18. exposed them to wrath and destruction, as a punishment of sin, verse 22. and exposes persons to be like the inhabitants of Sodom and Gomorrah, verse 29.

Romans 11:4,5,6,7. “But what saith the answer of God unto him? I have reserved to myself seven thousand men, who have not bowed the knee to the image of Baal. Even so at this present time, there is a remnant according to the election of grace. And if by grace, then it is no more of works; otherwise grace is no more grace. But if it be of works, then it is no more grace; otherwise work is no more work.” 2 Timothy 2:9. Ephesians 2:9. Titus 3:5.” What then? Israel hath not obtained that which he seeketh for; but the election hath obtained it, and the rest were blinded.” Romans 11:17,18.” If some of the branches are broken off, and thou, being a wild olive-tree, wert grafted in amongst them, and with them partakest of the root and fatness of the olive-tree; boast not against the branches.”

Romans 11:25,26,27. “ Blindness in part is happened to Israel, until the fulness of the Gentiles he come in; and so all Israel shall be saved. As it is written, There shall come out of Zion the Deliverer, and shall turn away ungodliness from Jacob. For this is my covenant unto them, when I shall take away their sins.” Together with verses 35, 36. “ Who hath first given unto him, and it shall be recompensed to him again? For of him, and through him, and to him, are all things, to whom be glory for ever and ever.” 57. That expression, Romans 1:7. and I Corinthians 1:2. and elsewhere, called to be saints, implies that God makes the distinction. Compare this with what Christ says, John 10:27. “My sheep hear my voice.” Verse 16. “Other sheep have I, which are not of this fold; them also must I bring; and they shall hear my voice; and there shall be one fold and one shepherd.” Corinthians 1:26, 27, 28, to the end; “ For ye see your calling, brethren, how that not many wise men after the flesh, not many mighty, not many noble, are called: but God hath chosen the foolish things of, etc. That no flesh should glory in his presence. But of him are ye in Christ Jesus,” etc.

Romans 11:latter end. Hebrews 13:20,21. 1 Corinthians 3:5,6,7,8,9. “ Who then is Paul, or who is Apollos, but ministers by whom ye believed, even as the Lord gave to every man? I have planted, and Apollos watered; but God gave the increase. So neither is he that planteth any thing, neither he that watereth; but God that giveth the increase.-We ate labourers together with God, ye are God’s husbandry; ye are God’s building.”

According to the Arminian scheme, it ought to have been; I have planted, and Apollos watered, and God hath planted and watered mote especially.

For we have done it only as his servants, But you yourselves have given the increase; the fruit has been left to your free will: agreeably to what the Arminians from time to time insist on, in what they say upon the parable of the vineyard which God planted in a fruitful hill, etc. and looked that it should bring forth grapes, and says, What could I have done more unto my vineyard? 1 Corinthians 3:3. “Ye are manifestly declared to be the epistle of Christ, ministered by us, written not with ink, but with the Spirit of the living God, not on tables of stone, but on the fleshy tables of the heart.” They were the epistle of Christ, as the effect of the Spirit of God in their hearts held forth the light of truth; of gospel truth with its evidence to the world; as the church is compared to a candlestick, and called the pillar and ground of the truth. This is agreeable to those scriptures in the Old Testament, that speak of writing God’s law in their hearts, etc. Add to this, chap. 4:6.” For God, who commanded the light to shine out of darkness, hath shined in our hearts, to give the light of the knowledge of the glory of God in the face of Jesus Christ.” 2 Corinthians 5:14-18. “If one died for all, then were all dead; that they which live, should not henceforth live unto themselves, but unto him which died for them, and rose again. Therefore, if any man be in Christ, he is a new creature: old things are passed away: behold, all things are become new; and all things are of God.” 2 Corinthians 8:16,17. “Thanks be to God who putt the same earnest care into the heart of Titus for you. For indeed he accepted the exhortation. But being more forward, of his own accord he went unto you.” So the next chapter speaks of the Corinthians’ forwardness and readiness in their bounty to the poor saints, not as of necessity, but with freedom and cheerfulness, according to the purpose of their own hearts or wills; but yet speaks of their charity as just cause of much thanksgiving to God; and speaks expressly of thanksgiving to him for such a subjection of them to the gospel, and liberal distribution to them.

Galatians 1:15,16. “ But when it pleased God, who separated me from my mother’s womb, and called me by his grace, to reveal his Son in me, that I might preach him among the Gentiles,” compared with 2 Corinthians 4:6,7. and the account which he gives himself of his conversion, Acts 26:16-18.

Galatians 2:19,20.” I through the law am dead to the law, that I might live unto God. I am crucified with Christ; nevertheless I live; yet not I, but Christ liveth in me.”

Galatians 5:22,23, etc. “The fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, longsuffering, gentleness, goodness, faith, meekness, temperance.” 58. The apostle, in Ephesians 1:18-20. speaks of some exceeding great work of power, by which they that believe are distinguished. But a bodily resurrection is no such distinguishing work of power. See the words: “The eyes of your understanding being enlightened, that ye may know what is the hope of his calling, and what the riches of the glory of his inheritance in the saints, and what is the exceeding greatness of his power to us-ward who believe, according to the working of his mighty power, which he wrought in Christ Jesus, when he raised him from the dead, and set him at his own right hand in heavenly places.” The apostle repeats the same thing in substance again in chapter 3:14. and following verses, and tells us what sort of knowledge he desired, and so earnestly prayed that they might receive, and what is the power that he speaks of: “That they may be able to comprehend with all saints, what is the breadth and length, and depth and height; and to know the love of Christ which passeth knowledge, that ye might be filled with all the fulness of God.” And tells us by what means God would dwell in their hearts by faith, etc. verses 16, 17. And he tells us in verse 20. what is the power of God he speaks of. See Romans 15:13. Peter 1:3-5. and 2 Thessalonians 1:11,12. See also what the apostle speaks of as an effect of God’s gloriouis power, Colossians 1:II.

Ephesians 1:18-20. is to be taken in connexion with the words which follow in the beginning of the next chapter; which is a continuation of the same discourse, where the apostle abundantly explains himself. In those words, there is an explanation of what had before been more figuratively represented. He here observes, that those that believe, are the subjects of a like exceeding greatness of power that Christ was, when he was raised from the dead, and set at God’s own right hand in heavenly places. And then in the prosecution of this discourse he shows how, viz. in our being raised from the dead, being dead ourselves in trespasses and sins, and raised as Christ was, and made to sit together with him in heavenly places; and this he speaks of, not only as the fruit of the exceeding greatness of his power, but of the riches of his mercy, and exceeding riches of his grace; by grace, in opposition to works; that it is by faith, which is the gift of God.

The apostle repeats it over and over, that it is by grace, and then explains how; not of works; and that our faith itself, by which it is, is not of ourselves, but is God’s gift; and that we are wholly God’s workmanship; and that all is owing to God’s foreordaining that we should walk in good works. I know not what the apostle could have said more. See Ephesians 2:1-10. 59. In Ephesians 2, it is spoken of as a glorious mystery of God’s will, contrived of old, and determined from the foundation of the world, and his eternal purpose, etc. that God would bring in the Gentiles as fellow-heirs, and of the same body, and partakers of his promise in Christ by the gospel.

Which confirms the promises of the Old Testament; shows that they were not foretold only as foreseen, butt foredetermined, as what God would bring to pass. This is also spoken of elsewhere, as the fruit of God’s eternal purpose, his election, etc. as our adversaries acknowledge. 60. Sincerity itself is spoken of as coming from God. Philippians 1:10. “That ye may approve the things that are excellent; that ye may be sincere and without offence in the day of Christ.” And elsewhere God is represented as creating a clean heart, renewing a right spirit, giving a heart of flesh,” etc. The apostle “gives thanks for the faith and love of the Colossians, their being delivered from the power of darkness, etc. and prays that they may be filled with the knowledge of his will in all wisdom and might, agreeable to their knowledge, being fruitful in every good work; and for their perseverance, and that they might be made meet for the reward of the saints.” Colossians 1:3,4, 9-13. This argues all to flow from God as the giver. Their first faith, and their love that their faith was attended with, and their knowledge and spiritual wisdom and prudence, and walking worthy of the Lord, and universal obedience, and doing every good work, and increasing in grace and being strengthened in it, and their perseverance and cheerfulness in their obedience, and being made meet for their reward, all are from God. They are from God as the determining cause; else, why does the apostle pray that God would bestow or effect these things, if they be not at his determination whether they shall have them or not? He speaks of God’s glorious power as manifested in the bestowment of these things.

Colossians 2:13. “And you being dead in your sins and the uncircumcision of your flesh, hath he quickened together with him.”

Colossians 3:10. “Have put on the new man, which is renewed in knowledge after the image of him that created him.”

See how many things the apostle gives thanks to God for in the Thessalonians, and prays for them. 2 Thessalonians 1:3,4,11,12. and 2:17, 18. and 3:3, 4, 5. 1 Thessalonians 1:verse 2, to the end, and chap. 2:verses 13, 14. and chap. 3:9, 10, 12, 13. chap. 5:23, 24. 1 Thessalonians 3:12. “The Lord make you to increase and abound in love,” etc. Thessalonians 4:10. “But as touching brotherly love, ye need not that I should write unto you; for ye yourselves are taught of God to love one another. And indeed ye do it towards all brethren.” 1 Thessalonians 5:23,24. “And the very God of peace sanctify you wholly; and I pray God your whole spirit, and soul, and body, be preserved blameless unto the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ. Faithful is he that hath called you, who also will do it.” 2 Thessalonians 1:3,4. “We are bound to thank God always for you, because your faith groweth exceedingly, and the charity of every one of you all toward each other aboundeth; so that we glory in you, for your faith and patience in all your persecutions and tribulations.”

The apostle thanks God for his own prayers, and for others; 2 Timothy 1:3.

If they are from God, then doubtless our prayers for ourselves, our very prayers for the Spirit, are from him.

The prophet ascribes persons’ prayers to their having the spirit of grace and supplication. True acceptable prayer is spoken of, Romans 8:as being the language of the Spirit; not that I suppose that the very words are indited, but the disposition is given. 2 Timothy 1:7. “God hath not given us the spirit of fear, but of power and of love, and of a sound mind.” 2 Timothy 2:9. “ Who hath saved us and called us with a holy calling, not according to our works, but according to his own purpose and grace, which was given us in Christ Jesus before the world began.”

Hebrews 13:20,21. “Now the God of peace, who brought again from the dead our Lord Jesus, that great Shepherd of the sheep, through the blood of the everlasting covenant, make you perfect in every good work, and to do his will, working in you that which is well pleasing in his sight, through Jesus Christ, to whom be glory for ever and ever, Amen.” See Ephesians 1:19,20. and 1 Corinthians 1 latter end. Hebrews 12:2. “Jesus the author and finisher of our faith,” compared with Philippians 1:5. James 1:5-8. “If any man lack wisdom, let him ask it of God, that giveth to all liberally and upbraideth not, and it shall be given him. But let him ask in faith, nothing wavering; for he that wavereth, is like a wave of the sea, driven of the wind and tossed. For let not that man think he shall obtain any thing of the Lord.

A double-minded man is unstable in all his ways.” So that, in order to a man’s having any reason to expect to be heard, he must first have faith, and a sincere, single heart. And what that is which the apostle calls wisdom, may be learnt from chap. 3:17, 18. “The wisdom that is from above is first pure, then peaceable, gentle, and easy to be entreated, full of mercy and good fruits, without partiality, and without hypocrisy. And the fruit of righteousness is sown in peace to them that make peace.” In chap. 1:5, etc. above cited, God is spoken of as the giver of this wisdom; and in the following part of the chapter, he is spoken of as the giver of this and every benefit of that kind; every thing that contains any thing of the nature of light or wisdom, or moral good; and this is represented as the fruit of his mere will and pleasure. Verses 16, 17, 18. “Do not err, my beloved brethren. Every good gift, and every perfect gift, is from above, and cometh down from the Father of lights, with whom is no variableness nor shadow of turning, Of his own will begat he us by the word of truth, that we should be a kind of first-fruits of his creatures.” See John 1:13. and 3:8.

The scope of the apostle, and connexion of his discourse, plainly show that the apostle means to assert that all moral good is from God. In the preceding verses, he was warning those he wrote to, not to lay their sins, or pride, or lusts, to the charge of God; and on that occasion he would have them be sensible that every good gift is from God, and no evil; that God is the Father of light, and only of light; and that no darkness is from him, because there is no darkness in him; no change from light to darkness; no, not the least shadow. What he says is plainly parallel to what the apostle John says, when he would signify God’s perfect holiness without any sin; 1 John 1:5,6. “This, then, is the message which we have heard of him, and declare unto you, that God is light, and in him is no darkness at all. If we say that we have fellowship with him, and walk in darkness, we lie, and do not the truth.” But if all moral good is from God, cometh down from him, and is his gift; then the very first good determination of the will, and every good improvement of assistance, is so. 1 Peter 1:2-5. “Elect according to the foreknowledge of God, through sanctification of the Spirit unto obedience. Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who, according to his abundant mercy, hath begotten us again unto a lively hope,” (or a living hope, i. e, from the dead; to be begotten from the dead, in the phrase of the New Testament, is the same as to be raised from the dead. See Coloss. 1:18. Revelation 1:5.) “by the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead, to an inheritance incorruptible and undefiled, reserved in heaven for you, who are kept by the power of God through faith unto salvation.” See Ephesians 1:18-20. and ii, at the beginning.

Philippians 2:13. “ It is God that worketh in you both to will and to do of his good pleasure.” The plain meaning of this text is, that it is God by his operation and efficiency who gives the will, and also enables us to put that will in execution; or that he by his efficiency gives both the will and the deed. And this will remain the plain meaning of this text, after this sort of gentlemen have worked upon it a thousand years longer, if any of them shall remain on earth so long. It will be the indisputable meaning of it, notwithstanding their criticisms on the word everyday etc. I question whether any word can be found, in all the Creek language, mere expressive and significant of an effectual operation. Wherever the words effectual and effectually are used in our translation of the Bible, this is the word used in the original. See the English Concordance. 61. By the disposing or determining cause of a benefit, I mean, a cause that disposes, orders, or determines, whether we shall be actually possessed of the benefit or not: and the same cause may be said to be an efficacious or effectual cause. That cause only can be said to be an efficacious cause, whose efficiency determines, reaches, and produces the effect.

A being may be the determiner and disposer of an event, and not properly an efficient or efficacious cause. Because, though he determines the futurity of the event, yet there is no positive efficiency or power of the cause that reaches and produces the effect; but merely a withholding or withdrawing of efficiency or power.

Concerning the giver’s being a disposer or determiner, let us consider that Objection, that when a man gives to a beggar, he does but offer, and leaves it with the determination of the beggar’s will, whether he will be possessed of the thing offered. In answer to this I observe, that in the instance before us, the very thing given is the fruit of the bounty of the giver. The thing given is virtue, and this consists in the determination of t e inclination and will. Therefore the determination of the will is the gift of God; otherwise virtue is not his gift, and it is an inconsistence to pray to God to give it to us. Why should we pray to God to give us such a determination of will, when that proceeds not from him but ourselves? 62. Every thing in the christian scheme argues, that man’s title to, and fitness for, heaven, depends on some great divine influence, at once causing a vast change, and not any such gradual change as is supposed to be brought to pass by men themselves in the exercise of their own power.

The exceeding diversity of the states of men in another world argues it. 63. Arminians make a great ado about the phrase irresistible grace. But the grand point of controversy really is, what is it that determines, disposes, and decides the matter, whether there shall be saving virtue in the heart or not; and much more properly, whether the grace of God in the affair be determining grace, than whether it be irresistible.

Our case is indeed extremely unhappy, if we have such a book to be our grand and only rule, our light and directory, that is so exceeding perplexed, dark, paradoxical, and hidden every where in the manner of expression, as the Scriptures must be, to make them consistent with Arminian opinions, by whatever means this has come to pass, whether through the distance of ages, diversity of customs, or by any other cause. It is to be considered that this is given for the rule of all ages; and not only of the most learned, and accurate, and penetrating critics, and men of vast inquiry and skill in antiquity, but for all sorts of persons, of every age and nation, learned and unlearned. If this be true, how unequal and unfit is the provision that is made! How improper to answer the end designed! If men will take subterfuge in pretences of a vast alteration of phrase, through diversity of ages and nations, what may not men hide themselves from under such a pretence! No words will hold and secure them. It is not in the nature of words to do it. At this rate, language in its nature has no sufficiency to communicate ideas. 64. In efficacious grace we are not merely passive, nor yet does Goal do some, and we do the rest. But God does all, and we do all. God produces all, and we act all. For that is what he produces, viz, our own acts. God is the only proper author and fountain; we only are the proper actors. We are, in different respects, wholly passive and wholly active.

In the Scriptures the same things are represented as from God and from us.

God is said to convert, and men are said to convert and turn. God makes a new heart, and we are commanded to make us a new heart. God circumcises the heart, and we are commanded to circumcise our own hearts; not merely because we must use the means in order to the effect, but the effect itself is our act and our duty. These things are agreeable to that text, “God worketh in you both to will and to do.” 65. Christ says, that no other than those whom “the Father draws, will come to him;” and Slebbing supposes none but those whom the Father draws in this sense, viz. by first giving them a teachable spirit, etc, But this was false in fact in the apostle Paul and others; at least he did not give it in answer to prayer, as their scheme supposes, and must suppose; else efficacious grace is established, and the liberty of the will, in their sense of it, is overthrown. 66. When Christ says, John 10, “Other sheep have I which are not of this fold;” it is unreasonable to suppose he meant all in the world, that were then of a teachable disposition. Many of them would be dead before the gospel could be spread among the Gentiles; and many of the Gentiles were doubtless brought in, that at that time were not of a teachable disposition.

And unless God’s decrees and efficacious grace made a difference, it is unreasonable to suppose any other, than that multitudes, in countries where the apostles never preached, were as teachable as in those countries where they did go; and so they never were brought in according to the words of Christ, “Those whom the Father hath given me, shall come unto me.”

Christ speaks of the Father’s giving them as a thing past, John 10:29.” My Father which gave them me.”

When Christ speaks of men being drawn to him, he does not mean any preparation of disposition antecedent to their having the gospel, but a being converted to Christ by faith in the gospel, revealing Christ crucified, as appears by John 12:32.” And I, if I be lifted up from the earth, will draw all men unto me.” Acts 15:9.” Purifying their hearts by faith.” Therefore we are not to suppose God first purifies the heart with the most excellent virtues, to fit it for faith.

The apostle says, “ without faith it is impossible to please God.” Therefore, it is not possible that persons should have, before faith, those virtues that are peculiarly amiable to God, as Stebbing supposes. 67. The apostle James tells us, that if we do not pray in faith, we have no reason to expect to receive any thing, and particularly not to receive divine wisdom. And therefore it is unreasonable to suppose with Stebbing, that persons first pray, even before they have a spirit of meekness, and teachableness, and humility, faith, or repentance, and that God has promised to answer these prayers. Christian virtues being every where spoken of as the special effect of grace, and often called by the name of grace, by reason of its being the peculiar fruit of grace does not well consist with the Arminian notion of assistance, viz. that God is obliged to give us assistance sufficient for salvation from hell, because, forsooth, it is not just to damn us for the want of that which we have not sufficient means to escape; and then, after God has given these sufficient means, our improving them well is wholly from ourselves, our own will, and not from God; and the thing wherein christian virtue consists, is wholly and entirely from ourselves. 68. Efficacious grace is not inconsistent with freedom. This appears by Corinthians 8:16, 17. “Thanks be to God, which put the same earnest care into the heart of Titus for you; for indeed he accepted the invitation; but being more forward, of his own accord he went unto you.” So that his forwardness being put into his heart by God, and his being forward of his own accord, are not inconsistent one with the other. 69. According to Arminian principles, men have a good and honest heart, the very thing that is the grand requisite in order to God’s acceptance, and so the proper grand condition of salvation, and which is often spoken of in the Scriptures as such, before they have the proper condition of salvation.

See Stebbing, page 48.-This good and honest, meek and humble, sincere heart, they suppose they have before they have faith, repentance, or obedience. Yea, they themselves hold this previous qualification to be the grand and essential requisite in order to God’s acceptance, and salvation by Christ; so that they greatly insist that if men have it, they shall be surely saved, though they live and die in ignorance of the gospel, and without faith, and repentance, and holiness, which are necessary in order for salvation, according to them.-Stebbing, p. 13. 70. I would ask, how it is possible for us to come by virtue at first, according to Arminian principles, or how we come by our first virtue? Is it natural? Is there some virtuous disposition with which we come into the world? But how is that virtue? That which men bring into the world is necessary, and what men had no opportunity to prevent, and it is not at all from our free will. How then can there be any virtue in it according to their principles? Or is our first virtue wholly from the influence of the Spirit of God without any endeavour or effort of ours, to be partly the cause of it?

This to be sure cannot be, by their principles; for, according to them, that which is not at all from us, or that we are not the causes of, is no virtue of ours. Is it wholly from our endeavours, without any assistance at all of the Spirit? This is contrary to what they pretend to hold; for they assert, that without divine assistance there can be no virtue. Stebbing~ pages 27, 28. and pages 20, 21. and other places. It they say it is partly from the influence of the Spirit of God, and partly from our own endeavours, I would inquire whether those endeavours that our first virtue partly arises from, be good endeavours, and at all virtuous. If the answer be in the affirmative,, this contradicts the supposition. For I am now inquiring what the first virtue is. The first virtue we have, certainly does not arise from virtuous endeavours preceding the first virtue; for that is to suppose virtue before the first virtue. If the answer be, that they are no good endeavours, they have nothing at all of the nature of the exercise of any good disposition, or any good aim and intention, or any virtuous sincerity; I ask, what tendency can such efforts of the mind, as are wholly empty of all goodness, have to produce true moral goodness in the heart?

Can an action, that in principles and ends has no degree of moral good, have a tendency to beget a habit of acting from good principles and for good ends? For instance, can a man’s doing something purely to satisfy some sensitive appetite of his own, or to increase his own worldly profit, have any kind of tendency to beget a habit of doing something from true, disinterested benevolence, or to excite to any act from such a principle?

Certainly an act perfectly void of benevolence, has no more tendency to produce either a habit or act of benevolence, than nothing has a tendency to produce something. 71. Stebbing supposes the assistance God gives, or the operation of the Spirit in order to faith, is to give a good and honest heart, prepared to receive and well improve the word; as particularly meekness, humility, teachableness, etc. and supposes that these effects of the Spirit are to be obtained by prayer; but yet allows, that the prayer must be acceptably made, page 106. which supposes that some degree of virtue must be exercised in prayer. For surely they do not suppose any thing else beside virtue, in prayer or in any other part of religion, is acceptable to God. I suppose they will not deny, that there must be at least sonic virtuous respect to the Divine Being, as well as some virtuous concern for the good of their own souls, to make any external act of religion in them at all acceptable to God, who is a Spirit, and the Searcher of hearts. And it may he also presumed that they will allow, that there are multitudes of men, who at present are so wicked, so destitute of virtue, that they have not virtue enough for acceptable prayer to God. They have not now so much respect to God or their own souls, as to incline them to pray at all. But they live in a total neglect of that duty. Now I would inquire, how these men shall come by virtue, in order to acceptably praying to God? Or how is it within their reach by virtue of God’s promises? Or how can they come by it, save by God’s sovereign, arbitrary grace? Shall they pray to God for it, and so obtain it? But this is contrary to the supposition. For it is supposed, that they now have not virtue enough to pray acceptably, and this is the very thing inquired, how they come by the virtue necessary in order to their making acceptable prayer? Or shall they work the virtue in themselves wholly without God’s assistance? But this is contrary to what they pretend, viz. that all virtue is from God, or by the grace and assistance of God, which they allow to be evident by that scripture, “without me ye can do nothing.” Or is God obliged to give, or to assist them to obtain it, without their praying for it, or having virtue enough to ask it of him? That they do not pretend. For they suppose the condition of own obtaining the heavenly Spirit is our seeking, etc. asking, etc. and besides, if God gives it without their first seeking it, that will make God the first determining efficient, yea, the mere and sole author of it, without their doing any thing toward it, without their so much as seeking or asking for it; which would be entirely to overthrow their whole scheme, and would, by their principles, make this virtue no virtue at all, because not at all owing to them, or any endeavours of theirs.

If they reply, they must in the first place consider: They are capable of consideration; and if they would consider as they ought and may, they would doubtless pray to God, and ask his help; and every man naturally has some virtue in him, which proper consideration would put into exercise so far as to cause him to pray in some measure acceptably, without any new gift from God-I answer, this is inconsistent with many of their principles, It is so, that men should naturally have some virtue in them. For what is natural is necessary; is not from themselves and their own endeavours and free acts; but prevents them all, and therefore cannot be their virtue. If they say, No; consideration will not stir up any virtue that is naturally in them, to cause them to pray virtuously; but God has obliged himself to give virtue enough to enable them to pray and seek acceptably, if they will consider; I answer, this is more than they pretend. They do not pretend that God has promised any new grace to any man, on any lower condition than asking, seeking, knowing, etc. and if they should think best at last to pretend any promise on lower terms, they had best produce the promises, and tell us what and where they are. If they say, serious consideration itself is some degree of seeking their own good, and there is an implicit prayer in it to the Supreme Being to guide them into the way to their happiness: I answer, if it be supposed that there is an implicit prayer in their consideration, still they allow that prayer must be in some measure acceptable prayer, in order to its being entitled to an answer; and consequently must have some degree of virtuous respect to God, etc. and if so, then the same question returns with all the aforementioned difficulties over again, viz. How came the profane, thoughtless, vain, inconsiderate person by this new virtue, this new respect to God, that he ever exercises in this serious consideration and implicit prayer?

If they say there is no necessity of supposing any implicit prayer in the first consideration; and yet, if the wicked, profane, careless person makes a good improvement of what grace he has, in proper consideration or otherwise, God has obliged himself to give him more, in that general promise se, “to him that hath shall be given, and he shall have more abundance:” then I answer, here is new virtue in his making a good improvement of what common assistance he has, which before he neglected, and made no good improvement of. How came he by this new virtue? Here, again, all the aforementioned difficulties return. Was it wholly from himself? This is contrary to what they pretend. Or is God obliged to give new assistance in order to this new virtue by any promise? If he be, what is the condition of the promise? It is absurd to say, making a good improvement of what assistance they have; for that is the thing we are inquiring after, viz. how comes he by that new virtue, making a good improvement of what he has, when before he had not virtue enough to make such an improvement?

Of whatever kind the assistance is, whether it be some afflictive dispensation of Providence, or some other outward dispensation or inward influence, the difficulty is the same. How becomes God obliged to give this assistance; and what is the condition of the promise?

The answer must be, that this new virtue is without any new assistance given, and is from God no otherwise than as the former neglected assistance or grace subserves it. But the question is whence comes the virtue of not neglecting, but improving, that former assistance? Is it proper to say that a man is assisted to improve assistance by the assistance improved? Suppose a number of men were in the water in danger of drowning, and a friend on shore throws out a cord amongst them, but all of them for awhile neglect it; at length one of them takes hold of it, and makes improvement of it; and any should inquire, how that man come by the prudence and virtue of improving the cord, when others did not, and he before had neglected it; would it be a proper answer to say, that he that threw out the rope, assisted him wisely to improve the rope, by throwing out the rope to him? This would be an absurd Answer. The question is not, how he came by his opportunity, but how he came by the virtue and disposition of improvement. His friend on shore gave him the opportunity, and this is all. The man’s virtue in improving it was not at all from him.

Would it not be exceedingly impertinent, in such a case, to set forth from time to time, how this man’s discretion, and virtue, and prudence, was the gift of his friend on the shore, his mere gift, the fruit of his purpose and mere good pleasure, and of his power; and yet that it was of his own will?

Man’s virtue, according to Arminian principles, must consist wholly and entirely in improving assistance: for in that only consists the exercise of their free will in the affair, and, not in their having the assistance, although their virtue must be by their principles entirely from themselves, and God has no hand in it. From the latter part of the above discourse, it appears that, according to Arminian principles, men’s virtue is altogether of themselves, and God has no hand at all in it. 72. When I say that the acts and influences of the Spirit determine the effects, it is not meant that man has nothing to do to determine in the affair.

The soul of man undoubtedly, in every instance, does voluntarily determine with respect to his own consequent actions. But this determination of the will of man, or voluntary determination of the soul of man, is the effect determined. This determining act of the soul is not denied, but supposed, as it is the effect we are speaking of, that the influence of God’s Spirit determines. 73. The Scripture speaks of this as the reason that good men have virtue, that God hath given it to them; and the reason why bad men have it not, that God hat/a not given it to them. These two together clearly prove that God is the determining or disposing cause of virtue or goodness in men. 74. Dr. Stebbing insists upon it, that conversion is the effect of God’s word; and supposes that therefore it is demonstratively evident, that it must needs be the effect of men’s free will, and not the necessary effect of the Spirit of God. But I say, that by their doctrine of self-determination it cannot be the effect of the word of God in any proper sense at all. That it should be the effect of the word, is as inconsistent with their scheme, as they suppose it to be with ours. Self-determination is utterly inconsistent with conversion’s being at all the effect of either the word or Spirit. 75. They say that commands, threatenings, promises, invitations, counsels, etc, are to no purpose in our scheme. But indeed they can have no place in their scheme: for their scheme excludes all motives. 76. In many particulars their scheme. contradicts common sense. It is contrary to common sense, that a being should continually meet with millions of millions of real, proper disappointments and, crosses to his proper desires, and not continually lead a distressed and unhappy life. It is contrary to common sense, that God should know that an event will certainly come to pass, whose non-existence he at the same time knows is not impossible. It is contrary to common sense that a thing should be the cause of itself; and that a thing not necessary in its own nature should come to pass without any cause: that the more indifferent a man is in any moral action, the more virtuous he is, etc. 77. If the grace of God is not disposing and determining, then a gracious man’s differing in this respect from another, is not owing to the goodness of God. He owes no thanks to God for it; and so owes no thanks to God, that he is saved, and not others.

But how contrary is this to Scripture! Seeing the Scripture speaks of the gift of virtue, and of the possession of it, as a fruit of God’s bounty. 78. A man’s conformity to the rule of duty, is partly owing to assistance or motive; if his conformity be to ten degrees; and it is in some measure, 5:g, to the amount of five degrees, owing to sovereign assistance; then only the remaining five degrees are to be ascribed to the man himself, and therefore there are but five degrees of virtue. 79. Dr. Stebbing says, “that a man is indeed both passive and active in his own conversion,” and he represents God as partly the cause of man’s conversion, and man himself as partly the cause, p. 208.

Again, Stebbing says, p. 254.” Faith and regeneration are our works, as well as his gifts, i.e. they arise partly from God and partly from ourselves.”

But if so, on this scheme, they imply virtue so far only as they are our works.

Men’s salvation is attributed wholly and entirely to men in their scheme, and none of the praise of it is due to God, as will most evidently appear, if the matter be considered with a little attention. For, 1. They hold that man’s salvation is given as a reward of man’s virtue; so is pardon of sin, deliverance from hell, and eternal life and glory in heaven all is for man’s virtue. 2. Rewardable virtue wholly consists in the exercise of a man’s own free will.

They hold that a man’s actions are no farther virtuous nor rewardable, than as they are from man himself. If they are partly from some foreign cause, so far they are not rewardable. It being so, that that virtue which is rewardable in man, is entirely from man himself; hence it is to himself wholly that he is to ascribe his obtaining the reward. If the virtue, which is that thing, and that thing only, which obtains the reward, be wholly from man himself, then it will surely follow, that his obtaining the reward is wholly from himself.

All their arguments suppose, that men’s actions are no farther virtuous and rewardable, than as they are from themselves, the fruits of their own free will and self-determination. And men’s own virtue, they say, is the only condition of salvation, and so must be the only thing by which salvation is obtained, And this being of themselves only, it surely follows, that their obtaining salvation is of themselves only.

They say, their scheme gives almost all the glory to God. That matter, I suppose, may easily he determined, and it may be made to appear beyond all contest, how much they do ascribe to the man, and how much they do not.

By them, salvation is so far from God, that it is God to obtain salvation; it is God that makes the promise: but the obtaining of the thing promised is of men. The being of the promise is of God; but their interest in it is wholly of themselves, of their own free will. And furthermore, it is to be observed, that even God’s making the offer, and giving the opportunity to obtain salvation, at least that which consists in salvation from eternal misery, is not of God, so as to be owing to any proper grace or goodness of his. For they suppose he was obliged to make the offer, and it would have been a reproach to his justice, if he had not given an opportunity to obtain salvation. For they hold, it is unjust for God to make men miserable for Adam’s sin; and that it is unjust to punish them for that sin that they cannot avoid; and that, therefore, it is unjust for God not to preserve or save all men that do what they can, or use their sincere endeavours to do their duty; and therefore it certainly follows, that it is unjust in God not to give all opportunity to be saved or preserved from misery; and consequently, it is no fruit at all of any grace or kindness in him to give such opportunity, or to make the offer of it. So that, all that is the fruit of God’s kindness in man’s salvation, is the positive happiness that belongs to salvation. But neither of these two things are in any respect whatsoever the fruit of God’s kindness, neither his deliverance from sin, nor from misery in his virtue and holiness; and when hereafter he shall see the misery of the damned, he will have it to consider, that it is owing in no respect to God that he is delivered from that misery, And that good men differ from others that shall burn in hell to all eternity, is wholly owing to themselves. When they, at the day of judgment, shall behold some set on the left hand of the Judge, while they are on his right hand, and shall see how they differ, they may, and, as they would act according to truth, they ought to take all the glory of it unto themselves; and therefore the glory of their salvation belongs to them. For it is evident that a man’s making himself to differ with regard to any great spiritual benefit, and his not receiving it from another, but his having it in distinction from others, being from himself, is ground of a man’s boasting and glorying in himself, with respect to that benefit, and of boasting of it: I say, it is evident by the apostle’s words, “ Who maketh thee to differ? Why boastest thou, as though thou hadst not received it?” These words plainly imply it.

It is evident, that it is God’s design to exclude man’s boasting in the affair of his salvation. Now, let us consider what does give ground for boasting in the apostle’s account, and what it is that in his account excludes boasting, or cuts off occasion for it. It is evident by what the apostle says, I Corinthians 1 latter end, that the entireness and universality of our dependence on God, is that which cuts off occasion of boasting; as, our receiving our wisdom, our holiness, and redemption through Christ, and not through ourselves; that Christ is made to us wisdom, justification, holiness, and redemption; and not only so, but that it is of God that we have any part in Christ; Of him are ye in Christ Jesus: nay, further, that it is from God we receive those benefits of wisdom, holiness, etc. through the Saviour that we are interested in.

The import of all these things, if we may trust to scripture representations, is, that God has contrived to exclude our glorying; that we should be wholly and every way dependent on God, for the moral and natural good that belongs to salvation; and that we have all from the hand of God, by his power and grace. And certainly this is wholly inconsistent with the idea that our holiness is wholly from ourselves; and that we are interested in the benefits of Christ rather than others, is wholly of our own decision. And that such a universal dependence is what takes away occasion of taking glory to ourselves, and is a proper ground of an ascription of all the glory of the things belonging to man’s salvation to God, is manifest from Rom.xi. 35, 36. “Or who hath first given unto him, and it shall be recompensed to him again? For of him, and to him, and through him, are all things; to whom be glory for ever and ever. Amen.”

The words are remarkable, and very insignificant. If we look into all the foregoing discourse, from the beginning of chapter 9:of which this is the conclusion, by not giving to God, but having all this wholly from, through, and in God, is intended that these things, these great benefits forementioned, are thus from God, without being from or through ourselves. That some of the Jews were distinguished from others in enjoying the privileges of Christians, was not of themselves; not of him that willeth, nor of him that runneth, but of God that showeth mercy. It is of him who has mercy on whom he will have mercy. It is of God who makes of the same lump, a vessel to honour and a vessel unto dishonour, It is not of us, nor our works, but of the calling of God, or of him that calleth, chap. 9:11. and 23, 24. Not first of our own choice, but of election, chap. 9:11- 27. and chap. 11:5. It is all of the grace of God in such a manner, as not to be of our works at all; yea, and so as to be utterly inconsistent with its being of our works; chap. 11:5, 6, 7. In such a manner as not first to be of their seeking; their seeking does not determine, butt God’s election; chap. 11:7. It is of God, and not of man, that some were gathered in, that were wild olive branches in themselves, and were more unlikely as to any thing in themselves to be branches, than others, verse 17. Their being grafted in, is owing to God’s distinguishing goodness, while he was pleased to use severity towards others, ver. 22. Yea, God has so ordered it, on purpose that all should be shut up in unbelief; be left to be so sinful, that he might have mercy on all; so as more visibly to show the salvation of all to be merely dependent on mercy. Then the apostle fitly concludes all this discourse, Romans 11:35,36. “Or who hath first given to him, and it shall be recompensed to him again? For of him, and to him, and through him, are all things; to whom be glory for ever. Amen.”

Again, in the apostle’s account, a benefit’s being of our works, gives occasion for boasting, and therefore God has contrived that our salvation shall not be of our works, but of mere grace, Romans 3:27. Ephesians 2:9.

And that neither the salvation, nor the condition of it, shall be of our works, but that, with regard to all, we are God’s workmanship and his creation antecedently to our works; and his grace and power in producing this workmanship, and his determination or purpose with regard to them, are all prior to our works and the cause of them. See also Romans 11:4,5,6.

And it is evident, that man’s having virtue from himself, and not receiving it from another, and making himself to differ with regard to great spiritual benefits, does give ground for boasting, by the words of the apostle in Romans 3:27. And this is allowed by those men in spiritual gifts. And if so in them, more so in greater things; more so in that which in itself is a thousand times more excellent, and of ten thousand times greater importance and benefit.

By the Arminian scheme, that which is infinitely the most excellent thing, viz, virtue and holiness, which the apostle sets forth as being infinitely the most honourable, and will bring the subjects of it to infinitely the greatest and highest honour, that which is infinitely the highest dignity of man’s nature of all things that belong to man’s salvation; in comparison of which, all things belonging to that salvation are nothing; that which does infinitely more than any thing else constitute the difference between them and others, as more excellent, more worthy, more honourable and happy; this is from themselves. With regard to this they have not received of another. With regard to this great thing, they, and they only, make themselves to differ from others; and this difference proceeds not at all from the power or grace of God.

Again, in the apostle’s account, this scheme will give occasion to have a great benefit, that appertains to salvation, not of grace, but of works.

Virtue is not only the most honourable attainment, but it is that which men, on the supposition of their being possessed of it, are more apt to glory in, than in any thing else whatsoever. For what are men so apt to glory in as their own supposed excellency, as in their supposed virtue? And what sort of glorying is that, which, it is evident in fact, the Scriptures do chiefly guard against? It is glorying in their own righteousness, their own holiness, their own good works.

It is manifest, that in the apostle’s account, it is a proper consideration to prevent our boasting, that our distinction from others is not of ourselves, not only in being distinguished in having better gifts and better principles, but in our being made partakers of the great privileges of Christians, such as being engrafted into Christ, and partaking of the fatness of that olivetree.

Romans 11:17,18. “And if some of the branches be broken off, and thou, being a wild olive-tree, wert grafted in amongst them, and with them partakest of the root and fatness of the olive-tree, boast not against the branches.”

Here it is manifest, it is the distinction that was made between some and others, that is the thing insisted on; and the apostle, verse 22, calls upon them to consider this great distinction, and to ascribe it to the distinguishing goodness of God only. “Behold therefore the goodness and severity of God; on them which fell, severity; but toward thee, goodness.”

And its being owing, not to them, but to God and his distinguishing goodness, is the thing the apostle urges a reason why they should not boast, but magnify God’s grace or distinguishing goodness. And if it be a good reason, and the scheme of our salvation be every way so contrived (as the apostle elsewhere signifies) that all occasion of boasting should be precluded, and all reasons given to ascribe all to God’s grace; then it is doubtless so ordered, that the greatest privileges, excellency, honour, and happiness of Christians, should be that wherein they do not distinguish themselves, but the difference is owing to God’s distinguishing goodness.

Stebbing strongly asserts, God is not the author of that difference that is between some and others, that some are good, and others bad. 80. The Arminians differ among themselves. Dr. Whitby supposes what God does, is only proposing moral motives; but that in attending, adverting, and considering, we exercise our liberty. But Stebbing supposes. that the attention and consideration is itself the thing owing to the Spirit of God; p. 217. 81. Stebbing changes the question, pages 223, 224. He was considering who was the chief glory of our conversion, or of our virtue; and there, answering objections, endeavours to prove the affirmative of another question, viz, whether God is the author of that pardon and salvation, of which conversion and virtue are the condition. 82. Stebbing supposes that one thing wherein the assistance of the Spirit consists, is the giving of a meek, teachable, disinterested temper of mind, to prepare men for faith in Christ; pages 217, 259, and that herein consists that drawing of the Father, John 6:44. viz, in giving such a temper of mind.

This he calls the preventing grace of God, that goes before conversion. He often speaks of a part that we do, and a part that God does. And he speaks of this as that part which God does. ‘Therefore this, if it be the part which God does, in distinction from the part which we do, (for so he speaks of it,) is wholly done by God. And consequently, here is virtue wholly from God, and not at all from the exercise of our own free will; which is inconsistent with his own, and all other Arminian principles. Stebbing speaks of these preparatory dispositions as virtue, p. 30, 31, 32. yea, as that wherein virtue does in a peculiar manner consist, p. 31. And he there also, viz. page 259. talks inconsistently with himself; for he supposes that this meek and teachable temper is given by God, by his preventing grace; and also supposes, that all that have this, shall surely come to the Father.

He says, page 256.

It is certainly true of the meek, disinterested man, that as he will not reject the gospel at first, so he will not be prevailed on by any worldly considerations to forsake it afterwards.” “He who is under no evil bias of mind, by which he may be prejudiced against the truth, (which is the notion of a meek and disinterested man,) such a one, I say, cannot possibly fail of being wrought upon by the preaching of the word, which carries in it all that evidence of truth which reason requires,” etc, and his words, page 259. are, John 6:37,39. “All that the Father giveth me, shall come unto me;” for to be given of the Father signifies the same thing with being drawn of the Father, as has been already shown. And to be drawn of the Father, signifies to be prepared or fitted for the reception of the gospel, by the preventing grace of God, as has also been proved. Now, this preparedness consisting, as has likewise been shown, in being endued with a meek and disinterested temper of mind; those who are given of the Father, will be the same with Christ’s sheep.

And the sense of the place is the same with the preceding, where our Saviour says that his sheep hear his voice and follow him, i.e. become his obedient disciples. This text, therefore, being no more than a declaration of what will be certain, and (morally speaking) the necessary effect of that disposition, upon the account of which men are said to be given of the Father, (to wit, that it will lead them to embrace the gospel, when once proposed to them). By these things, the preventing grace of God, the part that God does, in distinction from the part that we do, and that which prevents or goes before what we do, thoroughly decides and determines the case as to our conversion, or our faith and repentance and obedience, notwithstanding all the hand our free will is supposed to have in the case; and which he supposes is what determines man’s conversion; and insists upon it most strenuously and magisterially through his whole book.

Stebbing supposes the influence of the Spirit necessary to prepare men’s hearts, pages 15-18. He (pages 17, 18.) speaks of this as what the Spirit does, and as being his preventing grace; and speaks of it as always effectual; so that all such, and only such as have it, will believe.

This teachable, humble, meek spirit is what Stebbing speaks of every where as what the Spirit of God gives antecedent to obedience. He insists upon it, that God’s assistance is necessary in order to obedience. In pages 20, 21. he plainly asserts that it is necessary in order to our obedience, and declares that our Saviour has asserted it in express terms in these words, John 15:5. “Without me ye can do nothing;” i.e. as he says, no good thing.

Hence it follows, that this teachable, humble, meek disposition, this good and honest heart, is not the fruit of any good thing we do in the exercise of our free will; but is merely the fruit of divine operation. Here observe well what Stebbing says concerning God’s giving grace sufficient for obedience, in answer to prayer. Pages 103-1 06. 83. No reason in the world can be given, why a meek, humble spirit, and sense of the importance of christian things, should not be as requisite in order to acceptable prayer, as in order to acceptable hearing and believing the word. It is as much so spoken of. A praying without a good spirit in these and other respects, is represented as no prayer, as ineffectual, and what we have no reason to expect will be answered. 84. If that meekness, etc. depends on some antecedent, self-determined act of theirs, and they be determined by that; then their being Christ’s, being his sheep, and therein distinguished from others that are not his sheep, is not properly owing to the Father’s gift, but to their own gift. The Father’s pleasure is not the thing it is to be ascribed to at all; for the Father does nothing in the case decisively; he acts not at all freely in the case, but acts on an antecedent, firm obligation to the persons themselves; but their own pleasure, undermined by God, is that which disposes and decides in the matter. How impertinent would it be to insist on the gift of the Father in this case, when the thing he speaks of is not from thence! 85. He supposes that the assistance that God gives in order to obedience is giving this good and honest heart; see p. 46, 47. together with p. 40. 45,; and therefore, this good and honest heart is not the fruit of our own obedience, but must be the fruit of assistance that precedes our good works, as he often calls it the preventing grace of God. And therefore, if this grace determines the matter, and will certainly be followed with faith and obedience, then all Arminianism, and his own scheme, comes to the ground. 86. Stebbing interprets that passage, Luke 19:16,17. which speaks of our being little children, and receiving the kingdom of God as little children, of that meekness and humility, etc, that is antecedent to conversion, which it is apparent Christ elsewhere speaks of as consequent on conversion, at Matthew 18. 87. It is manifest the power of God overcomes resistance, and great resistance of some sort; otherwise there would be no peculiar greatness of power, as distinguishing it from the power of creatures, manifested in bringing men to be willing to he virtuous; which it is apparent there is, by Matthew 19:26. “But Jesus beheld them, and said unto them, With men this is impossible, but with God all things are possible.” 88. The Arminian scheme naturally, and by necessary consequence, leads men to take all the glory of all spiritual good (which is immensely the chief, most important, and excellent thing in the whole creation) to ourselves; as much as if we, with regard to those effects, were the supreme, the first cause, self-existent, and independent, and absolutely sovereign disposers.

We leave the glory of only the meaner part of creation to God, and take to ourselves all the glory of that which is properly the life, beauty, and glory of the creation, and without which it is all worse than nothing. So that there is nothing left for the great First and Last; no glory for either the Father, Son, or Holy Ghost, in the affair. This is not carrying things too far, but in a consequence truly and certainly to be ascribed to their scheme of things. 89. He may be said to be the giver of money that offers it to us, without being the proper determiner of our acceptance of it. But if the acceptance of an offer itself be the thing which is supposed to be given, he cannot, in any proper sense whatsoever, be properly said to be the giver of this, who is not the determiner of it, But it is the acceptance of offers, and the proper improvement of opportunities, wherein consists virtue. He may be said to be the given of money or goods that does not determine the wise choice; but if the wise and good choice itself be said to be the thing given, it supposes that the giver determines the existing of such a wise choice. But now, this is the thing that God is represented as the giver of, when he is spoken of as the giver of virtue, holiness, etc. for virtue and holiness (as all our opponents in these controversies allow and maintain) is the thing wherein a wise and good choice consists. 90. It is the common way of the Arminians, in their discourses and doctrines, which they pretend are so much more consistent with reason and common sense, than the doctrines of the Calvinists, to give no account at all, and make no proper answer to the inquiries made; and they do as Mr.

Locke says of the Indian philosopher, who, when asked what the world stood upon, answered, it stood upon an elephant; and, when asked what the elephant stood upon, he replied, on a broad-backed turtle, etc. None of their accounts will bear to be traced. The first link of the chain, and the fountain of the whole stream, must not be inquired after. If it be, it brings all to a gross absurdity and self-contradiction. And yet, when they have done, they look upon others as stupid bigots, and old of common sense, or at least going directly counter to common sense, and worthy of contempt and indignation, because they will not agree with them. 91. I suppose it will not be denied by any party of Christians, that the happiness of the saints in the other world consists much in perfect holiness and the exalted exercises of it; that the souls of the saints shall enter upon it at once at death; or (if any deny that) at least at the resurrection; that the saint is made perfectly holy as soon as ever he enters into heaven. I suppose none will say, that perfection is obtained by repeated acts of holiness; but all will grant, that it is wrought in the saint immediately by the power of God; and yet that it is virtue notwithstanding. And why are not the beginnings of holiness wrought in the same manner? Why should not the beginning of a holy nature be wrought immediately by God in a soul that is wholly of a contrary nature, as well as holiness be perfected in a soul that has already a prevailing holiness? And if it be so, why is not the beginning, thus wrought, as much virtue as the perfection thus wrought? 92. Saving grace differs, not only in degree, but in nature and kind, from common grace, or any thing that is ever found in natural men. This seems evident by the following things. 1. Because conversion is a work that is done at once, and not gradually. If saving grace differed only in degree from what went before, then the making a man a good man would be a gradual work; it would be the increasing of the grace that he has, till it comes to such a degree as to be saving, at least it would be frequently so. But that the conversion of the heart is not a work that is thus gradually wrought, but that it is wrought at once, appears by Christ’s converting the soul being represented by his calling of it; Romans 8:28,29,30. “And we know that all things work together for good to them that love God, to them who are the called according to his purpose. For whom he did foreknow, he also did predestinate to he conformed to the image of his Son, that he might be the first-born among many brethren. Moreover, whom he did predestinate, them he also called; and whom he called them he also justified; and whom he justified, them he also glorified.”

Acts 2:37-39. “Men and brethren, what shall we do? Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ, for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost. For the promise is unto you, and to your children, and to all that are afar off, even as many as the Lord our God shall cull.”

Hebrews 9:15. “That they which are culled might receive the promise of eternal inheritance.” 1 Thessalonians 5:23,24. “And the very God of peace sanctify you wholly: and I pray God, your whole spirit, soul, and body, be preserved blameless, unto the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ. Faithful is he that calleth you, who also will do it.” Nothing else can be meant in these places by calling, but what Christ does in a sinner’s saving conversion; by which it seems evident that this is done at once, and not gradually. Hereby Christ shows his great power. He does but speak the powerful word, and it is done. He does but call, and the heart of the sinner immediately cometh, as was represented by his calling his disciples, and their immediately following him. So, when he called Peter and Andrew, James and John, they were minding other things, and had no thought of following Christ, But at his call they immediately followed him, Matthew 4:18-22. Peter and Andrew were casting a net into the sea. Christ says unto them, as he passed by, Follow me; and it is said, they straightway left their nets and followed him. So James and John were in the ship with Zebedee their father, mending their nets: and he called them; and immediately they left the ship and their father, and followed him. So when Matthew was called; “And as Jesus passed forth from thence, he saw a man, named Matthew, sitting at the receipt of custom; and he saith unto him, Follow me: and he arose and followed him.” (Matthew 9:9.)

The same circumstances are observed by other evangelists; which, doubtless, is to represent the manner in which Christ effectually calls his disciples in all ages. There is something immediately put into their hearts, at that call, that is new, that there was nothing of there before, which makes them so immediately act in a manner altogether new, and so alien from what they were before.

That the work of conversion is wrought at once, is further evident, by its being compared to a work of creation. When God created the world, he did what he did immediately; he spake, and it was done; he commanded, and it stood fast. He said, Let there be light, and there was light. Also by its being compared to a raising from the dead. Raising from the dead is not a gradual work, but it is done at once. God calls, and the dead come forth immediately. The change in conversion is in the twinkling of an eye; as that, 1 Corinthians 15:51,52. “We shall be changed in a moment, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trump. For the trumpet shall sound, and the dead shall be raised incorruptible, and we shall be changed.”

It appears by the manner in which Christ wrought all those works that he wrought when on earth, that they were types of his great work of converting sinners. Thus, when he healed the leper, he put forth his hand and touched him, and said,” I will, be thou clean; and immediately his leprosy was cleansed.” Matthew 8:3. Mark 1:42. Luke 5:13. So, in opening the eyes of the blind men, Matthew 20:30, etc. he touched their eyes, and immediately their eyes received sight, and they followed him. And so Mark 10:52. Luke 18:43. So, when he healed the sick, particularly Simon’s wife’s mother, he took her by her hand, and lifted her up; and immediately the fever left her, and she ministered unto him. So when the woman that had the issue of blood, touched the hem of Christ’s garment, immediately her issue of blood stanched; Luke 8:44. So the woman that was bowed together with the spirit of infirmity, when Christ laid his hands on her, immediately she was made straight, and glorified God; Luke 13:12,13. So the man at the pool of Bethesda, when Christ bade him rise and take up his bed and walk, was immediately made whole; John 5:8,9. After the same manner Christ raised the dead, and cast out devils, and stilled the winds and seas. 2 . There seems to be a specific difference between saving grace or virtue and all that was in the heart before, by the things that conversion is represented by in Scripture; particularly by its being represented as a work of creation. When God creates, he does not merely establish and perfect the things that were made before, but makes them wholly and immediately. The things that are seen, are not made of things that do appear. Saving grace in the heart is said to be the new man, a new creature; and corruption, the old man. If that virtue that is in the heart of a holy man, be not different in its nature and kind, then the man might possibly have had the same seventy years before, and from time to time, from the beginning of his life, and has it no otherwise now, but only in a greater degree: and how then is he a new creature.

Again, it is evident also from its being compared to a resurrection. Natural men are said to be dead: but when they are converted, they are by God’s mighty and effectual power raised from the ‘dead. Now, there is no medium between being dead and alive, He that is dead, has no degree of life, He that has the least degree of life in him, is alive. When a man is raised from the dead, life is not only in a greater degree, but it is all new.

And this is further evident by that representation that is made of Christ’s converting sinners, in John 5:25. “Verily, verily, I say unto you, the hour is coming, and now is, when the dead shall hear the voice of the Son of God; and they that hear shall live.”

This shows conversion to be an immediate and instantaneous work, like to the change made in Lazarus when Christ called him from the grave: there went life with the call, and Lazarus was immediately alive. That immediately before the call they are dead, and therefore wholly destitute of any life, is evident by that expression, “the dead shall hear the voice;” and immediately after the call they are alive; yea, there goes life with the voice, as is evident not only because it is said they shall live, but also because it is said, they shall hear his voice, It is evident that the first moment they have any life is the moment when Christ calls; and when Christ calls, or as soon as they are called, they are converted; as is evident from what is said in the first argument, wherein it is shown, that to be called and converted, is the same thing. 3. Those that go farthest in religion, that are in a natural condition, have no charity, as is plainly implied in the beginning of the 13th chapter of the first of Corinthians; by which we must understand, that they have none of that kind of grace, or disposition, or affection, that is so called. So Christ elsewhere reproves the Pharisees, those high pretenders to religion among the Jews, that they had not the love of God in them. 4. In conversion, stones are raised up to be children unto Abraham.

While stones they are wholly destitute of all those qualities that afterward render them the living children of Abraham; and not possessing them, though in a lesser degree.

Agreeably to this, conversion is represented by the taking away the heart of stone, and giving a heart of flesh. The man, while unconverted, has a heart of stone, which has no degree of that life or sense in it that the heart of flesh has; because it yet remains a stone; than which, nothing is farther from life and sense. 5. A wicked man has none of that principle of nature that a godly man has, as is evident by 1 John 3:9. “Whosoever is horn of God doth not commit sin; for his seed remaineth in him; and he cannot sin, because he is born of God.”

The natural import of the metaphor shows, that by a seed is meant a principle of action: it may be small as a grain of mustard seed. A seed is a small thing; it may he buried up and he hid as the seed sown in the earth; it may seem to be dead, as seeds for a while do, till quickened by the sun and rain. But any degree of such a principle, or a principle of such a nature, is what is called the seed; it need not be to such a degree, or have such a prevalency, in order to be called a seed. And it is further evident that this seed, or this inward principle of nature, is peculiar to the saints; for he that has that seed, cannot sin; and therefore he that sins, or is a wicked man, has it not. 6. Natural men, or those that are not savingly converted, have no degree of that principle from whence all gracious actings flow, viz. the Spirit of God or of Christ; as is evident, because it is asserted both ways in Scripture, that those who have not the Spirit of Christ, are not his, Romans 7:9. and also, that those who have the Spirit of Christ, are his; 1 John 3:24. “Hereby we know that he abideth in us, by the Spirit which he hath given us.” And the Spirit of God is called the earnest of the future inheritance, 2 Corinthians 1:22. and 5:5. Ephesians 1:14.

Yea, that a natural man has nothing of the Spirit in him, no part nor portion in it, is still more evident, because the having of the Spirit is given as a sure sign of being in Christ. 1 John 4:13. “Hereby know we that we dwell in him, because he hath given us of his Spirit.” By which it is evident, that they have none of that holy principle that the godly have. And if they have nothing of the Spirit, they have nothing of those things that are the fruits of the Spirit, such as those mentioned in Galatians 5:22. “But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, long-suffering, gentleness, goodness, faith, meekness, temperance.”

These fruits are here mentioned with the very design, that we may know whether we have the Spirit or no. In the 18th verse, the apostle tells the Galatians, that if they are led by the Spirit, they are not under the law; and then directly proceeds, first, to mention what are the fruits or works of the flesh, and then, nextly, what are fruits of the Spirit, that we may judge whether we are led by the Spirit or no. 7. That natural men, or those that are not born again, have nothing of that grace that is in godly men, is evident by John 3:6. where Christ, speaking of regeneration, says, “That which is horn of the flesh is flesh; and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit.” By flesh is here meant nature, and by Spirit is meant grace, as is evident by Galatians 5:16,17.

Galatians 6:8. 1 Corinthians 3:1. Romans 8:7.That is Christ’s very argument; by this it is that Christ in those words would show Nicodemus the necessity of regeneration, that by the first birth we have nothing but nature, and can have nothing else without being born again; by which it is exceeding evident, that they that are not born again, have nothing else. And that natural men have not the Spirit is evident, since by this text, with the context, it is most evident that those who have the Spirit, have it by regeneration, It is born in them; it comes into them no otherwise than by birth, and that birth is in regeneration, as is most evident by the preceding and following verses. In godly men there are two opposite principles: the flesh lusteth against the spirit, and the spirit against the flesh; as Galatians 5:25. But it is not so with natural men. Rebekah, in having Esau and Jacob struggle together in her womb, was a type only of the true church. 8. Natural men have nothing of that nature in them which true Christians have; and that appears because the nature they have is divine nature. The saints alone have it. Not only they alone partake of such degrees of it, but they alone are partakers of it. To be a partaker of the divine nature is mentioned as peculiar to the saints, in 2 Peter 1:4. It is evident it is the true saints the apostle is there speaking of. The words in this verse and the foregoing run thus: “According as his divine power hath given us all things that pertain unto life and godliness, through the knowledge of him that hath called us to glory and virtue; whereby are given unto us exceeding great and precious promises, that by these ye might be partakers of the divine nature; having escaped the corruption that is in the world through lust.” Divine nature and lust are evidently here spoken of as two opposite principles in men. Those that are of the world, or that are the men of the world, have only the latter principle. But to be partakers of the divine nature, is spoken of as peculiar to them that are distinguished and separated from the world, by the free and sovereign grace of God giving them all things that pertain to life and godliness; by giving the knowledge of Christ, and calling them to glory and virtue; and giving them the exceeding great and precious promises of the gospel, and enabling them to escape the corruption of the world of wicked men. It is spoken of, not only as peculiar to the saints, but as the highest privilege of saints. 9. A natural man has no degree of that relish and sense of spiritual things, or things of the Spirit, and of their divine truth and excellency, which a godly man has; as is evident by 1 Corinthians 2:14. “The natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God; for they are foolishness unto him; neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned.” Here a natural man is represented as perfectly destitute of any sense, perception, or discerning of those things. For by the words, he neither does nor can know them or discern them. So far from it, that they are foolishness unto him. He is such a stranger to them, that he knows not what the talk of such things means; they are words without a meaning to him; he knows nothing of the matter, any more than a blind man of colours. Hence it will follow, that the sense of things of religion that a natural man has, is not only not to the same degree, but is not of the same nature with what a godly man has.

Besides, if a natural person has that fruit of the Spirit, which is of the same kind with what a spiritual person has, then he experiences within himself the things of the Spirit of God. How then can he be said to be such a stranger to them, and have no perception or discerning of them?

The reason why natural men have no knowledge of spiritual things, that they have nothing of the Spirit of God dwelling in them. This is evident by the context. For there we are told it is by the Spirit these things are taught, verse 10-12. Godly persons, in the text we are upon, are called spiritual, evidently on this account, that they have the Spirit; and unregenerate men are called natural men, because they have nothing but nature. Hereby the 6th argument is continued. For natural men are in no degree spiritual; they have only nature and no Spirit. If they had any thing of the Spirit, though not in so great a degree as the godly, yet they would be taught spiritual things, or the things of the Spirit, in proportion; the Spirit that searcheth all things, would teach them in some measure. There would not be so great a difference, that the one could perceive nothing of them, and that they should be foolishness to them, while, to the other, they appear divinely and unspeakably wise and excellent, as they are spoken of in the context, verses 6-9. and as such, the apostle speaks here of discerning them. The reason why natural men have no knowledge or perception of spiritual things, is that the y have none of that anointing spoken of, 1 John 2:27. “ But the anointing, which ye have received of him, abideth in you, and ye need not that any man should teach you; but as the same anointing teacheth you of all things, and is truth, and is no lie, and even as it hath taught you, ye shall abide in him.”

This anointing is evidently here spoken of, as a thing peculiar to true saints.

Sinners never had any of that oil poured upon them; and because ungodly men have none of it, therefore they have no discerning of spiritual things. If they had any degree of it, they would discern in some measure. Therefore, none of that sense that natural men have of spiritual things, is of the same nature with what the godly have, And that natural men are wholly destitute of this knowledge, is further evident, because conversion is represented in Scripture by opening the eyes of the blind, But this would be very improperly so represented. if a man might have some sight, though not so clear and full, time after time for scores of years before his conversion. 10. The grace of God’s Spirit is not only a precious oil with which Christ anoints the believer by giving it to him, but the believer anoints Christ with it, by exercising it towards him; which seems to be represented by the precious ointment Mary poured on Christ’s head.

Herein it seems to me, that Mary is a type of Christ’s church, and of every believing soul. And if so, doubtless the thing in which she typifies the church, has in it something peculiar to the church. There would not be a type ordered on purpose to represent only something that is common to the church and others. Therefore unbelievers pour none of that sweet and precious ointment on Christ. 11. That unbelievers have no degree of that grace that the saints have, is evident, because they have no communion with Christ. If unbelievers partook of any of that Spirit, those holy inclinations, affections, and actings that the godly have from the Spirit of Christ, then they would have communion with Christ. The communion of saints with Christ certainly consist in receiving of his fulness, and partaking of his grace, which is spoken of, John 1:16. “Of his fulness have we all received, and grace for grace.” And the partaking of that Spirit which God gives not by measure unto him, the partaking of Christ’s holiness and grace, his nature, inclinations, tendencies, affections, love, desires, must be a part of communion with him. Yea, a believer’s communion with God and Christ, does mainly consist in partaking of the Holy Spirit, as is evident by 2 Corinthians 13:14. But that unbelievers have no communion or fellowship with Christ, appears, 1st , Because they are not united to Christ, they are not in Christ.

Those that are not in Christ, or are not united to him, can have no degree of communion with him; for union with Christ, or a being in Christ, is the foundation of all communion with him. The union of the members with the head, is the foundation of all their communion or partaking with the head; and so the union of the branch with the vine, is the foundation of all the communion it has with the vine, of partaking of any degree of its sap or life, or influence. So the union of the wife to the husband, is the foundation of her communion in his goods. But no natural man is united to Christ; because all that are in Christ shall be saved; 1 Corinthians 15:22. “ As in Adam all die, so in Christ shall all be made alive;” i.e. all that are in Christ; for this speaks only of the glorious resurrection and eternal life. Philippians 3:8,9. “ Yea, doubtless, I count all things but loss, for the excellency of the knowledge of Christ Jesus, my Lord; for whom I have suffered the loss of all things, and do count them but dung, that I may win Christ, and be found in him, not having on my own righteousness,” etc. 2 Corinthians 5:17. “ Now, if any man be in Christ, he is a new creature; old things are passed away; behold, all things are become new.” 1 John 2:5. “ Hereby know we that we are in him.” Chap. 2:24. “And he that keepeth his commandments, dwelleth in him, and he in him, and hereby we know that he abideth in us,” etc. and 4:13. “Hereby we know that we dwell in him, and he in us.” 2d , The Scripture does more directly teach, that it is only true saints that have communion with Christ; as, particularly, this is most evidently spoken of as what be longs to the saints, and to them only, in 1 John 1:3-7. “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. If we say we have fellowship with him, and walk in darkness, we lie, and do not the truth. But if we walk in the light. as he is in light, we have fellowship one with another; and the blood of Jesus Christ, his Son, cleanseth us from all sin.” And Corinthians 1:8, 9. “Who shall also confirm you unto the end, that ye may be blameless in the day of our Lord Jesus Christ. God is faithful, by whom ye were called unto the fellowship of his Son, Jesus Christ our Lord.” By this it appears that those who have fellowship with Christ are those that cannot fall away, whom God’s faithfulness is bound to confirm to the end, that they may be blameless in the day of Jesus Christ. 93. ‘Ezekiel’s vision of the dry bones is a confirmation, that however natural men may be the subjects of great and wonderful influences and operations of God’s great power and Spirit; yet they, do not properly partake at all of the Spirit before conversion. In all that is wrought in them, in every respect fitting and preparing them for grace, so that nothing shall be wanting but divine life; yet as long as they are without this, they have nothing of the Spirit. Which confirms the distinctions I have elsewhere made, of the Spirit of God influencing the minds of natural men under common illuminations and convictions, and yet not communicating himself in his own proper nature to them, before conversion; and that saving grace differs from common grace, not only in degree, but also in nature and kind, It is said, Revelation 3:8. of the church at Philadelphia, which is commended above all other churches, Thou hast a little strength-certainly implying, that ungodly men have none at all. 94. That there is no good work before conversion and actual union with Christ, is manifest from that, Romans 7:4. “Wherefore, my brethren, ye also are become dead to the law, by the body of Christ, that ye should be married unto another, even to him who is raised from the dead; that we should bring forth fruit unto God.” Hence we may argue, that there is no lawful child brought forth before that marriage. Seeming virtues and good works before, are not so indeed, They are a spurious brood, being bastards, and not children. 95. That those that prove apostates, never have the same kind of faith with true saints, is confirmed by what Christ said of Judas, before his apostacy, John 6:64. “But there are some of you who believe not. For Jesus, knew from the beginning who they were that believed not, and who should betray him.” By this it is evident, that Judas, who afterwards proved an apostate, (and is doubtless set forth as an example for all apostates,) though he had a kind of faith in Christ, yet did not believe in Christ with a true faith, and was at that time, before his apostacy, destitute of that kind of faith which the true disciples had; and that he had all along, even from the beginning, been destitute of that faith. And by the 70th and 71st verses of the same chapter, it is evident that he was not only destitute of that degree of goodness that the rest had, but totally destitute of christian piety, and wholly under the dominion of wickedness; being in this respect like a devil, notwithstanding all the faith and temporary regard to Christ that he had. “Jesus answered them, Have I not chosen you twelve, and one of you is a devil? He spake of Judas Iscariot, the son of Simon. For he it was that should betray him, being one of the twelve.”

CHAPTER - CONCERNING THE NECESSITY AND REASONABLENESS OF THE CHRISTIAN DOCTRINE OF SATISFACTION FOR SIN. 1. The necessity of satisfaction for sin, and the reasonableness of that christian doctrine, may appear from the following considerations: 1. Justice requires that sin be punished, because sin deserves punishment. What the demerit of sin calls for, justice cal Is for; for it is only the same thing in different words. For the notion of a desert of punishment, is the very same as a just connexion with punishment.

None will deny but that there is such a thing, in some cases, as the desert or demerit of a crime, its calling for or requiring punishment.

And, to say that the dessert of a crime does require punishment, is just the same thing as to say, the reason why it requires it is, that it deserves it. So that the suitableness of the connexion between the crime and the punishment, consists in the desert; and therefore, wherever desert is, there is such suitableness. None will deny that some crimes are so horrid, and so deserving of punishment, that it is requisite that they should not go unpunished, unless something very considerable be done to make up for the crime; either some answerable repentance, or some other compensation, that in some measure at least balances the desert of punishment, and so, as it were, takes it off, or disannuls it: otherwise the desert of punishment remaining, all will allow, that it is fit and becoming, and to be desired, that the crime should be severely punished.

And why is it so, but only from the demerit of the crime, or because the crime so much deserves such a punishment? It justly excites so great abhorrence and indignation, that it is requisite there should be a punishment answerable to this abhorrence and indignation that is fitly excited by it. But by this, all is granted that needs to ‘he granted, to show, that desert of punishment carries in it a requisiteness of the punishment deserved. For if greater crimes do very much require punishment, because of their great demerit, lesser crimes will also require punishment, but only in a lesser degree, proportionably to their demerit; because the ground of the requisiteness of the punishment of great crimes, is their demerit. It is requisite that they should be punished, on no other account but because they deserve it.

And besides, if it be allowed that it is requisite that great crimes should he punished with punishment in some measure answerable to the heinousness of the crime, without something to balance them, some answerable repentance or other satisfaction, because of their great demerit, and the great abhorrence and indignation they justly excite: it will follow, that it is requisite that God should punish all sin with infinite punishment; because all sin, as it is against God, is infinitely heinous, and has infinite demerit, is justly infinitely hateful to him, and so stirs up infinite abhorrence and indignation in him. Therefore, by what was before granted, it is requisite that God should punish it, unless there be something in some measure to balance this desert; either some answerable repentance and sorrow for it, or other compensation. Now there can be no repentance of it, or sorrow for it, in any measure answerable or proportionable to the heinousness of the demerit of the crime; because that is infinite, and there can be no infinite sorrow for sin in finite creatures; yea, there can be none but what is infinitely short of it, none that bears any proportion to it. Repentance is as nothing in comparison of it, and therefore can weigh nothing when put in the scales with it, and so does nothing at all towards compensating it, or diminishing the desert or requisiteness of punishment, any more than if there were no repentance. If any ask, why God could not pardon the injury on repentance, without other satisfaction, without any wrong to justice; I ask the same person, why he could not also pardon the injury without repentance? For the same reason, could he not pardon with repentance without satisfaction? For all the repentance men are capable of, is no repentance at all, or is as little as none, in comparison with the greatness of the injury; for it bears no proportion to it. And it would be as dishonourable and unfit for God to pardon the injury without any repentance at all, as to do it merely on the account of a repentance that bears no more proportion to the injury, than none at all. Therefore, we are not forgiven on repentance, because it in any wise compensates, or takes off, or diminishes the desert or requisiteness of punishment; but because of the respect that evangelical repentance has to compensation already made.

If sin, therefore, deserves punishment, that is the same thing as to say, that it is fit and proper that it should be punished. If the case be so, that sin deserves punishment from men; in those cases it is proper it should receive punishment from men. A fault cannot be properly said to deserve punishment from any, but those to whom it belongs to inflict punishment when it is deserved. In those cases, therefore, wherein it belongs to men to inflict punishment, it is proper for them to inflict that punishment that is deserved of them.

Again, if sin’s desert of punishment be the proper ground of the fitness of its connexion with punishment, or rather be that wherein fitness of the connexion consists; it will thence follow, not only that it is fit that sin that deserves punishment, should be punished, but also that it should be punished as it deserves.

It is meet that a person’s state should be agreeable to the quality of his dispositions and voluntary actions. Suffering is suitable and answerable to the quality of sinful dispositions and actions; it is suitable that they that will evil, and do evil, should receive evil in proportion to the evil that they do or will, It is but justice that it should be so; and when sin is punished, it receives but its own, or that which is suitably connected with it. But it is a contradiction to say that it is suitably connected with punishment, or that it is suitable that it should be connected with it, and yet that it is suitable it should not be connected with it. All sin may be resolved into hatred of God and our neighbour; as all our duty may be resolved into love to God and our neighbour. And it is but meet that this spirit of enmity should receive a return in its own kind, that it should receive enmity again. Sin is of such a nature, that it wishes ill, and aims at ill to God and man; but to God especially. It strikes at God; it would, if it could, procure his misery and death, It is but suitable, that with what measure it metes it should be measured to it again, It is but suitable that men should reap what they sow, and that the rewards of every man’s hand should be given him. This is what the consciences of all men do naturally declare, There is nothing that men know sooner, after they come to the exercise of their reason, than that, when they have done wickedness, they deserve punishment. The consciences not only of Christians, and those who have been educated in the principles of divine revelation, but also the consciences of heathens, inform them of this: therefore, unless conscience has been stupified by frequent violations when men have done wickedness, there remains a sense of guilt upon their minds; a sense of an obligation to punishment. It is natural to expect that which conscience or reason tells them it is suitable should come; and therefore they are afraid and jealous, and ready to flee when no man pursues.

Seeing therefore it is requisite that sin should be punished, as punishment is deserved and just; therefore the justice of God obliges him to punish sin.

For it belongs to God, as the Supreme Ruler of the universality of things, to maintain order and decorum in his kingdom, and to see to it that decency and righteousness take place in all cases. That perfection of his nature whereby he is disposed to this, is his justice: therefore his justice naturally disposes him to punish sin as it deserves. 2. The holiness of God, which is the infinite opposition of his nature to sin, naturally and necessarily disposes him to punish sin. Indeed his justice is part of his holiness. But when we speak of God’s justice inclining him to punish sin, we have respect only to that exercise of his holiness whereby he loves that holy and beautiful order that consists in the connexion of one thing with another, according to their nature, and so between sin and punishment; and his opposition to that which would be so unsuitable as a disconnexion of these things. But now I speak of the holiness of God as appearing not directly and immediately in his hatred of an unsuitable, hateful disconnexion between sin and that which is proper for it but in his hatred of sin itself; or the opposition of his nature to the odious nature of sin.

If God’s nature be infinitely opposite to sin, then doubtless he has a disposition answerable to oppose it in his acts and works. If he by his nature be all enemy to sin with an infinite enmity, then he is doubtless disposed to act as an enemy to it, or to do the part of an enemy to it.And if he be disposed naturally to do the part of an enemy against sin, or, which is the same thing, against the faultiness or blameworthiness of moral agents; then it will follow, he is naturally disposed to act as an enemy to those that are the persons faulty and blameworthy, or are chargeable with the guilt of it, as being the persons faulty. Indignation is the proper exercise of hatred of any thing as a fault or thing blamable; and there could be no such thing either in the Creator or creature, as hatred of a fault without indignation, unless it be conceived or hoped that the fault is suffered for, and so the indignation be satisfied. Whoever finds a hatred to a fault, and at the same time imputes the fault to him that committed it, he therein feels an indignation against him for it. So that God, by his necessary infinite hatred of sin, is necessarily disposed to punish it with a punishment answerable to his hatred.

It does not become the Sovereign of the world, a being of infinite glory, purity, and beauty, to suffer such a thing as sin, an infinitely uncomely disorder, an infinitely detestable pollution, to appear in the world subject to his government, without his making an opposition to it, or giving some public manifestations and tokens of his infinite abhorrence of it. If he should so do, it would be countenancing it, which God cannot do; for “he is of purer eyes than to behold evil, and cannot look on iniquity;” Habakkuk 1:13, It is natural in such a case to expect tokens of the utmost opposition. If we could behold the infinite fountain of purity and holiness, and could see what an infinitely pure flame it is, and with what a pure brightness it shines, so that the heavens appear impure when compared with it; and then should behold some infinitely odious and detestable filthiness brought and set in its presence: would it not be natural to expect some ineffably vehement opposition made to it? and would not the want of it be indecent and shocking?

If it be to God’s glory that he is in his nature infinitely holy and opposite to sin; then it is to his glory to be infinitely displeased with sin. And if it he to God’s glory to be infinitely displeased with sin; then it must be to his glory to exercise and manifest that displeasure, and to act accordingly. But the proper exercise and testimony of displeasure against sin, in the Supreme Being and absolute Governor of the world, is taking vengeance. Men may show their hatred of sin by lamenting it, and mourning for it, and taking great pains, and undergoing great difficulties, to prevent or remove it, or by approving God’s vengeance for it. Taking vengeance is not the proper way of fellow-subjects’ hatred of sin; but it is in the Supreme Lord and Judge of the world, to whom vengeance belongs; because he has the ordering and government of all things, and therefore the suffering of sin to go unpunished would in him be a conniving at it. Taking vengeance is as much the proper manifestation of God’s displeasure at sin, as a mighty work is the proper manifestation of his power, or as a wise work is the proper manifestation of his wisdom. There may be other testimonies of God’s displeasedness with and abhorrence of sin, without testifying his displeasure in condign punishment. He might declare he has such a displeasure and abhorrence. So there might be other testimonies of God’s power and wisdom, besides a powerful wise effect. He might have declared himself to be infinitely wise and powerful. But yet there would have been wanting the proper manifestations of God’s power and wisdom, if God had only declared himself to be possessed of these attributes. The creatures might have believed him to be all-wise and almighty; but by seeing his mighty and wise works, they see his power and wisdom. So if there had been only a declaration of God’s abhorrence and displeasure against sin, the creature might have believed it, but could not have seen it, unless he should also take vengeance for it. 3. The honour of the greatness, excellency, and majesty of God’s being, requires that sin be punished with an infinite punishment. Hitherto I have spoken of the requisiteness of God’s punishing sin, on account of the demerit and hatefulness of it absolutely considered, and not directly as God is interested in the affair. But now, if we consider sin as levelled against God, not only compensative justice to the sinner, but justice to himself, requires that God should punish sin with infinite punishment.

Sin casts contempt on the majesty and greatness of God. The language of it is, that he is a despicable being, not worthy to be honoured or feared; not so great, that his displeasure is worthy to be dreaded; and that his threatenings of wrath are despicable. Now, the proper vindication or defence of God’s majesty in such a case, is, for God to contradict this language of sin, in his providence towards sin that speaks this language, or to contradict the language of sin in the event and fruit of sin. Sin says, God is a despicable being, and not worthy that the sinner should fear him; and so affronts him without fear. The proper vindication of God’s majesty from this is, for God to show, by the event, that he is worthy that the sinner should regard him and fear him, by his appearing in the fearful, dreadful event to the person guilty, that he is an infinitely fearful and terrible being. The language of sin is, that God’s displeasure is not worthy that the sinner should regard it.

The proper vindication of God from this language as, to show, by the experience of the event, the infinite dreadfulness of that slighted displeasure. In such a case, the majesty of God requires this vindication. It cannot be properly vindicated without it, neither can God be just to himself without this vindication, unless there could be such a thing as a repentance, humiliation, and sorrow for this portionable to the greatness of the majesty despised. When the majesty of God has such contempt cast upon it, and is trodden down in the dust by vile sinners, it is not fit that this infinite and glorious majesty should be left under this contempt; but that it should be vindicated wholly from it; that it should be raised perfectly from the dust wherein it is trodden, by something opposite to the contempt, which is equivalent to it, or of weight sufficient to balance it; either an equivalent punishment, or an equivalent sorrow and repentance. So that sin must be punished with an infinite punishment.

Sin casts contempt on the infinite glory and excellency of God. The language of it is, that God is not an excellent being, but an odious one; and therefore, that it is no heinous thing to hate him. Now, it is fit that on this occasion omniscience should declare and manifest that it judges otherwise; and that it should show that it esteems God infinitely excellent; and therefore, that it looks on it as an infinitely heinous thing, to cast such a reflection on God, by infinite tokens of resentment of such a reflection and such hatred.

God is to be considered, in this affair, not merely as the Governor of a world of creatures, to order things between one creature and another, but as the Supreme Regulator and Rector of the universe, the orderer of things relating to the whole compass of existence, including himself; to maintain the rights of the whole, and decorum through the whole, and to maintain his own rights, and the due honour of his own perfections, as well as to preserve justice among his creatures. It is fit that there should be one that has this office; and this office properly belongs to the Supreme Being. And if he should fail of doing justice to himself in a necessary vindication of his own majesty and glory, it would be an immensely greater failure of his rectoral justice than if he should deprive the creatures (that are beings of infinitely less consequence) of their right. 4. There is a necessity of sin’s being punished with a condign punishment, from the law of God that threatens such punishment. All but Epicureans will own, that all creatures that are moral agents, are subjects of God’s moral government; and that therefore he has given a law to his creatures. But if God has given a law to his creatures, that law must have sanctions, i.e., it must be enforced with threatenings of punishment: otherwise it fails of having the nature of a law, and is only of the nature of counsel or advice; or rather of a request For one being to express his inclination or will to another, concerning any thing he would receive from him, any love or respect, without any threatening annexed, but leaving it with the person applied to, whether he will afford it or not, whether he will grant it or not, supposing that his refusal will be with impunity; is properly of the nature of a request. It does not amount to counsel or advice; because, when we give counsel to others, it is for their interest, But when we express our desire or will of something we would receive from them, with impunity to them whether they grant it or not, this is more properly requesting than counselling. No doubt it falls far short of the nature of lawgiving. For such an expression of one’s will as this, is an expression of will, without any expression of authority. It holds forth no authority, for us merely to manifest our wills or inclinations to another; nor indeed does it exhibit any authority over a person applied to, to promise him rewards. So persons may, and often do, promise rewards to others, for doing those things that they have no power to oblige them to. So may persons do to their equals: so may a king do to others who are not his subjects. This is rather bargaining with others, than giving them laws.

That expression of will only is a law, which is exhibited in such a manner as to express the lawgiver’s power over the person to whom it is manifested, expressing his power of disposal of him, according as he complies or re uses; that which shows power over him, so as to oblige him to comply, or to make it be to his cost if he refuses.

For the same reason that it is necessary the divine law should have a threatening of condign punishment annexed, it is also necessary that the threatening should be fulfilled. For the threatening wholly relates to the execution. If it had no connexion with execution, it would be wholly void, and would be as no threatening: and so far as there is not a connexion with execution, whether that be in a greater or lesser degree; so far and in such a degree it is void, and so far approaches to the nature of no threatening, as much as if that degree of unconnexion was expressed in the threatening. As for instance, if sin fails of threatened punishment half the times, this makes void the threatening in one half of it, and brings it down to be no more than if the threatening had expressed only so much, that sin should be punished half the times that it is committed.

But if it be needful that all sin in every act should be forbidden by law, i.e. with a prohibition and threatening of condign punishment annexed, and that the threatening of sin with condign punishment should be universal then it is necessary that it should be universally executed. A threatening of an omniscient and true being can be supposed to signify no more punishment than is intended to be executed, and is not necessarily to be understood of any more. A threatening, if it signifies any thing, is a signification of some connexion betwixt the crime and the punishment. But the threatening of an omniscient being, cannot be understood to signify any more connexion with punishment than there is.

If it be needful that there should be a divine law, it is needful that this divine law should be maintained in the nature, life, authority, and strength that is proper to it as a law. The nature, life, authority, and strength of every law, consists in its sanction, by which the deed is connected with the compensation; and therefore depends on the strength and firmness of that connexion. In proportion as that connexion is weak, in such proportion does the law lose its strength, and fails of the proper nature and power of a law, and degenerates towards the nature of requests and expressions of will and desire to receive love and respect, without t being en forced with authority.

Dispensing with the law by the lawgiver, so as not to fulfil it or execute it, in its nature does not differ from an abrogation of it, unless the law contains in itself such a clause, that it shall or may be dispensed with, and not fulfilled in certain cases, or when the lawgiver pleases.

But this would be a contradiction. For, it the law contained such a clause; then, not to fulfil it, would be according to the law, and a fulfilment of the law; and therefore there would be no dispensing with the law in it, because it is doing ‘what the law itself directs to. The law may contain clauses of exception, wherein particular cases may be excepted from general rules; but it cannot make provision for a dispensation. And therefore, for the lawgiver to dispense with it, is indeed to abrogate it. Though it may not be an abrogating it wholly, yet it is in some measure changing it. To dispense with the law, in not fulfilling it on him that breaks it, is making the rule give place to the sinner. But certainly it is an indecent thing, that sin, which provokes the execution, should procure the abrogation of the law.

The necessity of fulfilling the law, in the sense that has been spoken of, appears from Matthew 5:18. “For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, until all be fulfilled.” The words will allow of no other tolerable sense.

It is necessary that the law of God should be maintained and executed, and not dispensed with or abrogated for the sake of the sinner, for the following reasons: 1st . The nature and being of the law requires it. For, as has been already shown, by such dispensation it hoses the life and authority of a law, as it respects the subject. But it does not only fail of being a law in this respect; it fails of being a rule to the Supreme Judge. The law is the great rule of righteousness and decorum that the Supreme and Universal Rector has established and published, for the regulation of things in the commonwealth of the universality of intelligent beings and moral agents, in all that relates to them as concerned one with another; a rule, by which things are not only to be regulated between one subject and another, but between the king and subjects; that it may be a rule of judgment to the one, as well as a rule of duty to the other, It is but reasonable to suppose, that such a rule should be established and published for the benefit of all that belong to this universal commonwealth, to be a rule to direct both their actions towards each other, and their expectations from each other, that they may have a fixed and known rule by which they are to act and to be dealt with, to be both active and passive as members of this commonwealth. The subject is most nearly concerned, not only in the measure of his own actions, but also in the consequences of them, or the method of his judge’s determinations concerning him.

None that own the existence of a divine law, with threatenings annexed, can deny that there actually is such a rule as this, that relates both to the manner of the creature’s acting, and also the judge’s acting toward him as subject to that law. For none will deny, that the precepts relate to the manner of the subject’s acting, and that the threatenings relate to the manner of the judge’s proceeding with the subject, in consequence of his obedience or disobedience.

It is needful that this great rule for managing affairs in this universal commonwealth, should be fixed and settled, and not be vague and uncertain. So far as it fails of this, it ceases to be of the nature of a rule.

For it is essential to the nature of a rule, that it be something fixed. But if it be needful that it be something fixed, then it is needful that the author, and he by whom it subsists, should maintain and fulfil it, and not depart from it; because that is in a measure to disannul it. If he doth so, therein the rule becomes unfixed, and it so far ceases to be a rule to the judge. 2nd , That the law should be made to give place to the sinner is contrary to the direct design of the law. For the law was made, that the subject should be regulated by it, and give place to it; and not to be regulated by the subject, and to give place to him, especially to a wicked, vile, rebellious subject.

The law is made, that it might prevent sin, and cause it not to be; and not that sin should disannul the law and cause it not to be. Therefore it would be very indecent for the Supreme Rector to cause this great rule to give place to the rebellion of the sinner. 3nd . It is in nowise fit that this great rule should be abrogated and give place to the opposition and violation of the rebellious subject, on account of the perfection of the law, and as it is an expression of the perfection of the lawgiver. The holiness and rectitude and goodness of this great rule, which the Supreme Lawgiver has established for the regulation of the commonwealth of moral agents, and its universal fitness and wisdom, and absolute perfection, render a partial abrogation, for the sake of them that dislike it, and will not submit to it, needless and unseemly. If the great rule should he set aside, for the sake of the rebel, it would carry too much of the face of acknowledgment, in the lawgiver, of want of wisdom and foresight, or of some defect, in point of holiness or righteousness, in his law. He that breaks the law, finds fault with it, and casts that reflection on it, that it is not a good law; and if God should in part abrogate the law upon this, it would have too much the appearance of a conceding to the sinner’s objection against it.

But God will magnify his law, and make it honourable, and will give no occasion for any such reflections upon it, nor leave the law under such a reflection.

If this great rule of righteousness be so excellent and good a law, it is not only unfit that it should give place to rebellion, as this would be a dishonour to the excellency of the law and lawgiver; but also a wrong to the public good, which the Supreme Rector of the world has the care, and is the guardian of. If the rule be perfect, perfectly right and just and holy, and with infinite wisdom adapted to the good of the whole; then the public good requires that it be strongly established. The more firmly it is settled, and the more strongly it is guarded and defended, the better, and the more is it for the public good; and every thing by which it is weakened, is a damage and loss to the commonwealth of beings.

But I have already shown how every departure from it weakens it, unfixes it, and causes it to fail of the nature of a settled rule, and in some meastire disannuls it. 4th . The sacredness of the authority and majesty of the Divine Lawgiver requires, that he should maintain and fulfil his law, when it is violated by a rebellious subject. I have before spoken of the greatness and majesty of his being, how that is concerned in it. I now would consider the sacredness of his authority, as he stands related to his creatures as their Lawgiver. The majesty of a ruler consists very much in that which appears in him; that tends to strike the subject with reverence and awe, and dread of contempt of him, or rebellion against him. And it is fit that this awe and dread should be in proportion to the greatness and dignity of the ruler, and the degree of authority with which he is vested, But this awe and dread is by an apprehension of the terribleness of the consequences of that contempt and rebellion, and the degree of the danger of those terrible consequences, of the degree of connexion of that rebellion with those consequences. Therefore, if it he meet that this awe or this apprehension should be in proportion to the greatness and dignity of the ruler, then it is fit that the consequences of contempt of the Supreme Ruler of the world should be infinitely terrible, and the danger that it brings of punishment, or connexion that it has with it, be strong and certain, and consequently, that the threatenings which enforce his laws should be sure and inviolable, It is fit the authority of a ruler should be sacred proportionably to the greatness of that authority, i.e. in proportion to the greatness of the ruler, and his worthiness of honour and obedience, and the height of his exaltation above us, and the absoluteness of his dominion over us, and the strength of his right to our submission and obedience. But the sacredness of the authority of a sovereign consists in the strength of the enforcement of it, and guard that is about it, i. e, in the consequences of the violation to him that is guilty, and the degree of danger of these consequences. For the authority of a ruler does not consist in the power or influence he has on another by attractives, but coercives. The fence that is about the authority of a prince, that guards it as sacred, is the connexion there is between the violations of it, and the terrible consequences; or, in other words, in the strength or sureness of the threatening. Therefore, if this connexion be partly broken, the fence is partly broken: in proportion as the threatenings are weak, the guard is weak. But certainly it is fit that the authority of the infinitely great and absolute Lord of heaven and earth should be infinitely sacred, and should be kept so with an infinitely strong guard, and a fence without any breach in it, And it is not becoming the sacredness of the majesty and authority of the great, that that perfectly holy, just, and infinitely wise and good law, which he has established as the great rule for the regulation of all things in the universal commonwealth of beings, should be set aside, to give place to the infinitely unreasonable and vile opposition that sinners make to it, and their horrid and daring rebellion against it. 5th . The truth of the lawgiver makes it necessary that the threatening of the law should be fulfilled in every punctilio. The threatening of the law is absolute: Thou shalt surely die. It is true, the obligation does not lie in the claim of the person threatened, as it is in promises: for it is not to be supposed, that the person threatened will claim the punishment threatened. And indeed, if we look upon things strictly, those seem to reckon the wrong way, that suppose the necessity of the futurity of the execution to arise from an obligation on God in executing, properly consequent on his threatening. For the necessity of the connexion of the execution with the threatening, seems to arise directly the other way, viz, from the obligation that was on the omniscient God in threatening, consequent on the futurity of the execution. Though, strictly speaking, he is not obliged to execute because he has threatened, yet he was obliged not absolutely to threaten, if he at the same time knew that he should not and would not execute; because this would not have been consistent with his truth. So that, from the truth of God, there is an inviolable connexion between absolute threatening and execution; not so properly from an obligation on God to conform the execution to the past absolute threatening, as from his obligation to conferring his absolute threatening to the future execution. This God was absolutely obliged to do, as he would speak the truth. For if God absolutely threatened contrary to what he knew would come to pass, then he absolutely threatened contrary to what he knew to be truth.

And how any can speak contrary to what they know to be the truth, in declaring, promising, or threatening, or any other way, consistently with perfect and inviolable truth, I cannot conceive. Threatenings are significations of something; and, if they are made consistent with truth, or are true significations of any thing, they are significations of truth, or significations of that which is true. If absolute threatenings are significations of any thing, they are significations of the futurity of the thing threatened. But if the futurity of the thing threatened is not true, then how can the threatenings be true significations? And if God in them speaks contrary to what he knows, and contrary to what he intends; how he can speak true, is to me inconceivable, It is with absolute threatenings, as it is with predictions. When God has foretold something that shall come to pass hereafter, which does not concern our interest, and so is of the nature neither of a promise nor threatening, there is a necessary connexion betwixt the prediction and the fulfilment, but not by virtue of any claim we have to make; and so not properly by virtue of any obligation to fulfil, consequent on the prediction, but by virtue of an obligation on an omniscient Being in predicting, consequent on what he knew he would fulfil; an obligation to conform the prediction to the future event, It is as much against the veracity of God, absolutely to threaten what he knows he will not accomplish, as to predict what he knows he will not accomplish: for to do either, would be to declare, that that will be, which he at the same time does not intend shall he. Absolute threatenings are a sort of predictions. God in them foretells or declares what shall come to pass.

They do not differ from mere predictions, in the nature of the declaration or foretelling, but partly in the thing declared or foretold, being an evil to come upon us; and a mere prediction being of a thing different; and partly in the end of foretelling. In a threatening, the end of foretelling is to deter us from sinning; and predictions of things indifferent are for some other end. Absolute threatenings are God’s declarations of something future; and the truth of God does as much oblige him to keep the truth in declarations of what is future, as of what is past or present. For things past, present, and future, are all alike before God-all alike in his view, And when God declares to others what he sees himself, he is equally obliged to truth, whether the thing declared be past, present, or to come. And, indeed, there is no need of the distinction between present truth and future, in this case. For if any of God’s absolute threatenings are not to be fulfilled, those threatenings are declarations or revelations contrary, not only to future truth, but such a threatening is a revelation of the futurition of a punishment. That futurition is now present with God, when he threatens;-present in his mind, his knowledge. And if he signifies that a thing is future, which be knows not to be future; then the signification he gives is contrary to present truth, even contrary to what God now knows is future. Again, an absolute threatening is a signification of the present intention of him that threatens: and therefore, if he threatens what he does not intend to fulfil, then he signifies an intention to be, which is not; and so the threatening is contrary to the present truth. God’s absolute threatenings are a revelation to his subjects, of the appointed measures of their Judge’s proceeding with respect to their breaches of his law; and if they do not reveal what is indeed the intended method of the Judge’s proceeding, then it is not a true revelation.

There is a necessity of the fulfilment of God’s absolute promises both ways; viz, both by an obligation on God to foretell or declare, or foredeclare the future benefit, according to what he foresaw would be, and he intended should be; and also by an obligation on him to fulfil his promise consequent on his predicting, and by virtue of the claim of the person to whom the promise was made.

And there is also an obligation on God to fulfil his absolute threatenings consequent on his threatenings, indirectly, by virtue of many ill and undesirable consequences of the event’s being, beside the certain dependence or certain expectations raised by God’s threatenings, in the persons threatened, and others that are spectators; which consequences God may be obliged not to be a cause of. But threatenings do not properly bring an obligation on God, that is consequent on them as threatenings, as it is with promises.

As to those threatenings that are not positive or absolute, they are not necessarily followed with the punishment mentioned in them, because the possibility of escaping the punishment is either expressed or understood in the threatening. But the divine truth makes it necessary that there should be a certain connexion between them, that as much punishment be inflicted as is signified by them. If certain suffering be not signified by them, then there is no necessary connexion between them and certain suffering. If it be only signified in them, that there is great danger of the suffering, according to God’s ordinary method of dealing with men, and that, therefore, they, as they would act rationally, have great reason to fear it, seeing that God does not see cause to reveal what he will do to them: if this be all that is really contained and understood in the threatening, then this is all that the threatening is connected with. Or, if the proper meaning of the threatening be, that such suffering shall come, unless they repent, and this be all that can be fairly understood, then the truth of God makes no more necessary.

But God’s truth makes a necessary connexion between every threatening and every promise, and all that is properly signified in that threatening or promise. 2. The satisfaction of Christ by his death is certainly a very rational thing. If any person that was greatly obliged to me, that was dependent on me, and that I loved, should exceedingly abuse me, and should go on in an obstinate course of it from one year to another, notwithstanding all I could say to him, and all new obligations continually repeated; though at length he should leave it off, I should not forgive him, unless upon gos I considerations. But if any person that was a much X friend to me, and one that had always been true to me, and constant to the utmost, and that was a very near relation of him that offended me, should intercede for him, and, out of the entire love he had to him, should put himself to very hard labours and difficulties, and undergo great pains and miseries to procure him forgiveness; and the person that had offended should, with a changed mind, fly to this mediator, and should seek favour in his name, with a sense in his own mind bow much his mediator had done and suffered for him; I should be satisfied, and feel myself inclined, without any difficulty, to receive him into my entire friendship again; but not without the lastmentioned condition, that he should be sensible how much his mediator had done and suffered. For if he was ignorant of it, or thought he had done only some small matter, I should not be easy nor satisfied. So a sense of Christ’s sufficiency seems necessary in faith. 3. The apostle when he would express his willingness to made a sacrifice for his brethren the Jews, says, “I could wish myself accursed from Christ for my brethren:” Romans 9:3. See, concerning Moses, Exodus 32:32. Samuel 18:33.” O my son Absalom, my son, my son Absalom I would God I had died for thee.” This text expresses substitution; Matthew 20:28. “ To give his life a ransom for many.” Concerning this text, and the force of the preposition see Moncrief’s Review and Examination of the Principles of Campbell, p. 113, 114.

The laying of hands on the head of the sacrifice, was a token of putting the guilt of sin upon a person; agreeably to the customary signification of the imputation of guilt among the Hebrews. Thus the phrase, his blood shall be upon his own head, or on our heads, etc. was a phrase for the imputation of the guilt of blood. So Joshua 2:19. 1 Kings 2:32,33.” And the Lord shall return his blood upon his own head, who fell upon two men more righteous and better than he, and slew them with the sword, my father David not knowing thereof, to wit, Abner the son of Ner, captain of the host of Israel, and Amasa the son of Jether, captain of the host of Judah.

Their blood shall therefore return upon the head of Joab, and upon the head of his seed for ever; but upon David, and upon his seed, and upon his house, and upon his throne, shall there be peace for ever from the Lord.’

Verse 37.” For it shall be, that on the day thou goest out and passest over the brook Kidron, thou shalt know for certain that thou shalt surely die; thy blood shall be upon thine own head.” Verse 44. “The king said moreover to Shimei, Thou knowest all the wickedness which thine heart is privy to, that thou didst to David my father; therefore the Lord shall return thy wickedness upon thine own head.”

Abigail, when mediating between David and Nabal, when the former was provoked to wrath against the latter, and had determined to destroy him, Samuel 25:24. “fell at David’s feet and said, Upon me let this iniquity be, and let thy handmaid, I pray thee, speak in thy audience, and hear the voice of thy handmaid.” And in verse 28. she calls Nabal’s iniquity her iniquity, By this it appears, that a mediator’s putting himself in the stead of the offender, so that the offended party should impute the offence to him, and look on the mediator as having taken it upon him, looking on him as the debtor for what satisfaction should be required and expected, was in those days no strange notion, or considered as a thing in itself absurd and inconsistent with men’s natural notion of things.

Hebrews 12:24,25,26. “And to Jesus the mediator of the new covenant, and to the blood of sprinkling that speaketh better things than that of Abel.

See that ye refuse not him that speaketh. For if they escaped not who refused him that spake on earth; much more shall not we escape, if we turn away from him that speaketh froni heaven: whose voice then shook the earth. But now he hath promised, saying, Yet once more I shake not the earth only,” etc.

He that speaketh, whom the apostle warns us not to refuse, who spake once on earth, and whose voice shook the earth, and who now speaketh from heaven, and his voice shakes not only the earth but heaven, is he that is spoken of, verse 24. Jesus the mediator, etc. whose blood speaketh. The word ... signifies to speak divine oracles, and in Scripture is applied to God alone, When it is said he spake on earth, respect is had to God’s giving the law at mount Sinai, when his voice shook the earth, It is plain it was not the voice of Moses, or any created angel that is intended, by the whole history of the affair in Exodus. The people made great preparation to meet with God: God descended on the mount: he was there in the midst of angels; Psalm lxviii. 17.” From his right hand went the fiery law.”

Deuteronomy 33:2. And in giving the law he says, “I am the Lord thy God,” etc. He that in the book of Haggai 2:6,7. which the apostle refers to, says, “ Yet once more I shake the heaven and the earth,” is God. See Owen in loc. p. 273, 274, 278.

Christ is often represented as bearing our sins for us: Isaiah 53:4.” Surely he hath borne our griefs and carried our sorrows.” Verse II.” For he shall bear their iniquities.” Verse 12. “He hare the sin of many.” And with an evident reference to this last place, the apostle says, Hebrews 9:28.” So Christ was once offered to bear the sins of many: and to them that look for him, be shall appear the second time, without sin unto salvation.” And with a plain reference to verses 4, 5 of this 53rd. chapter of Isaiah, the apostle Peter says, 1 Peter 2:24. “ Who his own self bare our sins in his own body on the tree.”

The word translated here in Isaiah 53:4, and 12. is the same word, and the same phrase, of bearing sin and bearing iniquity, is often used concerning things which are the types of Christ’s priesthood and sacrifice, viz. the Levitical priests and sacrifices. It was no uncommon phrase, but usual, and well understood among the Jews; and we find it very often used in other cases, and applied to others besides either Christ or the types of him. And when it is so, it is plain, that the general meaning of the phrase is, lying under the guilt of sin, having it imputed and charged upon the person, as obnoxious to the punishment of it, or obliged to answer and make satisfaction for it; or liable to the calamities and miseries to which it exposes. In such a manner it seems always to be used, unless in some few places it signifies to take away sin by forgiveness. See Dr. Owen on Hebrews 9:28. and Pool’s Synopsis on Isaiah 53. And concerning their laying their hands on the head of the sacrifice, see also Pools Synopsis on Leviticus 1:4.

That God in the instituted ceremonies concerning the scape-goat, and the other goat that was sacrificed for a sin offering, intended that there should be a representation of having the guilt of sin on those goats; see Pool’s Synopsis on Leviticus 16:21,22,28.-It was an evidence that the two goats were to appear as if they were made sinful with the sins of the people, or unclean with their uncleanness, or guilty with their guilt, that he that brought the one, and he that let go the other, were both unclean, and were therefore to wash themselves with water, etc. Leviticus 16:26,28.

The translation of guilt or obligation to punishment was not a thing alien from men’s conceptions and notions of old in scripture times; neither the times of the Old Testament nor New; as appears by what the woman of Tekoa says, 2 Samuel 14:9. “My lord, O king, the iniquity be on me and on my father’s house, and the king and his throne he guiltless.” And by what the Jews said, when Pilate said of Christ, “ I am innocent of the blood of this just person, see ye to it;” Matthew 27:24,25. “ His blood be on us and on our children.” And the words of Rebekah, when Jacob objected against doing as she proposed, that he should bring a curse on himself and not a blessing; Genesis 27:13. “ On me be thy curse, my son, only obey my voice.” 1 Corinthians 15:17. “And if Christ be not raised, your faith is vain; ye are yet in your sins,” plainly shows how necessary it was, ‘that there should be something more than reformation, which was plainly in fact wrought, in order to iheir being delivered from their sins; even that atonement, the sufficiency of which God attested by raising our Great Surety from the grave.” — Doddridge in loc.

Defin. 1. By merit in this discourse, I mean any thing whatsoever in any person or being, or about him or belonging to him, which appearing in the view of another is a recommendation of him to that other’s regard, esteem, or affection. I do not at present take into consideration, whether that which thus recommends be real merit, or something that truly, according to the nature of things, is worthy to induce esteem, etc.; but only what actually recommends and appears worthy in the eye of him to whom it recommends the other; which is the case of every thing that is actually the ground of respect or affection in one towards another, whether the ground be real worth, or only agreement in temper, benefits received, near relation, long acquaintance, etc. etc. Whatever it be that is by the respecting person viewed in the person respected, that actually has influence, and is effectual to recommend to respect, is merit or worthiness of respect or fitness for it in his eves.

Defin. 2. By patron, I mean a person of superior dignity or merit, that stands for and espouses the interest of another, interposes between him and a third person or party, in that capacity to maintain, secure, or promote the interest of that other, by his influence with the third person, improving his merit with him, or interest in his esteem and regard for that end. And by client, I mean that other person whose interest the patron thus espouses, and in this manner endeavours to maintain and promote.

Having explained how I use these terms, I would now observe the following things: 1. It is not unreasonable or against nature, or without foundau ion in the reason and nature of things, that respect should be shown to one on account of his relation to, or union and connexion with, another: or, which is the same thing, that a person should be thought the proper object of respect or regard, viewed in that relation or connexion, which he is not the proper object of, viewed as by himself singly and separately: or, which is still the same thing, that a person should be thought worthy of respect, or meriting respect, on the account of the merit of the other person whom he stands related to, which he would not merit viewed by himself, taking the word here as it has been explained. 2. Whenever one is thus viewed, as having a merit of respect on the account of the merit of another that he stands related to, who has not that merit considered by himself, the merit of the person he is related to is imputed to him; and these persons so far are substituted the one in the place of the other. This is plain: for the person now accepted as having merit of respect, has not that merit in himself considered alone, but only as related to another that has merit in himself, and so is respected for the sake of the merit of that other; which is the very same thing as, in our view or consideration, transferring that merit from that other person to him, and viewing it in him as his merit, or merit that he is interested in, merit whose recommending influence becomes his in some degree; so that in all such cases here is an imputation and substitution in some degree. The merit of the one becomes the merit of the other in some degree; or, in other words, the recommending property, virtue, and influence of the one, becomes the recommending influence of the other, or influence that prevails to recommend the other; which is the same thing. Thus it is, when any one respects a near relation, or a child, or the spouse of a friend that is very dear and greatly esteemed for such a friend’s sake, or shows the relative or friend greater regard, seeks his welfare more, and shows him more kindness, than he would do if he were viewed out of such a relation or connexion, and entirely by himself.

Thus it is reasonable and natural, that one should be respected for the merit of another, and so his merit be in some degree imputed to another, and one person be substituted for another according to the natural sense of all mankind. 3. As it is the relation of one to another, or his union with him, that is the ground of the respect that is shown towards him for the other’s sake, and so the ground of substitution of the other in his stead, and of the imputation of the other’s merit in some degree, as has been observed; so it is manifest, that the greater or nearer that relation is, and the stricter the union, so much the more does it prevail for the acceptance of the person, or the object of respect, for the sake of him to whom he is united; or, in other words, the union, by how much greater and closer it is, by so much more it is a ground of his being accepted, as if he were one with the other, or of the other’s being substituted for him, and his merit’s being imputed in a greater degree, and more, as if he were the same. 4. If there be any such thing as a union of a person to another, as, for instance, a patron to a client, in such a certain degree, or in such a manner, as that, on the account of the degree and manner, it shall he peculiarly fit to look upon them as completely one and the same, as to all that concerns the interest of the client, with relation to the regard of the friend of the patron; then especially may the patron be taken by his friend as the substitute of the client, and his merit be imputed to him.

If it be inquired, what degree or manner of union may be looked upon thus complete: — I answer, When the patron’s heart is so united to the client, that when the client is to be destroyed, he, from love, is willing to take his destruction on himself, or what is equivalent thereto, so that the client may escape; then he may be properly accepted as perfectly one with regard to the interest of the client; for this reason, that his love to the client is such as thoroughly puts him into the place of the client in all that concerns his interest, even so as to absorb or swallow up his whole interest: because his love actually puts him in the room of the beloved, in that suffering or calamity which, being his total destruction, does swallow up and consume all his interest, without leaving the least pert of it.Therefore, love that will take that destruction, evidently takes in his whole interest. It appears to be an equal balance for it. His love puts him thoroughly in his client’s stead. If his love were such as made him willing to put himself in the other’s stead, in many cases where his interest was concerned, but yet not in a case where all is concerned, the union is not complete; he is partially, and not thoroughly, united. But when the love of the patron is such as to go through with the matter, and makes willing to put himself in the other’s stead, even in the case of the last extremity, and where the beloved is to be utterly and perfectly destroyed; then he is, as to his love, sufficiently united, so as to be accepted as completely one by his friend, in all that concerns the client’s welfare. 5. If a friend that is very dear to any person, and of great merit in the eyes of any person, not only stands in a strict union with another, but also does particularly express a great desire of that other’s welfare, and appears much to seek it; it is agreeable to nature, that the welfare of the person united to him should be regarded for his sake, and on his account, as if it were his own welfare. For, by means of this desire of the other’s welfare, his welfare becomes his own. For that good which any one desires, sets his heart upon, and seeks, thereby becomes his own good: it becomes a good that is grateful to him, or which tends to gratify and delight him: for it is grateful to all to have their desires gratified.

In such a case, the dear and worthy person makes the other’s interest his own by his explicit choice; by his own act he places his interest in the interest of the other, and so substitutes himself in the other’s stead, as to the affair of interest or welfare.

And the greater that desire appears, the more earnestly he seeks the other’s welfare, and the greater things he does to obtain it; so much the more does his interest become his own, and so much the more does he substitute himself in the room of the other. 6. Especially is the client’s welfare properly and naturally regarded, for the sake of the patron that is very dear and worthy in the eyes of any person, when the way in which the patron expresses the desire of the client’s welfare, that he is closely united to, and in which he seeks it, is by suffering and being at expense of his own personal and private welfare in any degree, for the welfare of the client. Expending one’s good or interest for another, is properly transferring the interest in the good expended, into the good sought: the expended good, which is the means, is properly set aside and removed, in the regard of him that is at the expense, and whose regard is placed on that good which is the end.

The good of the price is parted with, for the good of the thing purchased; and therefore, here is proper substitution of one in the place of the other.

In such a case therefore, in a more special manner, will it be proper and natural for one in whose eyes the patron is very worthy, and to whom he is very dear, to have regard to the welfare of the client for the patron’s sake, or for the sake of the patron’s merit: as, suppose the client of the excellent and dear patron be a child or spouse and the patron lays out himself exceedingly for client s redemption, and goes through many and very great hardships, and is at vast expense for the obtaining of it. 7. If the patron who seeks the welfare of the client, in his seeking of it, does particularly and directly apply himself to the person who has so high an esteem and affection for him, expressing his desires of the client’s welfare in request to him, and the endeavours that are used with him, and what is expended for the client’s welfare be given to him, expended for him, for his sake, promoting his ends, or for something that his friend regards as his own interest; then especially is it natural that the person, of whom his client’s welfare is sought, should be ready to grant it for his sake. 8. It is still more highly proper and natural to regard the client’s welfare on account of the patron’s merit, or to reckon the merit of the patron to his client’s account; if the merit of the patron consists, or especially appears, in what he does for his client’s welfare; or if the virtues and worthy qualities have their chief exercise, and do chiefly exhibit their amiableness, in those excellent and amiable acts which he performs in seeking the good of the client, in the deeds he performs on the account of the interest of the client, and in his applying to his friends for it; in the acts he performs as an intercessor with his friend for it, and the service he does him on this account. In this case, it is peculiarly natural to accept the client, on the account of the merit of the patron; for the merit is on his account, and has its existence for the sake of the client. 9. More especially is it natural, when his merit, above all, consists and appears in the very expense the patron is at of his own welfare, for the welfare of the client, or in the act of expending or exchanging the one for the other. For, as was observed before, such expense is properly regarded as a price of the client’s welfare; but when such merit is added to the price, this merit becomes the worth, value, or preciousness of the price; preciousness of another kind, besides merely the value of the natural good parted with. It adds a moral good to the price, equal to the natural good expended; so that the worthiness of the patron, and the value expended, are offered both together in one, as the price of the welfare of the client. 10. The thus accepting the patron’s merit, as being placed to the account of the client, will be more natural still, if the patron puts himself in the place of that client, undertaking to appear for him, to represent him, and act in his stead by an exceeding great change in his circumstances, clothes himself with the form of his client, goes where he is, takes his place in the universe, puts himself into his circumstances, and is in all things made like unto him, wherein this may be consistent with maintaining his merit inviolable. If the client be unworthy, and an offender, and has deserved ill of the person whose favour he needs, then abating and dismissing resentment, or lessening or withholding the evil deserved, for the sake of the merit of the patron, is equivalent to a positive favour for his sake, in case of no offence and demerit of punishment. 11. If the person that needs favour be an offender and unworthy, then, in order to a proper influence and effect of the union and merit of a patron, to induce his friend to receive him into favour on h is account, the union of the patron with his client, and his undertaking and appearing as his patron to seek favour for him, should he in such a manner, and attended with such circumstances, as not to diminish his merit, i.e. so as that his union with and intercession for the client, shall not in the least infringe on these two things, viz. the patron s own union with his friend, whose favour he seeks for the client, and his merit strictly so called, i. e, his own virtue. For if his own worthiness be diminished by his union with one that is unworthy, then his influence to recommend the client one way, is destroyed one way, at the same time that it is established another. For the recommending influence consists in the two things, viz. his merit, and his union with the client.

Therefore, if one of these is diminished or destroyed, as the other is advanced and established; nothing is done on the whole toward recommending the client. Therefore, in order that, on the whole, the client be effectually recommended, it is necessary that the patron’s union to an offending unworthy client should be attended with such circumstances, that it shall not be at all consistent with these two things, his regard to his friend, and his regard to virtue or holiness: for in these two things consists his merit in the eyes of his friend and therefore it is necessary, that his appearing united to his unworthy and offending client should be with such circumstances as most plainly to demonstrate, that he perfectly disapproves of his offence and unworthiness, and to show a perfect regard to virtue, and to the honour and dignity of his offended injured friend. There is no way that this can be so thoroughly and fully done, as by undertaking himself to pay the debt to the honour and rights of his injured friend, and to honour the rule of virtue and righteousness the client has violated, by putting himself in the stead of the offender, into subjection to the injured rights and violated authority of his offended friend, and under the violated law and rule of righteousness belonging to one in the client’s state; and so, for the sake of the honour of his friend’s authority, and the rule of righteousness, suffering the whole penalty due to the offender, and which would have been requisite to be suffered by him, for the maintaining the honour and dignity of those things; and himself, by such great condescension, and under such self-denial, honouring those rights and rules by his obedience and perfect conformity to them; hereby giving the most evident testimony to all beholders, that although he loves his client and seeks his welfare, yet he had rather be humbled so how, deny himself so greatly, and suffer so much, than that his welfare should be in the least diminished, his authority weakened, and his honour and his dignity degraded. 12. If the patron be, in the eyes of him whose favour is sought, of very great dignity, it is agreeable to reason and nature that this should have influence to procure greater favour to the client than if he were of less dignity. And when it is inquired, whether there be a sufficiency in the patron and his relation to his client, to answer such a degree of favour as is proposed to be obtained for him; the dignity of the patron is one thing that is to be estimated and put into the scales, with the degree of favour sought, in order to know whether it be sufficient to countervail it. By dignity, I here intend, not only the degree of virtue and relation to his friend, of whom he seeks favour, but the greatness of the person of the patron.

If, in adjusting this matter, the dignity that is viewed in the patron, and his friend’s regard to him, be so great, that, considered with the degree of the patron’s union with his client, there is a sufficiency to countervail all the favour that the client needs, or the utmost that he is capable of receiving, then there is a perfect sufficiency in the patron for the client, or a sufficiency completely to answer and support the whole interest of the client; or a sufficiency in his friend’s regard to the patron, wholly to receive, take in, and comprehend the client, with regard to his whole interest, or all that pertains to his welfare; or, which is the same thing, a sufficiency fully to answer for him as his representative and substitute, in all that pertains to his welfare. 13. If the patron and client are equals as to greatness of being or degree of existence, and the degree of the patron’s union with his client should be such (and that were possible) that he regarded the interest of the client equally with his own personal interest; then it would be natural for the patron’s friend to regard the client’s welfare for the sake of the patron, as much as he regards the patron’s own personal welfare: because, when the case is so, the patron is as strictly united to the client as he is to himself, and his client’s welfare becomes perfectly, and to all intents and purposes, his own interest, as much as his personal welfare; and therefore, as the love of his friend to him disposes him to regard whatever is his interest, to such a degree as it is his interest; so it must dispose him to regard the client’s welfare in an equal degree with his own personal interest; because, by the supposition, it is his interest in an equal degree. But this must be here provided or supposed, viz. not only that so strict a union of the patron and client be possible, but also that it be proper, or that there be no impropriety or unfitness in it; because if it be unfit, then the patron’s being so strictly united to him, diminishes his merit; because merit, at least in part, consists in a regard to what is proper and fit; and if the degree of union be unfit, it diminishes the influence of that union to recommend the client one way, as much as it increases it another. 14. If the patron and client are not equals, but the patron be greater and vastly superior as to rank and degree of existence, it gives greater weight to his union, as to its influence with the friend of the patron, to recommend the client; so that a less degree of union of the patron with the client may be equivalent to a greater union, in case of equality.

Therefore, in this case, though the union be not so great as that his regard to the client’s interest should be equal with his own personal interest, but may be much less, yet his regard to it may be such, that its recommending influence may be equivalent to that which is fully equal in the case of equality of persons; and therefore may be sufficient to answer the same purposes towards the client, and consequently to be perfectly sufficient for the client, with regard to the client’s whole interest. 15. From these things, we may gather this as a rule whereby to judge, whether there be a sufficiency in the patron’s union with his client, to answer for the whole interest of the client with the patron’s friend, with respect to the degree of union of the patron, and the degree of greatness where there is no defect of merit in other respects, viz, that the patron’s union with the client shall be such, that considering jointly both the degree of greatness, and degree of union, the patron’s union with his client shall be as considerable and weighty, and have as much recommending influence, as if, in case of equality of the patron with his client, the union between them was so great, that the patron’s regard to the welfare of the client were equal to his own. 16. Then the union of the patron has its measure and proportion according to the rule now mentioned, and so is sufficient to answer his whole interest; when the degree of his regard to his client’s interest stands in the same proportion to his regard to his own personal interest, as the degree oF the capacity of the client stands in to the degree of his own capacity; for the degrees of capacity are as the greatness or the degrees of existence of the person. 17. When the patron’s regard to his client is thus proportioned, that is, when he regards the client’s interest as h is own, according to the client’s capacity, then such a union may most fitly and aptly be represented, by the client’s being taken by the patron to be as a part or member of himself, as though he were a member of his body. For men love each part of themselves as themselves, but yet not each part equally with themselves; but each part as themselves, according to the measure of the capacity of the part. A man loves his little finger as himself’. but not equally with the head; but yet with the same love he bears to himself, according to the place, measure, and capacity of the little finger. 18. The most proper and plain trial and demonstration of this sufficiency of union of the patron with the client, consisting in such a proportion of regard to his welfare as has been mentioned, is the patron’s being willing to bear sufferings for the client, or in his stead, that are equivalent to sufferings which properly belong to the latter; which equivalence of sufferings must be determined by a joint estimation of these two things, viz. the degree of suffering, and the greatness of the sufferer. When the effect of the patron’s love to the client is a suffering for the client that is equal in value or weight to the client’s suffering, considering the difference of the degree of persons; it shows, that the love to the client, which is the cause of this suffering, is also equal or equivalent to his love for himself, according to the different degree of the persons.

The most proper and clear trial of the measure of love or regard to the interest of another, is the measure of suffering, or expense of personal interest, for the interest of the beloved. So much as the lover regards the welfare of the beloved, so much in value or weight of his own welfare, will he be willing to part with for it. If the value of the welfare obtained, be in the regard of the sufferer, fully equal to the value of the welfare parted with, then, there being an equal balance, no preponderation of self-love will hinder parting with one for the other. The love therefore is sufficient and equal to self-love, allowing only for the difference of capacity or greatness of the persons; as the sufferings are equal, allowing for the same difference of the degree of persons. 19. There can be but one thing more requisite, according to the nature of things, in order to its being to all intents and purposes proper and suitable that the patron should be accepted as one with the client, in what pertains to the client’s interest, and his merits being imputed to the client, and his having favour on the account of it; which is this, that seeing the client is an intelligent being, capable of act and choice, he should therefore actively and cordially concur in the affair; that the union between the patron and him should be mutual; that as the patron’s heart is united to the client, so the client’s heart should be united to the patron; that as there is that disposition and those acts appearing in the patron that are proper to the character and relation of a patron, in undertaking for the client to appear for him before his friend, as his representative, guardian, deliverer, and saviour, and condescending to him to do and suffer all for him needful for his help and advancement; so there must also appear in the client those dispositions and acts that are proper to the character and relation of a client, clearing to him, committing his cause to him, and trusting in him, in an entire approbation of the patron’s friendship, kind undertaking, and patronage: and not only an approbation of the patron’s union to him, by which he avails for his being as one with him, but also of the patron’s union to his friend, whose favour he seeks, which union with his friend avails to the acceptance of the patron; and also an entire approbation of the benefits which the patron seeks of his friend for the client; or, in one word, a cordial and entire faith of the client in his patron. When there is thus a mutual union between the patron and client, and a union throughout between them both, and the friend whose favour is sought, together with those things before mentioned, there is every thing requisite in order to the fitness of the acceptance of the client on the account of the patron, and his receiving such favour from the patron’s friend, as is requisite to all that pertains to the client’s welfare; so that such acceptance and such favour shall be in all respects proper, according to the nature of things, and common sense of intelligent beings, and of no evil or improper consequence. 4. “Besides the dignity of Christ’s sufferings directly arising from the dignity of his person, there is another consideration, by which the value of our Saviour’s sufferings ought to be estimated. As an indignity is always rated by the presumption, and as the presumption bears an exact proportion to the meanness of the person insulting, and to the greatness of the party insulted; so, in like manner all acts of condescension are estimated by the humility, and that again by the dignity, of the condescending person, and by the lowness and denierit of the party condescended to.” Deism Revealed, edit. 2. vol. 1:p. 252, 253. 5. “It were (as an excellent writer has expressed it) manifestly more honourable and worthy of God, not to have exacted any recompence at all, than to have accepted, in the name of a sacrifice, such as were unproportionable, and beneath the value of what was to be remitted and conferred. What had been lower, must have been infinitely lower. Let any thing he supposed less than God, and it falls immensely short of him. Such is the distance between created being and uncreated, that the former is as nothing to the latter. And therefore, bring the honour and majesty of the Deity to any thing less than an equal value, and you bring it to nothing.

And this had been quite to lose the design of insisting upon a recompence: it had been to make the majesty of heaven cheap, and depreciate the dignity of the divine government, instead of rendering it august and great.” Rawlin on Justification, p. 104, 105. 6. It is said, that God is not obliged to fulfil his threatenings of punishment of sin. — Not to dispute about the import of the word obliged, let it be considered, whether it is not fit that God should fulfil his threatenings. If any answer, no; then I would inquire further, whether the fitness of things does not require that God should pay some regard to his threatenings that belong to his law as its sanction; whether the law with its sanctions be not published or exhibited, that his subjects may view it as a rule of proceeding between the lawgiver and his subjects; and whether it can have the influence intended, or indeed any significancy, if it be not understood as such in some measure. Therefore, if it be not fit that God should act impertinently and insignificantly, it surely is fit that some regard should be paid to the law, not only in the actions of the subject, but also in the proceedings of the Judge. And if it be fit that some regard should he paid to it, how great a regard? If the rule may be set aside and departed from in one instance, why not in two? and why not in four? where are the limits?

The threatenings are no further sanctions, than they are supposed to be declarations of truth. Therefore is it not fit th at the threatenings of the law should be neglected. Truth is a thing which should always attend them in an inviolable manner. If God has reserved to himself the liberty of departing from the rule at his pleasure, without any signification beforehand, or any reason given to determine what his pleasure will be; then, how can the subject know but that he will always depart from it? 7. Texts taken from Rawlin on justification, which show that the holiness and justice of God insist on sin’s being punished. Leviticus 10:3. “Then Moses said unto Aaron, This is it that the Lord spake, saying, I will be sanctified in them that come nigh me, and before all the people I will be glorified.” Psalm 11:6,7. “Upon the wicked he shall rain snares, fire, and brimstone, and a horrible tempest; this shall be the portion of their cup. For the righteous Lord loveth righteousness: his countenance doth behold the upright.” Exodus 34:7. “Keeping mercy for thousands, forgiving iniquity, and transgression, and sin, and that will by no means clear the guilty; visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children, and upon the children’s children, unto the third and to the fourth generation.” Job 34:10,11. “Therefore hearken unto me, ye men of understanding. Far be it from God that he should do wickedness, and from the Almighty that he should commit iniquity. For the work of a man shall he render unto him, and cause every man to find according to his ways.” Job 10:14. “If I sin, then thou makest me, and thou wilt not acquit me from mine iniquity.” Chapter 7:20. “ I have sinned, what shall I do unto thee, O thou preserver of men? Why hast thou set me as a mark against thee, so that I am a burden to myself?”

Joshua 24:19. “And Joshua said unto the people, Ye cannot serve the Lord; for he is a holy God; he is a jealous God; he will not forgive your transgressions nor your sins.” 8. It was needful, that he that was a Mediator between two parties, that are distant and alienated one from the other, to be the middle person to unite them together, should himself be united to both. Otherwise he could not, by coming between them, be a bond of union between them. And if he be a Mediator between God and guilty men, it was necessary that he should unite himself to them, or assume them as it were to himself. But if he unites himself to guilty creatures, he of necessity brings their guilt on himself. If he unites himself to them that are in debt, he brings their debt on himself.

He cannot properly unite himself to a rebel against God, and one that is obnoxious to God’s wrath, and is condemned to condign punishment, to be a Mediator to bring God to be at peace with him, without voluntarily taking his sufferings on himself; because otherwise his undertaking for such a one, and uniting himself to such a one, will appear like countenancing his offence and rebellion. But if at the same time that he unites himself to him, he takes it upon himself to bear his penalty, it quite takes off all such appearance. He shows, that though he loves the rebel that has affronted the Divine Majesty, yet he at the same time has the greatest possible abhorrence of the injury to God’s majesty, and dishonour to his name, in that he regards the honour of God’s majesty so much as to be willing to endure so extreme sufferings, that the divine glory and majesty may not be injured, but fully maintained. 9. Christ suffered the wrath of God for men’s sins in such a way as he was capable of, being an infinitely holy person, who knew that God was not angry with him personally, knew that God did not hate him, but infinitely loved him. The wicked in hell will suffer the wrath of God, as they will have the sense, and knowledge, and sight of God’s infinite displeasure towards them and hatred of them. But this was impossible in Jesus Christ.

Christ therefore could bear the wrath of God in no other but these two ways. 10. In having a great and clear sight of the infinite wrath of God against the sin of men, and the punishment they had deserved, This it was. most fit that he should have, at the time when he was suffering in their stead, and paying their ransom to deliver them from that wrath and punishment. That he might know what he did, that he might act with full understanding at the time when he made expiation and paid a ransom for sinners to redeem them from hell, first, It was requisite that at that time he should have a clear sight of two things, viz, of the dreadful evil and odiousness of that sin that he suffered for, that he might know how much it deserved the punishment; that it might be real and actual grace in him, that he undertook and suffered such things for those that were so unworthy and so hateful; which it could not be, if he did not know how unworthy they were. Secondly, It was requisite he should have a clear sight of the dreadfulness of the punishment that he suffered to deliver them from, otherwise he would not know how great a benefit he vouchsafed them in redeeming them from this punishment; and so it could not be actual grace in him to bestow so great a benefit upon them; as, in the time that he bestowed, he would not have known how much he bestowed; he would have acted blindfold in giving so much. Therefore Christ, doubtless, actually had a clear view of both those things in the time of his last suffering: every thing in the circumstances of his last suffering concurred to give him a great and full sight of the former, viz. the evil and hateful nature of the sin of man. For its odious and malignant nature never appeared so much in its own proper colours, as it did in that act of murdering the Son of God, and in exercising such contempt and cruelty towards him. Likewise, every thing in the circumstances of his last sufferings tended to give him a striking view of the dreadful punishment of sin. The sight of the evil of sin tended to this, and so did the enduring of temporal death, that is a great image of eternal death, especially under such circumstances, with such extreme pain, God’s hiding his face, his dying a death that by God’s appointment was an accursed death, having a sight of the malice and triumph of devils, and being forsaken of his friends, etc. As God ordered external circumstances to help forward this purpose; so, there is all reason to think, that his own influences on Christ’s mind were agreeable hereto, his spirit acting with his providence to give him a full view of these things. Now the clear view of each of these must of necessity be inexpressibly terrible to the man Christ Jesus. His having so clear an actual view of sin and its hatefulness, was an idea infinitely disagreeable to the holy nature of Christ; and therefore, unless balanced with an equal sight of good that comes by this evil, must have been an immensely disagreeable sensation in Christ’s soul, or, which is the same thing, immense suffering, But that equally clear idea of good, to counterbalance the evil of sin, was not given at that time; because God forsook Christ, and hid himself from him, and withheld comfortable influences, or the clear ideas of pleasant objects. Thus, Christ bare our sins; God laid on him the iniquities of us all, and he bare the burden of them; and so, his bearing the burden of our sins may be considered as something diverse from his suffering God’s wrath. For his suffering wrath consisted more in the sense he had of the other thing, viz. the dreadfulness of the punishment of sin, or the dreadfulness of God’s wrath inflicted for it. Thus, Christ was tormented not only in the fire of God’s wrath, but in the fire of our sins; and our sins were his tormentors; the evil and malignant nature of sin, was what Christ endured immediately, as well as more remotely, in bearing the consequences of it.

Thus Christ suffered that which the damned in hell do not suffer. For they do not see the hateful nature of sin. They have no idea of sin in itself, that is infinitely disagreeable to their nature, as the idea of sin was to Christ’s holy nature; though conscience in them be awakened to behold the dreadful guilt and desert of sin. And as the clear view of sin in its hatefulness necessarily brought great suffering on the holy soul of Christ; so also did the view of its punishment. For both the evil of sin and the evil of punishment are infinite evils, and both infinitely disagreeable to Christ’s nature: the former to his holy nature, or his nature as God; the latter to his human nature, or his nature as man. Such is human nature, that a great, and clear, and full idea of suffering, without some other pleasant and sweet idea to balance it, brings suffering; as appears from the nature of all spiritual ideas. They are repetitions (in a degree at least) of the things themselves of which they are ideas. Therefore, if Christ had a perfectly clear and full idea of what the damned suffer in hell, the suffering he would have had in the mere presence of that idea, would have been perfectly equal to the thing itself, if there had been no idea in Christ in any degree to balance it; such as, some knowledge of the love of God, of a future reward, future salvation of his elect, etc. But pleasant ideas in this clearness being in a great measure withholden by reason of God’s hiding his hence, the awful ideas of eternal death which his elect people deserved, and of the dismal wrath of God, of consequence filled the soul of Christ with an inexpressible gloom.

Though Christ knew the love of God to him, and knew he should be successful in his sufferings; yet when God forsook him, those dismal views, those gloomy ideas, so fixed and swallowed up his mind, that though be had the habitual knowledge of those other objects, yet he could not attend to them; he could have comparatively but little comfort and support from them; for they could afford support no further than they were attended to, or were in actual view.

Christ’s great love and pity to the elect (that his offering up himself on the cross was the greatest act and fruit of, and consequently which he was then in the highest exercise of) was one source of his suffering. A strong exercise of love excites a lively idea of the object beloved. And a strong exercise of pity excites a lively idea of the misery under which he pities them. Christ s love then brought his elect infinitely near to him in that great act and suffering wherein he especially stood for them, and was substituted in their stead: and his love and pity fixed the idea of them in his mind, as if he had really been they; and fixed their calamity in his mind, as though it really was his. A very strong and lively love and pity towards the miserable, tends to make their case ours; as in other respects, so in this in particular, as it doth in our idea place us in their stead, under their misery, with a most lively, feeling sense of that misery, as it were feeling it for them, actually suffering it in their stead by strong sympathy.

Coroll. 1. Hence we may see how the same thing, the same ideas that distressed the soul of Christ and brought on his amazing sufferings, engaged him to go through them. It was ordered that the bitterness of the cup, though exceedingly dreadful, was of that nature, or consisted in that, that the tasting of that bitterness was the thing that engaged him to go on to drink up the cup; and that as the bitterness of it arose from each of the forementioned things. (1.) As it arose from the clear idea he had then given him of the infinitely hateful and dreadful nature of sin. The more lively this idea was, the more dreadful was it to the soul of Christ; and yet, the more lively his idea of the hatefulness and dreadfulness of sin was, which consist in disobedience to God, the more did it engage him not to disobey, himself, that great command he had received of his Father, viz.

That he should drink this cup, and go through those sufferings.

The more he had a sense how dreadful it is to contemn the authority of God, and to dishonour his holy name; the more would he be engaged to remove and abolish this dishonour, and to honour the authority of God himself. The more he had a sense of what an odious and dreadful thing sin was, the more would his heart be engaged to do and suffer what was necessary to take away this dreadful and odious thing, from those his heart was united to in love, viz, those that the Father had given him. (2.) It was the lively exercise of love and pity to those that the Father had given him, that was one thing that occasioned so lively a view of the punishment they had exposed themselves to, whereby his soul was filled with a dismal sense, and so he suffered. But this lively love and pity at the same time engaged him to suffer for them, to deliver them from their deserved punishment that he had an idea of. And as pity towards his elect excited a lively idea of their misery: so, on the other band, the increase of his idea of their misery excited strong exercises of pity, and this pity engaged him still to endure those sufferings in their stead.

Coroll. 2 . From what has been said, we may learn how Christ was sanctified in his last sufferings. The suffering of his soul in great part consisted in the great and dreadful sense and idea that he then had given him of the dreadful, horrid odiousness of sin; which was done by the Spirit of God. But this could not be, without a proportionable increase of his aversion to and hatred of sin; and consequently of his inclination to the contrary, which is the same thing as an increase of the holiness of his nature. Beside the immediate sight he had given him of the odious nature of sin, he had that strong sense and that great experience of the bitter fruit and consequences of sin, to confirm his enmity to it. Moreover he was then in the exercise of his highest act of obedience or holiness, which, tending to increase the principle, the bringing forth of such great and abundant fruit, tended to strengthen and increase the root. Those last sufferings of Christ, were in some respect like a fire to refine the gold. For though the furnace purged away no dross or filthiness, yet it increased the preciousness of the gold; it added to the finite holiness of the human nature of Christ. Hence Christ calls his offering himself up, his sanctifying himself; “And for their sakes I sanctify myself, that they also may be sanctified through the truth.” (John 17:19) Hence he calls those last sufferings a baptism that he was to be baptized with. It was a baptism to him in two respects, as it purged him from imputed guilt, and as it increased his holiness by the Spirit of God, that gave him those terrible but sanctifying views. And so this is one way in which the Captain of our salvation is made perfect by sufferings; Hebrews 2:10. and 5:9. and Luke 13:22. Thus Christ, before he was glorified, was prepared for that high degree of glory and joy he was to be exalted to, by being first sanctified in the furnace.

II. Another way in which it was possible that Christ should endure the wrath of God was, to endure the effects of that wrath. All that he suffered was by the special ordering of God. There was a very visible hand of God, in letting men and devils loose upon him at such a rate, and in separating from him his own disciples. Thus it pleased the Father to bruise him and put him to grief. God dealt with him as if he had been exceedingly angry with him, and as though he had been the object of his dreadful wrath. This made all the sufferings of Christ the more terrible to him, because they were from the hand of his Father, whom he infinitely loved, and whose infinite love he had had eternal experience of. Besides, it was an effect of God’s wrath, that he forsook Christ. This caused Christ to cry out once and again, “My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?” This was infinitely terrible to Christ. Christ’s knowledge of the glory of the Father, and his love to the Father, and the sense and experience he had had of the worth of the Father’s love to him, made the withholding the pleasant ideas and manifestations of his Father’s love as terrible to him, as the sense and knowledge of his hatred is to the damned, that have no knowledge of God’s excellency, no hove to him, nor any experience of the infinite sweetness of his love.

It was a special fruit of the wrath of God against our sins, that he let loose upon Christ the devil, who has the power of death, is God’s executioner, and the roaring lion that devours the damned in hell. Christ was given up to the devil as his captive for a season. This antitype of Jonah was thrown to this great leviathan, to be swallowed up as his prey. The time of Christ’s suffering, was the time of the prevalency of the power of the devil, wherein Christ was delivered up to that power, as implied in Luke 22:53. “When I was daily with you in the temple, ye stretched no hands against me: but this is your hour, and the power of darkness.”

And therefore, when Christ’s last sufferings were approaching, Christ said, John 14:30. “The prince of this world cometh.” He was let loose to torment the soul of Christ with gloomy and dismal ideas. He probably did his utmost to contribute to raise his ideas of the torments of hell. 10. That God should all along require sacrifices in his church, and that something should be done by all that came near to him and worshipped him, or appeared in his presence to make atonement for their sins; insomuch that sacrificing obtained throughout the world in all nations and ages; and that such a multitude of sacrifices should be appointed; that sacrifices should be offered so continually, and on so many occasions, and joined with all their public worship; was a plain testimony of God, that a real atonement or satisfaction to his justice was necessary, and that God did not design, that, in his manner of dealing with mankind, men should be pardoned and accepted without atonement. And if there was nothing of true and real atonement and sacrifice, in those beasts that were offered, then doubtless they were an evidence, that there was to be some other greater sacrifice, that was to be a proper atonement or satisfaction, of which they were only the presage and signs; as those symbolical actions which God sometimes commanded the prophets to perform, were signs and presages of great events which they foretold.

God abundantly testified by the sacrifices from the beginning of the world, that an atonement for sin was necessary, and must be insisted on in order to his acceptance of the sinner. This proves that a sacrifice of infinite value was necessary, and that God would accept of no other.

For an atonement that bears no proportion to the offence is no atonement.

An atonement carries in it a payment or satisfaction in the very notion of it.

And if satisfaction was so little necessary, that the Divine Majesty easily admitted one that bears no proportion at all to the offence, i.e. was wholly equivalent to nothing, when compared with the offence, and so was no payment or satisfaction at all; then he might have forgiven sin without any atonement; and an atonement could not be so greatly to be insisted upon, as is represented by all the prodigious expense and labour, and multitude of services, and ceremonies, and so great an apparatus, and so great pomp, which, with so much exactness, were prescribed to be continued through so many ages, respecting their typical sacrifices and atonements, and from God’s church were propagated through the world of mankind.

That no mere creature could offer to God that true sacrifice of real atonement, of which the Old-Testament sacrifices were resemblances or shadows, is evident hy the Old Testament. For by the Old Testament it is evident, that that is not sufficient to be looked upon by God as any real atonement or sacrifice for sin, which is God’s before it is offered to him. In the fiftieth Psalm we have a prophecy of Christ’s coming to set up his kingdom in the world. There it is said in the 5th and following verses,” Gather my saints together unto me: those that have made a covenant with me by sacrifice” (where we may observe that the necessity of sacrifices is implied). “And the heavens shall declare his righteousness; for God is judge himself. Selab. Hear, O my people, and I will speak; O Israel, and I will testify against thee: I am God, even thy God. I will not reprove thee for thy sacrifices, or thy burnt-offerings, to have been continually before me. I will take no bullock out of thy house, nor he-goats out of thy folds. For every beast of the forest is mine, and the cattle upon a thousand hills. I know all the fowls of the mountains, and the wild beasts of the field are mine. If I were hungry, I would not tell thee; for the world is mine, and the fulness thereof.” But no mere creature can have any thing to offer to God which is not his already: for all that he has is God’s gift to him. 11. That Christ indeed suffered the full punishment of the sin that was imputed to him, or offered that to God that was fully and completely equivalent to what we owed to divine justice for our sins, is evident by Psalm 69:5. “Oh God, thou knowest my foolishness, and my sins” (my guiltiness it is in the Hebrew) “are not hid from thee.” That the person that is the subject of this Psalm, and that is here speaking, is the Messiah, is evident from many places in the New Testament, in which it is applied to Christ; as, John 15:25. and John 2:17. and Romans 15:3. 2 Corinthians 6:2.

John 19:28,29,30. with Matthew 27:34,48. and Mark 15:23. and Romans 11:9,10. Acts 1:20. And by the Psalm itself, especially when compared with other Psalm and prophecies of the Old Testament, it is plain that David, in this Psalm, did not speak in his own name, but in the name of the Messiah. — See Of the Prophecies of the Messiah, in a succeeding part of this volume.

But if it be the Messiah that is here speaking, then by the sin and guiltiness that he here speaks of, must be intended, not sin that he himself committed, but that sin that was laid upon him, or that he took upon him, spoken of Isaiah 53, And when Christ says,” O God, thou knowest my foolishness, and my guiltiness is not hid from thee;” thereby must be meant, that God did not forgive that which was imputed to him, but punished it. When God forgives sin, and does not execute punishment for it, then he is said not to behold iniquity, nor see perverseness; and to cover, and hide, and bury their sins, so that they cannot be seen or found; and to turn away his face from beholding them, and not to remember them any more. But when God does not remit sin, but punishes it, then, in the language of the Old Testament, he is said to find out their sins, to set them before him in the light of his countenance, to remember them, to bring them to remembrance, and to know them. And therefore, when it is said here,” O God, thou hast known my foolishness, and my guiltiness bust thou not hid;” thereby is intended, that he forgives nothing to the Messiah, but beholds all his guiltiness by imputed sin, has set all in the light of his countenance, and does not cover or hide the least part of it. 12. Satisfaction for sin must he complete. God declares, that those sinners that are not forgiven, shall pay the uttermost farthing, and the last mite; and that all the debt shall be exacted of them, etc. Now, it seems unreasonable to suppose, that God, in case of a surety, and of his insisting on an atonement made by him, will show mercy, by releasing the surety without a full atonement, any more than that he will show mercy to the sinner that is punished, by not insisting on the complete punishment. 13. Christ’s knowing his own infinite dignity and glory, and having it in view in the time of his humiliation, is mentioned as a circumstance that is important and of great consequence in that humiliation; John 13:3,4. “Jesus knowing that the Father had given all things into his hands, and that he was come from God, and went to God,” etc. 14. “ Those expressions of the apostle [concerning Christ’s satisfaction and righteousness, and the operations of the Spirit] are to be understood in the common sense and meaning of the words, and not as far-fetched metaphors. For it is evident, that in all this he does not affect the arts of oratory, nor assume a magnificent air of writing, nor does he raise himself into sublimity of style, nor rant in an enthusiastic manner, when he treats of these subjects. But while he is explaining to us these great things of the gospel, he avoids the wisdom of words and oratory, and he talks in a plain, rational, argumentative method, to inform the minds of men, and give them the clearest knowledge of the truth.” Watts’s Orthodoxy and Charity. 15. Let us consider how a perfectly wise, holy, and disinterested Arbiter, whose office it should be to regulate all things within the whole compass of existence according to the most perfect propriety, would determine, in case the creature should injure the Most High, should cast contempt on the majesty, and trample on the authority of the infinite Lord of the universe, whether he would not determine, that in such a case the injury should be repaired, his majesty vindicated, and the sacredness of the authority thoroughly supported; and that it was very requisite, in order to things being regulated and disposed most fitly and beautifully, that such injuries should not be forgiven in the neglect of this, or without due care taken of this matter. If it be fit that the honour of God’s majesty should be maintained at all in any degree, (which I suppose none will deny,) then why is it not most fit that it should be maintained fully? If it would be quite improper and unsuitable, that the dignity of the Supreme Being, the sacredness of the authority of the in finitely great Governor of the world, should be entirely neglected, should be suffered at all times, and to the greatest degree, to be trampled on, without any care to defend or support it; and that the majesty of this great King, as to the manifestation of it, should be obscured by his enemies to the greatest degree, and that continually and for ever, without any vindication or reparation at all; then why is it not most suitable and most becoming, that the vindication of it should be thorough, and the reparation complete and perfect?

What has been observed, may serve to show the reasonableness of the doctrine of the satisfaction of Christ; and that it is most rational to suppose, that if God did determine to forgive such as had cast contempt on his infinite majesty, and on his authority, as the infinitely high Lord over all, and to take such into favour, Infinite Wisdom Would some way or other so contrive the matter, that the injury done to the appearance or exhibition of the dignity and sacred authority of the great King, should be fully repaired, and his majesty entirely vindicated, and set forth in all awfulness, inviolable sacredness, and worthiness of regard and reverence. It cannot here be reasonably objected, that God is not capable of properly receiving any benefit; that a price offered to men satisfies for an injury, because it may truly be a price to them, or a thing valuable and beneficial, but that God is not capable of receiving a benefit. For God is as capable of receiving satisfaction as injury. It is true, he cannot properly be profited; so neither can he be properly hurt. But as rebelling against him may properly be looked upon as of the nature of an injury or wrong done to God, and so God is capable, in some proper sense, of being the object of injuriousness; so he is as capable of being the object of that which is the opposite of injuriousness, or the repairing of an injury. If you say, what need is therethat God have any care, for repairing the honour of his majesty, when it can do him no good, and no addition can be made to his happiness by it?

You might as well say, what need is there that God care when he is despised and dishonoured, and his authority and glory trampled on; since it does him no hurt? It is a vain thing here to pretend, that God cares only, because it hurts creatures’ own happiness for them to cast contempt on God. Is that agreeable to the natural light of all men’s minds, to the natural sense of their hearts, and to the dictates of conscience, which unavoidably and necessarily arise, after some very direct, most profane, and daring opposition to and reproach of the Most High, that God is now angry and much provoked, only because the audacious sinner has now greatly hurt himself, and hurt his neighbours, that happen to see him? No, this is entirely diverse from the voice of natural sense in such a case, which inevitably suggests, that God is provoked, as one will regard himself for himself, as having a direct respect for his dignity and majesty. And this is agreeable to the strictest reason. It is impossible, if God infinitely loves and honours himself, as one infinitely worthy to be loved and esteemed, but that he should, from the same principle, proportionably abhor and oppose opposition to himself, and contempt of himself. And if it be in its own nature decent and proper for him thus to love himself, then it is in its own nature fit and becoming in him to hate opposition to himself. And for the same reason, and from the same principle, God, when he is contemned and injured, and his authority and glory are trampled in the dust, will be disposed to repair the injury done to his honour, and raise his injured majesty out of the dust again. 17. The satisfaction of Christ, by suffering the punishment of sin, is properly to be distinguished, as being in its own nature different from the merit of Christ. For merit is only some excellency or worth. But when we consider Christ’s sufferings merely as the satisfaction for the guilt of another, the excellency of Christ’s act in suffering does not all come into consideration; but only those two things, viz. Their equality or equivalence to the punishment that the sinner deserved; and, 2ndly, The union between him and them, or the propriety of his being accepted in suffering, as the representative of the sinner. Christ’s bearing our punishment for us, is not properly meriting that we should not bear it, any more than, if it had been possible for us ourselves to have borne it all, that would have been meriting that we should not be punished any more. Christ’s sufferings do not satisfy by any excellency in them, but by a fulfilment. To satisfy by a fulfilment, and to satisfy by worthiness or excellency, are different things. If the law be fulfilled, there is no need of any excellency or merit to satisfy it; because it is satisfied by taking place and having its course. Indeed, how far the dignity or worthiness of Christ’s person comes into consideration, in determining the propriety of his being accepted as a representative of sinners, so that his suffering, when equivalent, can be accepted as theirs, may be matter of question and debate; but it is a matter entirely foreign to the present purpose. 18. The blood of Christ washes away sin. So it is represented in the Scripture, that we are washed from our filthiness in Christ’s blood.

Whereas, although the blood of Christ washes from our guilt, yet it is the Spirit of Christ that washes from the pollution and stain of sin. However, the blood of Christ washes also from the filth of sin, as it purchases sanctification; it makes way for it by satisfying, and purchases it by the merit of obedience implied in it. The sacrifices under the law typified Christ’s sacrifice, not only as a satisfaction, but as meritorious obedience.

They are called a sweet savour upon both these accounts. And therefore we find obedience compared with sacrifice, Psalm 40:6, etc.

The sacrifice of Christ is a sweet savour, because as such it was a great honour done to God’s majesty, holiness, and law, and a glorious expression of Christ’s respect to that majesty, etc, That when he loved man, and so greatly desired his salvation, he had yet so great respect to that majesty and holiness of God, that he had rather die than that the salvation of man should be any injury or dishonour unto those attributes.

And then, 2nd, It was a sweet savour, as it was a marvellous act of obedience, and some expression of a wonderful respect to God’s authority.

The value of Christ’s sacrifice was infinite, both as a propitiation, and as an act of obedience; because he showed an infinite regard to the majesty, holiness, etc. of God, in being at infinite expense from regard to those divine attributes. 19. The sacrifices under the law are said to be most holy; but the sacrifice of Christ may properly be said to be infinitely holy, as it was an expression of an infinite regard to the holiness, majesty, etc. of God. 20. Late philosophers seem ready enough to own the great importance of God’s maintaining steady and inviolable the laws of the natural world. It may be worthy to be considered, whether it is not of as great or greater importance, that the law of God, that great rule of righteousness between the supreme moral Governor and his subjects, should be maintained inviolate. 21. If the threatening of death be not executed, the devil’s horrid suggestion, and our first parents’ wise suspicion, will be verified and fulfilled; viz. that God said otherwise than what he knew, when he threatened, Thou shalt surely die. 22. ” Had God violated his word in the threatening of death for sin, he had justified the devil in his arguments for man’s rebellion. The devil’s argument is a plain contradiction to God’s threatening. God affirms the certainty of death; the devil affirms the certainty of life. Genesis 3:4. ‘Ye shall not surely die.’ had no punishment been inflicted, the devil had not been a liar from the beginning. God would have honoured the tempter, and justified the charge he brought against him, and owned that envy the devil accused him of, and thereby have rendered the devil the fittest object for love and trust. As the devil charged God with a lie; so, had no punishment been inflicted, God would have condemned himself, and declared Satan, instead of a lying tempter, to be the truest counsellor. He had exposed himself to contempt, and advanced the credit of his enemy, and so set up the devil as God instead of himself. It concerned God therefore to manifest himself true, and the devil a liar, and acquaint the world, that not himself, but the evil spirit, was their deceiver; and that he meant as he spoke.”

Charnock, vol. 2 p. 924.

As to any objection that may be made against the force of the foregoing arguments, from the practice of all, and even the wisest of human legislators, their dispensing with their own laws, and forbearing to execute them, and pardoning offenders, without any one’s being made to suffer in their stead; the case is vastly different in the Supreme Lawgiver and subordinate lawgivers, and in the Supreme Judge and subordinate judges.

The case is vastly different in them that give rules only to a certain small part of the commonwealth of moral agents, and with relation only to some few of their concerns, and for a little while-in lawgivers that are weak and fallible, and very imperfect in the exercises of a limited, subordinate, and infinitely inferior authority; from what is in him who is the great, infinitely wise, omniscient, holy, and absolutely perfect, Rector of all; to whom it belongs to establish a rule for the regulation of the whole university of beings, through out all eternity, in all that concerns them in the exercise of an infinitely strong right of supreme, absolute dominion and sovereignty.

The laws of men may be dispensed with, who cannot foresee all cases that may happen; and if they could, have not both the laws and the state of the subject perfectly at their own disposal, so that it is possible for them universally and perfectly to suit one to the other. And moreover, there is a superior law, i.e. the divine law, that all are subject to, and a superior tribunal, to which all are obnoxious; to which inferior tribunals, when the exigency of affairs, or any thing extraordinary in the case, requires it, may refer offenders, dispensing with inferior subordinate laws made by men.

But there is no wise and good law, but that care should be taken that it ordinarily be put in execution: and the nearer any human law approaches to the supreme or divine law in perfection, and in extent of jurisdiction, the more care should be taken of its execution: the wisdom of nations teaches this. And besides, persons’ repentance may be proportionable and answerable, at least in some measure, to offences against men. And as to the public truth which is to be upheld in execution of the threatenings of human laws, there ought to be great care to uphold it, according to the true intent and meaning of those threatenings. If all that is meant by them, and all that, by the very nature of the public constitution,(that is the foundation on which all their laws stand,) is to be understood by those threatenings, is, that the punishment shall be inflicted, excepting when the exigence of the public requires otherwise, or when the pleasure of the prince is otherwise; then the public truth obliges to no more; and this being done, the public truth is maintained.

CHAPTER - CONCERNING FAITH. 1. Faith is a belief of a testimony; “When he shall come to be glorified in his saints, and to be admired in all them that believe (because our testimony among you was believed) in that day.”(2 Thessalonians 1:10.)

It is an assent to truth, as appears by the 11th of Hebrews; and it is saving faith that is there spoken of, as appears by the last verses of the foregoing chapter: “And these all, having obtained a good report through faith, received not the promise:

God having provided some better thing for us, that they, without us, should not be made perfect.” Mark 1:15. “Saying, The time is fulfilled, and the kingdom of God is at hand: Repent ye, and believe the gospel.” John 20:31. “ But these are written, that ye might believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that, believing, ye might have life through his name.” 2 Thessalonians 2:13. “But we are bound to give thanks always to God for you, brethren, beloved of the Lord, because God hath from the beginning chosen you to salvation, through sanctification of the Spirit, and belief of the truth.” 2. It is the proper act of the soul towards God, as faithful. Romans 3:3,4. “For what if some did not believe? Shall their unbelief make the faith of God without effect? God forbid: yea, let God be true, but every man a liar; as it is written, That thou mightest be justified in thy sayings, and mightest overcome when thou art judged.” 3. It is a belief of truth from a sense of glory and excellency, or at least with such a sense. John 20:29. “Jesus saith unto him, Thomas, because thou hast seen me, thou hast believed: blessed are they that have not seen, and yet have believed.” Matthew 9:21. “She said within herself, If I may but touch his garment, I shall be whole.” 1 Corinthians 13:3. “Wherefore give you to understand, that no man, speaking by the Spirit of God, calleth Jesus accursed; and that no man can say that Jesus is the Lord, but by the Holy Ghost.” 4. It is a belief of the truth, from a spiritual taste and relish of what is excellent and divine. Luke 12:57. “Yea, and why, even of yourselves, judge ye not what is right?” Believers receive the truth in the love of it, and speak the truth in love. Ephesians 4:15. “But speaking the truth in love, may grow up into him in all things, which is the head, even Christ.” 5. The object of faith is the gospel, as well as Jesus Christ. Mark 1:15. “And saying, The time is fulfilled, and the kingdom of God is at hand:

Repent ye, and believe the gospel.” John 17:8. “For I have given unto them the words which thou gayest me; and they received them, and have known surely that I came from thee, and they have believed that thou didst send me.” Romans 10:16,17. “But they have not obeyed the gospel. For Esaias saith, Lord, who hath believed our report? So then, faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the word of God.” 6. Faith includes a knowledge of God and Christ. 2 et. 1:2, 3. “Grace and peace be multiplied unto you through the knowledge of God, and of Jesus our Lord; according as his divine power hath given unto us all things that pertain unto life and godliness, through the knowledge of him that hath called us to glory and virtue.” John 17:3. “And this is life eternal, that they might know thee the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom thou hast sent.” 7. A belief of promises is faith, or a great part of faith. Hebrews 11:”Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen,” etc. 2 Chronicles 20:20. “And they rose early in the morning, and went forth into the wilderness of Tekoa; and as they went forth, Jehoshaphat stood and said, Hear me, O Judah, and ye inhabitants of Jerusalem; Believe in the Lord your God, so shall ye be established; believe his prophets, so shall ye prosper.” A depending on promises is an act of faith. Galatians 5:5. “For we through the Spirit wait for the hope of righteousness by faith.” 8. Faith is a receiving of Christ. John 1:12. “But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name. 9, It is receiving Christ into the heart. Romans 10:6,7,8,9,10. “ But the righteousness which is of faith, speaketh on this wise, Say not in thy heart, Who shall ascend into heaven? (that is, to bring Christ down from above:) or, Who shall descend into the deep? (that is, to bring up Christ from the dead.) But what saith it? The word is nigh thee, even in thy mouth, and in thy heart, (that is, the word of faith, which we preach,) That if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved. For with the heart man believeth unto righteousness; and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation.” 10. A true faith includes more than a mere belief; it is accepting the gospel, and includes all acceptation. 1 Timothy 1:14,15. “And the grace of our Lord was exceeding abundant with faith and love which is in Christ Jesus.

That is a faithful saying, and worthy of all acceptation, that Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners, of whom I am chief.” 2 Corinthians 11:4. “For if he that cometh preacheth another Jesus, whom we have not preached; or if you receive another Spirit, which ye have not received, or another gospel, which ye have not accepted, ye might well bear with him.” 11. It is something more than merely the assent of the understanding, because it is called an obeying the gospel. Romans 10:16. “ But they have not all obeyed the gospel. For Esaias saith, Lord, who has believed our report? “ 1 Peter 4:17. “ For the time is come that judgment must begin at the house of God: and if it first ‘begin at us, what shall the end be of them that obey not the gospel of God?”

It is obeying the doctrine from the heart; Romans 6:17,18. “But God be thanked, that ye were the servants of sin; but ye have obeyed from the heart that form of doctrine which was delivered you. Being then made free from sin, ye became the servants of righteousness,” etc. 12. this expression of obeying the gospel, seems to denote the heart s yielding to the gospel in what it proposes to us in its calls: it is something more than merely what may be called a believing the truth of the gospel.

John 12:42. “ Nevertheless, among the chief rulers also, many believed on him; but, because of the Pharisees, they did not confess him, lest they should be put out of the synagogue.” And Philip asked the eunuch, whether he believed with all his heart? It is a fully believing, or a being fully persuaded: this passage evidences that it is so much at least. 13. There are different sorts of faith that are not true and saving, as is evident by what the apostle James says, “Show me thy faith without thy works, and I will show thee my faith by my works:” where it is supposed that there may be a faith without works, which is not the right faith. When he says, “I will show thee my faith by my works,” nothing else can be meant, than that I will show thee that my faith is right. 14. It is a trusting in Christ. Psalm 2:12. “ Kiss the Son, lest he be angry, and ye perish from the way, when his wrath is kindled but a little: blessed are all they that put their trust in him.” Ephesians 1:12,13. “That we should be to the praise of his glory, who first trusted in Christ: in whom ye also trusted, after that ye heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation; in whom also, after that ye believed, ye were sealed with that Holy Spirit of promise.” 2 Timothy 5:12. “For the which cause I also suffer these things: nevertheless I am not ashamed; for I know whom I have believed, and am persuaded that he is able to keep that which I have committed unto him against that day.”

Many places in the Old Testament speak of trusting in God as the condition of his favour and salvation; especially Psalm 78:21,22. “Therefore the Lord hear this and was wroth: so a fire was kindled against Jacob, and anger also came up against Israel; because they believed not in God, and trusted not in his salvation.” It implies submission; Romans 15:12. “And again, Esaias saith, There shall be a root of Jesse; and he that shall rise to reign over the Gentiles, in him shall the Gentiles trust.” Timothy 4:10. “For therefore we both labour and suffer reproach, because we trust in the living God, who is the Saviour of all men, especially of those that believe.” 2 Timothy 1:12. “ For which cause 1 also suffer these things; nevertheless I am not ashamed; for I know whom I have believed, and am persuaded that he is able to keep that which I have committed unto him against that day.” Matthew 8:26. “Why are ye fearful, O ye of little faith?” Matthew 16:8. “Which Jesus, when he perceived, he said unto them, O ye of little faith, why reason ye among yourselves, because ye have brought no bread?” 1 John 5:13,14. “These things have I written unto you that believe on the name of the Son of God; that ye may know that ye have eternal life; and that ye may believe on the name of the Son of God. And this is the confidence that we have in him, that if we ask any thing according to his will, he heareth us.” Believing in Christ in one verse, is called confidence, in the text. 15. It is a committing ourselves to Christ; 2 Timothy 1:12. “For the which cause I also suffer these things: nevertheless I am not ashamed; for I know whom I have believed, and am persuaded that he is able to keep that which I have committed unto him against that day.” This is a scripture sense of the word believe, as is evident by John 2:24. “ Jesus did not commit himself to them.” In the original it is ouk episteuen eauton autoiv 16. It is a gladly receiving the gospel; Acts 2:41. “Then they that gladly received his word, were baptized; and the same day there were added unto them about three thousand souls.” It is approving the gospel; Luke 7:30,35. “But the Pharisees and lawyers rejected the counsel of God against themselves, being not baptized of him. But wisdom is justified of all her children.” It is obeying the doctrine; Romans 6:17. “But God be thanked, that ye were the servants of sin; but ye have obeyed from the heart that form of doctrine which was delivered you.” It is what may be well understood by those expressions of coming to Christ, of hooking to him, of opening the door to let him in, This is very evident by Scripture, It is a coming and taking the waters of life, eating and drinking Christ’s flesh and blood, hearing Christ’s voice and following him. John 10:26,27. “But ye believe not; because ye are not of my sheep, as I said unto you. My sheep hear my voice, and I know them, and they follow me.” John 8:12. “ Then spake Jesus again unto them, saying, I am the light of the world; he that followeth me, shall not walk in darkness, but shall have the light of life.”

Isaiah 45:22. “Look unto me, and be ye saved, all the ends of the earth: for I am God, and there is none else.” 17. Faith consists in two things, viz. in being persuaded of, and in embracing, the promises: Hebrews 11:13. “These all died in faith, not having received the promises, but having seen them afar off, and were persuaded of them, and embraced them, and confessed that they were strangers and pilgrims on the earth.” 1 Corinthians 13:7. “Charity believeth all things, hopeth all things.” If that faith, hope, and charity, spoken of in this verse, be the same with those that are compared together in the last verse, then faith arises from a charitable disposition of heart, or from a principle of divine hove. John 5:42.” But I know you, that ye have not the love of God in you,” with the context. Deuteronomy 13:3. “Thou shalt not hearken unto the words of that prophet, or that dreamer of dreams: for the Lord your God proveth you, to know whether you love the rd your God with all your heart, and with all your soul.” 1 John 5:1.” Whosoever believeth that Jesus is the Christ, is born of God: and every one that loveth him that begat, loveth him also that is begotten of him.” 18. It is a being reconciled unto God, revealing himself by Christ in the gospel, or our minds being reconciled. 2 Corinthians 5:18,19,20,21.”

And all things are of God, who hath reconciled us to himself by Jesus Christ, and hath given to us the ministry of reconciliation; to wit, that God was in Christ, reconciling the world unto himself, not imputing their trespasses unto them; and hath committed unto us the word of reconciliation. Now then we are ambassadors for Christ; as though God did beseech you by us, we pray you in Christ’s stead be ye reconciled to God. For he hath made him to be sin for us who knew no sin; that we might be made the righteousness of God in him.” Colossians 1:21. “And you that were sometimes alienated, and enemies in your mind by wicked works, yet now hath he reconciled.” It is the according of the whole soul, and not merely of the understanding. Matthew 11:6.” Blessed is he whosoever shall not be offended in me.” 19. There is contained in the nature of faith a sense of our own unworthiness. Matthew 15:27,28. “ Truth, Lord; yet the dogs eat of the crumbs which fall from their masters’ table. Then Jesus answered and said unto her, O woman, great is thy faith.” See concerning the centurion, Luke 7:6-9.; this woman which was a sinner, ib. 5:37, 38. and especially 50.; the prodigal son, Luke xv.; the penitent thief, Luke 23:41. Consult also Habakkuk 2:4.” Behold, his soul which is lifted up, is not upright in him; but the just shall live by his faith.” Proverbs 28:25. Psalm 40:4. and Psalm 131. 20. It is a being drawn to Christ. None can come unto Christ, but whom the Father draws. The freeness of the covenant of grace is represented thus, that the condition of finding is only seeking; and the condition of receiving, asking; and the condition of having the door opened, is knocking. From whence I infer, that faith is a hearty applying unto God by Christ for salvation, or the heart’s seeking it of God through him. See also John iv 10.” If thou knewest the gift of God, and who it is that saith unto thee, Give me to drink, thou wouldest have asked of him, and he would have given thee living water.” And Luke 23:42. it is calling on Christ; it is the opposite unto disallowing and rejecting Christ Jesus. John 12:46, 47,48. “I am come a light into the world, that whosoever believeth on me should not abide in darkness. And if any man hear my words, and believe not, I judge him not; for I came not to judge the world, but to save the world. He that rejecteth me, and receiveth not my words, hath one that judgeth him; the word that I have spoken, the same shall judge him in the last day.” 1 Peter 2:7 “Unto you therefore which believe, he is precious: bu unto them which be disobedient, the stone which the builders disallowed, the same is made the head of the corner. 21. Love either is what faith arises from, or is included in faith, by John 3:18,19. “ He that believeth not is condemned already; and this is their condemnation, that men loved darkness rather than light.” 2 Thessalonians 2:10,12. “And with all deceivableness of unrighteousness in them that perish; because they received not the love of the truth, that they might be saved, That they all might be damned who believe not the truth, but had pleasure in unrighteousness.” 22. The being athirst for the waters of life is faith, Revelation 21:6. It is a true cordial seeking of salvation by Christ. Believing in Christ is heartily joining ourselves to Christ and to his party, as is said of the followers of Theudas, Acts 5:36. And we are justified freely through faith, i e. we are saved by Christ only on joining ourselves to him. It is a being persuaded to join ourselves to him, and to be of his party. John 8:12.” Then spake Jesus again unto them, saying, I am the light of the world: he that followeth me, shall not walk in darkness, but shall have the light of life.” To believe in Christ, is to hearken to him as a prophet; to yield ourselves subjects to him as a king; and to depend upon him as a priest. Desiring Christ, is an act of faith in Christ, because he is called the desire of all nations; Haggai 2:7. that is, he that is to he the desire of all nations, when all nations shall believe in him and subject themselves to him, according to the frequent promises and prophecies of God’s word: though there are other things included in the sense, vet this seems to be principally intended. There belongs to faith a sense of the ability and sufficiency of Christ to save, and of his fitness for the work of salvation: Matthew 9:2, and 28, 29,and 21.

Romans 4:21. “ And being fully persuaded, that what he had promised, he is able to perform.” Of his fidelity, Matthew 14:30,31. “ But when he saw the wind boisterous, he was afraid: and beginning to sink, he cried, saying, Lord, save me. And immediately Jesus stretched forth his hand, and caught him, and said unto him, O thou of little faith, wherefore didst thou doubt?”

Of his readiness to save, Matthew 15:22, etc. 2 Timothy 1:5,12. “ Now the end of the commandment is charity, out of a pure heart, and of a good conscience, and of faith unfeigned: and I thank Christ Jesus our Lord, who bath enabled me, for that he counted me faithful, putting me into the ministry.” Of his ability, Matthew 8:2. “ And behold, there came a leper, and worshipped him, saying, Lord, if thou wilt, thou canst make me clean.”

Matthew 8:26. “The centurion answered and said, Lord, I am not worthy that thou shouldst come under my roof: but speak the word only, and my servant shall be healed.” 23. It is submitting to the righteousness of God. Romans 10:3. “For they, being ignorant of God’s righteousness, and going about to establish their own righteousness, have not submitted themselves unto the righteousness of God.” It is what may be well represented by flying for refuge, by the type of flying to the city of refuge. Hebrews 6:18.

That by two immutable things, in which it was impossible for God to lie, we might have a strong consolation, who have fled for refuge, to lay hold upon the hope set before its.” It is a sense of the sufficiency and the reality oh’ Christ’s righteousness, and of his power and grace to save. John 16:8. “ He shall convince the world of sin, of righteousness, and of judgment.” It is a receiving the truth with a love to it. It is receiving the love of the truth. 2 Thessalonians 2:10,12. “And with all deceivableness of unrighteousness in them that perish; because they received not the love of the truth, that they might he saved. That they all might be damned who believed not the truth, but had pleasure in unrighteousness.” The heart must close with the new covenant by dependence upon it, and by hove and desire. 2 Samuel 23:5.” Although my house be not so with God, yet he hath made with me an everlasting covenant, ordered in all things, and sure. This is all my salvation and all my desire, although he make it not to grow. 25. Upon the whole, the best, and clearest, and most perfect definition of justifying faith, and most according to the Scripture, that I can think of, is this faith is the soul’s entirely embracing the revelation of Jesus Christ as our Saviour. The word embrace is a metaphorical expression; but I think it much clearer than any proper expression whatsoever; it is called believing, because believing is the first act of the soul in embracing a narration or revelation: and embracing, when conversant about a revelation or thing declared, is more properly called believing, than loving or choosing. If it were conversant about a person only, it would be more properly called loving. If it were only conversant about a gift, an inheritance, or reward, it would more properly be called receiving or accepting, etc.

The definition might have been expressed in these words: faith is the soul’s entirely adhering and acquiescing in the revelation of Jesus Christ as our Saviour-Or thus: faith is the soul’s embracing that truth of God, that reveals Jesus Christ as our Saviour-Or thus: faith is the soul’s entirely acquiescing in, and depending upon, the truth of God, revealing Christ as our Saviour.

It is thc whole soul according and assenting to the truth, and embracing of it. There is an entire yielding of the mind and heart to the revelation, and a closing with it, and adhering to it, with the belief, and with the inclination and affection, It is admitting and receiving it with entire credit and respect.

The soul receives it as true as worthy, and excellent. It may be more perfectly described than defined by a short definition, by reason of the penury of words; a great many words express it better than one or two. I here use the same metaphorical expressions; but it is because they are much clearer than any proper expressions that I know of.

It is the soul’s entirely acquiescing in this revelation, from a sense of the sufficiency, dignity, glory, and excellency of the author of the revelation.

Faith is the whole soul’s active agreeing, according, and symphonizing with this truth; all opposition in judgment and inclination, so far as he believes, being taken away. It is called believing, because fully believing this revelation, is the first and principal exercise and manifestation of this accordance and agreement of soul. 25. The adhering to the truth and acquiescing in it with the judgment, is from a sense of the glory of the revealer, and the sufficiency and excellency of the performer of the facts. The adhering to it, and acquiescing in it with the inclination and affection, is from the goodness and excellency of the thing revealed, and of the performer. If a person be pursued by an enemy, and commit himself to a king or a captain, to defend him, it implies his quitting other endeavours, and applying to him for defence, and putting himself under him, and hoping that he will defend him. If we consider it as a mere act of the mind, a transaction between spiritual beings, considered as abstracted from any external action, then it is the mind’s quitting all other endeavours, and seeking and applying itself to the Saviour for salvation, fully choosing salvation by him, and delivering itself to him, or a being willing to be his, with a hope that he will save him. Therefore, for a person to commit himself to Christ as a Saviour, is quitting all other endeavours and hopes, and heartily applying himself to Christ for salvation, fully choosing salvation by him, and acquiescing in his way of salvation, and a hearty consent of the soul to be his entirely, hoping in his sufficiency and willingness to save. 26. The first act cannot be hoping in a promise, that is, as belonging to the essence of the act. For there must be the essence of the act performed, before’ any promise belongs to the subject. But the essence of the act, as it is exercised in justifying faith, is a quitting other hopes, and applying to him for salvation, choosing, and with the inclination closing with, salvation by him in his way, with a sense of his absolute, glorious sufficiency and mercy.

Hope in the promises may immediately follow in a moment; but it is impossible that there be a foundation for it, before the essence of faith be performed; though it is the same disposition that leads the soul to lay hold on the promise afterwards. It is impossible that a man should be encouraged by a conditional promise, to trust in Christ, if you mean by trusting in Christ, a depending upon his promises to the person trusting; for that is to suppose a dependence upon the promise antecedent to the first dependence upon it; and that the first time a man depends upon the promise, he is encouraged to do it by a dependence upon the promise. The conditional promise is this, that if you will trust in Christ, you shall be saved: and you suppose the essence of this trust is depending upon this promise; and yet that the soul is encouraged to trust in Christ by a dependence thereupon; which is to say, that the first time the soul depends upon Christ’s promises, it is encouraged to do it by a dependence on his promises. 27. Faith is the soul’s entirely adhering to and acquiescing in the revelation of Jesus Christ as our Saviour, from a sense of the excellent dignity and sufficiency of the revealer of the doctrine and of the Saviour. God is the revealer, and Christ is also the revealer. Christ’s excellency and sufficiency include the excellency of his person, and the excellency of the salvation he has revealed, and his adequateness to the performance, etc.-and the excellency of his manner of salvation, etc. From the excellency and sufficiency of the revealer and performer, we believe what is said is true, fully believe it; and from the glorious excellency of the Saviour and his salvation, all our inclination closes with the revelation. To depend upon the word of another person, imports two things: first, to be sensible how greatly it concerns us, and how much our interest and happiness really depend upon the truth of it; and, secondly, to depend upon the word of another, is so to believe it, as to dare to act upon it as if it were really true.

I do not say, that I think these words are the only true definition of faith. I have used words that most naturally expressed it, of any I could think of.

There might have been other words used, that are much of the same sense. 28. Though hope does not enter into the essential nature of faith, yet it is so essential to it, that it is the natural and necessary, and next immediate, fruit of true faith. ln the first act of faith the soul is enlightened with a sense of the merciful nature of God and of Christ, and believes the declarations that are made in God’s word of it; and it humbly and heartily applies and seeks to Christ; and it sees such a congruity between the declared mercy of God, and the disposition he then feels towards him, that he cannot but hope, that that declared mercy will be exercised towards him. Yea, he sees that it would be incongruous, for God to give him such inclination and motions of heart towards Christ as a Saviour, if he were not to be saved by him. 29. Any thing that may be called a receiving the revelation of the gospel is not faith, but such a sort of receiving it, as is suitable to the nature of the gospel, and the respect it has to us. The act of reception suitable to truth, is believing it. The suitable reception of that which is excellent, is choosing it and loving it. The proper act of reception of a revelation of deliverance from evil, and the conferring of happiness, is, acquiescing in it and depending upon it. The proper reception of a Saviour, is, committing ourselves to him and trusting in him. The proper act or reception of the favour of God, is, believing and esteeming it, and rejoicing in it. He that suitably receives forgiveness of his fault, does with an humble sense of his fault rejoice in the pardon.

Thus, for instance, he that reads a truth that no way concerns his interest, if he believes it, it is proper to say he receives it, But if there be a declaration of some glorious and excellent truth, that does nearly concern him, he that only believes it, cannot be said to receive it. And if a captain offers to deliver a distressed people, they that only believe what he says, without committing themselves to him, and putting themselves under him, cannot be said to receive him. So, if a prince offers one his favour, he that does not esteem his favour, cannot be said heartily to accept thereof. Again, if one offended offers pardon to another, he cannot be said to receive it, if he be not sensible of his fault, and does not care for the displeasure of the offended.

The whole act of reception suitable to the nature of the gospel, and its relation to us, and our circumstances with respect to it, is best expressed (if it be expressed in one word) by the word piviv or ‘fides’.

He that offers any of these things mentioned, and offers them only for these proper acts of reception, may be said to offer them freely, nay, perfectly so. 30. For man to trust in his own righteousness, is to hope that God’s anger will be appeased or abated, or that he will be inclined to accept him into favour, upon the sight of some excellency that belongs to him; or to have such a view of things, that it should appear no other than a suitable and right thing for God’s anger to be abated, and for him to be inclined to take him into favour, upon the sight of, or out of respect to, some excellency belonging to him. 31. The word faith, seems to be the most proper word to express the cordial reception of Christ and of the truth, for these reasons. First, this revelation is of things spiritual, unseen, strange, and wonderful, exceedingly remote from all the objects of sense, and those things which we commonly converse with in this world, and also exceedingly alien from our fallen nature; so that it is the first and principal manifestation of the symphony between the soul and these divine things, that it believes them, and acquiesces in them as true, And, secondly, the Lord Jesus Christ, in the gospel, appears principally under the character of a Saviour, and not so much of a person absolutely excellent; and therefore, the proper act of reception of him, consists principally in the exercise of a sense of our need of him, and of his sufficiency, his ability, his mercy and home, his faithfulness, the sufficiency of his method of salvation, the sufficiency and completeness of the salvation itself, of the deliverance, and of the happiness, and an answerable application of the soul to him or salvation; which can be expressed so well by no other word but faith, or affiance, or confidence, or trust, and others of the same signification; of which, (... or) faith is much the best, the most significant; because the rest, in their common significations, imply something that is not of the absolute essence of faith. Thirdly, we have these things exhibited to us, to be received by us, only by a divine testimony. We have nothing else to hold them forth to us. 32. Justifying faith is the soul’s sense and conviction of the reality and sufficiency of Jesus Christ as a Saviour, implying a cordial inclination of soul to him as a Saviour. It is the soul’s conviction and acknowledgment of God’s power in the difficult things, of his mercy in the wonderful things, of his truth in the mysterious and unseen things, of the excellency of other holy things, of the salvation of Christ Jesus. Faith prepares the way for the removal of guilt of conscience. Guilt of conscience is the sense of the connexion between the sin of the subject and punishment; 1st , by God’s law; and 2nd , by God’s nature and the propriety of the thing.

The mind is under the weight of guilt, as long as it has a sense of its being bound to punishment, according to the reason and nature of things, and the requirements of the divine government.

Faith prepares the way for the removal of this. Therefore there must be in faith,1. A belief that the law is answered and satisfied by Jesus Christ; and 2. Such a sense of the way of salvation by Christ, that it shall appear proper, and be dutiful, and according to the reason of things, that sin should not be punished in us, but that we nevertheless should be accepted through Christ.

When the mind sees a way that this can be done, and there is nothing in the law, nor in the divine nature, nor nature of things, to hinder it; that of itself lightens the burden, and creates hope. It causes the mind to see that it is not for ever bound by the reason of things to suffer; though the mind does not know that it has performed the condition of pardon. This is to have a sense of the sufficiency of this way of salvation. When a man commits sin and is sensible of it, his soul has a natural sense of the propriety of punishment in such a case, a sense that punishment, according to the reason of things, belongs to him; for the same reasons as all nations have a sense of the propriety of punishing men for crimes.

The blood of bulls, and goats, and calves, could never make them that offered them perfect as to the conscience, because the mind never could have a sense of the propriety and beauty, and fitness in reason, of being delivered from punishment upon their account. This kind of sense of the sufficiency of Christ’s mediation, depends upon a sense of the gloriousness and excellency of gospel things in general; as, the greatness of God’s mercy; the greatness of Christ’s excellency and dignity, and dearness to the Father; the greatness of Christ’s love to sinners, etc. That easiness of mind which persons often have, before they have comfort from a sense of their being converted, arises from a sense they have of God’s sovereignty. They see nothing either in the nature of God, or of things, that will necessarily bind them to punishment; but that God may damn them, if he pleases; and may save them, if he pleases. When persons are brought to that, then they are fit to be comforted; then their comfort is like to have a true and immovable foundation, when their dependence is no way upon themselves, but wholly upon God. In order to such a sense of the sufficiency of this way of salvation, it must be seen, that God has no disposition and no need to punish us. The sinner, when he considers how he has affronted and provoked God, looks upon it, that the ease is such, and the affront is such, that there is need, in order that the majesty, and honour, and authority of God may be vindicated, that he should be punished, and that God’s nature is such, that he must be disposed-to punish him.

Coroll. Hence we learn, that our experience of the sufficiency of the doctrine of the gospel, to give peace of conscience, is a rational inward witness to the truth of the gospel. When the mind sees such a fitness in this way of salvation, that it takes off the burden, that arises from the sense of its being necessarily bound to punishment, through proper desert, and from the demands of reason and nature; it is a strong argument, that it is not a thing of mere human imagination, When we experience its fitness to answer its end, this is the third of the three that bear witness on earth. The Spirit bears witness, by discovering the divine glory, and those stamps of divinity that are in the gospel. The water bears witness; that is, the experience of the power of the gospel to purify and sanctify the heart, witnesseth the truth of it: and the blood bears witness by delivering the conscience from guilt. Any other sort of faith than this sense of the sufficiency of Christ’s salvation, does not give such immediate glory and honour to Christ, and does not so necessarily and immediately infer the necessity of Christ’s being known. Nothing besides makes all Christianity to hang upon an actual respect to Christ, and centre in him. Surely, the more the sinner has an inward, an immediate, and sole, and explicit dependence upon Christ, the more Christ has the glory of his salvation from him.

In order to this sort of sense of the congruity of our sins being forgiven, and of punishment’s being removed, by the satisfaction of Christ, there must of necessity be a sense of our guiltiness. For it is impossible any congruity should be seen, without comparison of the satisfaction with the guilt. And they cannot be compared, except there be a sense of them both.

There must not only be such a sense of God’s being very angry, and his anger being very dreadful, without any sense of the reasonableness of that anger; but there must be a proper sense of the desert of wrath, such as there is in repentance. Indeed it is possible there may be such a sense of the glory of the Saviour and his salvation, that if we had more of a sense of guilt than we have, we should see a congruity. 33. Sinners, under conviction of their guilt, are generally afraid that God is so angry with them, that he never will give them faith in Christ. They think the majesty and jealousy of God will not allow of it. Therefore, there goes with a sense of the sufficiency of Christ, a sense of God’s sovereignty -with respect to mercy and judgment, that he will and may have mercy in Christ, on whom he will have mercy, and leave to hardness whom he will. This eases of that burden. 34. For a man to trust in his own righteousness, is to conceive hopes of some favour of God, or some freedom from his displeasure, from a false notion of his own goodness or excellency, and the proportion it bears to that favour; and of his own badness, and the relation it bears to his displeasure. It is to conceive hopes of some favour of God, from a false notion of the relation which our own goodness or excellency bears to that favour; whether this mistaken relation be supposed to imply an obligation in natural justice, or propriety and decency, or an obligation in point of wisdom and honour; or if he thinks that, without it, God will not do excellently, or according to some one at least of his declared attributes, or whether it be any obligation by virtue of his promise; whether this favourable respect be the pardon of sin, or the bestowment of heaven, or the abating of punishment, or answering of prayers, or mitigation of punishment, or converting grace, or God’s delighting in us, prizing of us, or the bestowing of any temporal or spiritual blessing. This excellency we speak of, is either real or supposed; either negative, in not being so bad as others, and the like, or positive. Whether it be natural or moral excellency, is immaterial: also, whether the sinner himself looks upon it as an excellency, or suppose God hooks upon it as such. For men to trust in their own righteousness, is to entertain hope of escaping any displeasure, or obtaining any positive favour from God, from too high a notion of our own moral excellency, or too light a notion of our badness, as compared with or related to that favour or displeasure. 35. This is to be observed concerning the scriptures that I have cited respecting faith, that they sometimes affix salvation to the natural and immediate effects of faith as well as to faith itself. Such as, asking, knocking, etc. Romans 10:12,13,14. In the 14th verse, faith is distinguished from calling upon him. 36. All trusting to our own righteousness, indeed, is expecting justification for our own excellency. But they that expect that God will convert them for their excellency, or do any thing else towards their salvation upon that account, do trust in their own righteousness. Because, the supposing that God will be the more inclined to convert a man, or enable him to come to Christ, for his excellency, is to suppose, that he is justified already, at least in part. It supposes, that God’s anger for sin is at least partly appeased, and that God is more favourably inclined to him for his excellency’s sake, in that he is disposed to give him converting grace, or do something else towards his conversion upon that account. 37. The difficulty in giving a definition of faith is, that we have no word that clearly and adequately expresses the whole act of acceptance, or closing of the soul or heart with Christ. Inclination expresses it but partially; conviction expresses it also but in part; the sense of the soul does not do it fully. And if we use metaphorical expressions, such as embrace, love, etc, they are obscure, and will not carry the same idea with them to the minds of all. All words that are used to express such acts of the mind, are of a very indeterminate signification. It is a difficult thing to find words to exhibit our own ideas. Another difficulty is to find a word, that shall clearly express the whole goodness or righteousness of the Saviour and of the gospel. To be true, is one part of the goodness of the gospel. For the Saviour to be sufficient, is one part of his goodness. To be suitable, is another part. To be bountiful and glorious. is another part. To be necessary, is another part. The idea of a real good or lovely object, that is conceived to be real, possesses the heart after another manner, than a very lovely idea that is only imaginary So that there is need of both a sense of goodness and reality, to unite the heart to the Saviour.

Faith is the soul’s embracing and acquiescing in the revelation which the word of God gives us of Jesus Christ as our Saviour, in a sense and conviction of his goodness and reality as such. I do not consider the sense of the goodness and reality of Christ as a Saviour, as a distinct thing from the embracing of him, but only explain the nature of the embracing by it.

But it is implied in it; it is the first and principal thing in it. And all that belongs to embracing the revelation, an approbation of it, a love to it, adherence to it, acquiescence in it, is in a manner implied in a sense of Christ’s goodness and reality and relation to us, or our concern in him. I say, as our ‘Saviour; for there is implied in believing in Christ, not only and merely that exercise of mind, which arises from a sense of his excellency and reality as a Saviour; but also that which arises from the consideration of his relation to us, and of our concern in him, his being a Saviour for such as we are; for sinful men; and a Saviour that is offered with his benefits to us. The angels have a sense of the reality and goodness of Christ as a Saviour, and may be said with joy to embrace the discovery of it. They cannot be said to believe in Christ. The spirit that they receive, the notice that they have of Christ the Saviour, is the same; but there is a difference in the act, by reason of the different relation that Christ, as a Saviour stands in to us, from what he doth to them. 38. Objection 1. It may be objected, that this seems to make the revelation more the object of the essential act of faith than Christ. I answer, no; for the revelation is no otherwise the object by this definition, than as it brings and exhibits Christ to us. It is embracing the revelation in a sense and conviction of the goodness and reality of the Saviour it exhibits. We do not embrace Christ by faith any otherwise, than as brought to us in a revelation: when we come to embrace him as exhibited otherwise, that will not be faith. A man is saved by that faith which is a reception of Christ in all his offices; but he is justified by his receiving Christ in his priestly office. 39. To believe, is to have a sense and a realizing belief of what the gospel reveals of the mediation of Christ, and particularly as it concerns ourselves, There is in faith a conviction, that redemption by that mediation of Christ which the gospel reveals, exists, and a sense how it does so, and how it may with respect to us in particular. There is a trusting to Christ that belongs to the essence of true faith. That quiet and ease of mind that arises from a sense of the sufficiency of Christ, may well be called a trusting in that sufficiency. It gives a quietness to the mind, to see that there is a way wherein it may be saved, to see a good and sufficient way, wherein its salvation is very possible, and the attributes of God cannot be opposite to it. This gives ease, though it be not yet certain that he shall be saved, But to believe Christ’s sufficiency, so as to be thus far easy, may be called a trusting in Christ, though it cannot be trusting in him that he will save us.

To be easy in any degree, on a belief or persuasion of the sufficiency of any thing for our good, is a degree of trusting. There is in faith not only a belief of what the gospel declares, that Christ has satisfied for our sins, and merited eternal life; but there is also a sense of it; a sense that Christ’s sufferings do satisfy, and that he did merit, or was worthy that we should be accepted for his sake. There is a difference between being convinced that it is so, and’ having a sense that it is so. There is in the essence of justifying faith, included a receiving of Christ as a Saviour from sin. For we embrace him as the author of life, as well as Saviour from misery. But the sum of that eternal life which Christ purchased is holiness; it is a holy happiness, And there is in faith a liking of the happiness that Christ has procured and offers. The Jews’ despising the pleasant land, is mentioned as part of their unbelief. It must be as the gospel reveals Christ, ox in the gospel notion of him, the soul must close with Christ. For whosoever is offended in Christ, in the view that the gospel gives us of him, cannot be said to believe in him for he is one that is excluded from blessedness, by that saying of Christ, Matthew 11:6. “Blessed is he whosoever is not offended in me.” 40. There is implied in faith, not only a believing of Christ to be a real, sufficient, and excellent Saviour for me, and having a complacency in him as such; but in a complete act of faith, there is an act of the soul in this view of him, and disposition towards him, seeking to him, that he would be my Saviour; as is evident, because otherwise prayer would not be the expression of faith. But prayer is only the voice of faith to God through Christ: and this is further evident, as faith is expressed by a coming to Christ, and a looking to him to be saved. 41. There is hope implied in the essence of justifying faith. Thus there is hope that I may obtain justification by Christ, though there is not contained in its essence a hope that I have obtained it. And so there is a trust in Christ contained in the essence of faith. There is a trust implied in seeking to Christ to be my Saviour, in an apprehension that he is a sufficient Saviour; though not a trust in him, as one that has promised to save me, as having already performed the condition of the promise. If a city was besieged and distressed by a potent enemy, and should hear of some great champion at a distance, and should be induced by what they hear of his valour and goodness, to seek and send to him for relief, believing what they have heard of his sufficiency, and thence conceiving hope that they may be delivered; the people, in sending, may be said to trust in such a champion; as of old the children of Israel, when they sent into Egypt for help, were said to trust in Egypt. It has by many been said, that the soul’s immediately applying Christ to itself as its Saviour, was essential to faith; and so that one should believe him to be his Saviour. Doubtless, an immediate application is necessary. But that which is essential, is not the soul’s immediately applying Christ to itself so properly, as its applying itself to Christ. 42. Good works are in some sort implied in the very nature of faith, as is implied in 1 Timothy 5:8. where the apostle, speaking of them that do not provide for their parents, says, “If any provide not for his own, and especially for those of his own house, he hath denied the faith.” 43. Faith is that inward sense and act, of which prayer is the expression; as is evident, 1. Because in the same manner as the freedom of grace, according to the gospel covenant, is often set forth by this, that he that believes, receives; so it also oftentimes is by this, that he that asks, or prays, or calls upon God, receives; Matthew 7:7,8,9,10. Luke 11:9. “Ask and it shall be given you; seek and ye shall find; knock and it shall be opened unto you. For every one that asketh receiveth; and he that seeketh findeth; and to him that knocketh it shall be opened. And all things whatsoever ye shall ask in prayer, believing, ye shall receive.”

Mark 11:23,24. To the same purpose with that last-mentioned place in Matthew. John 15:7. “If ye abide in me, and my words abide in you, ye shall ask what you will, and it shall be done unto you.” Psalm 145:18. “The Lord is nigh unto all that call upon him, to all that call upon him in truth.” Joel 2:32. The prophet, speaking there of gospel-times, says, “And it shall come to pass, that whosoever shall call on the name of the Lord shall be delivered; for in mount Zion and in Jerusalem shall be deliverance, as the Lord hath said, and in the remnant whom the Lord shall call.” Romans 10:12,13. “ For there is no difference between the Jew and the Greek: for the same Lord over all, is rich unto all that call upon him. For whosoever shall call on the name of the Lord shall be saved:” quoting the forementioned place in Joel. 2. The same expressions that are used in Scripture for faith, may be well used for prayer also; such as coming to God or Christ, and looking to him. Ephesians 3:12. “In whom we have boldness and access with confidence by the faith of him.” 3. Prayer is often plainly spoken of as the expression of faith. As it very certainly is in Romans 10:11,12,13,14. “For the scripture saith, Whosoever believeth on him, shall not be ashamed. For there is no difference between the Jew and the Greek: for the same Lord over all, is rich unto all that call upon him; for whosoever shall call on the name of the Lord shall be saved. How then shall they call on him in whom they have not believed?” Christian prayer is called the prayer of faith, James 5:15. And believing is often mentioned as the life and soul of true prayer, as in the forementioned place. Matthew 21:21,22. Timothy 2:8. “I will that men every where lift up holy hands, without wrath and doubting.” And Hebrews 10:19,22. “Draw near in full assurance of faith.” James 1:5,6. “if any of you lack wisdom, let him ask it of God, that giveth to all men liberally and upbraideth not; and it shall be given him. But let him ask in faith, nothing wavering.”

Faith in God, is expressed in praying to God. Faith in the Lord Jesus Christ, is expressed in praying to Christ, and praying in the name of Christ; John 14:13,14. And the promises are made to asking in Christ’s name, in the same manner as they are to believing in Christ. John 14:13,14. “And whatsoever ye shall ask in my name, that will I do, that the Father may be glorified in the Son. If ye shall ask any thing in my name, I will do it.”

Chap. 16:23, 24. “Verily I say unto you, Whatsoever ye shall ask the Father in my name, he will give it you. Hitherto you have asked nothing in my name: ask, and receive, that your joy may be full.” 44. Trusting in Christ, is implied in the nature of faith; as is evident by Romans 9:33. “As it is written, Behold, I lay in Sion a stumbling-stone, and rock of offence; and whosoever believeth on him, shall not be ashamed.”

The apostle there in the context is speaking of justifying faith; and it is evident, that trusting in Christ is implied in the import of the word believeth. For being ashamed, as the word is used in Scripture, is the passion that arises upon the frustration of truth or confidence. There is implied in justifying faith, a trusting to Christ’s truth and faithfulness, or a believing what he declares and promises; as is evident, in that it is called not only believing in Christ, and believing on Christ, but believing Christ; John 3:36. “He that believeth not the Son, shall not see life.” Trusting in Christ is often implied in faith, according to the representations of Scripture; Isaiah 27:5. “Or let him take hold of my strength that he may make peace with me; and he shall make peace with me.” 45. Why is this reception or unition of the soul properly expressed by faith?

Answer. Not so much, merely from the nature of the act, more abstractedly considered, which is unition, reception, or closing; but from the nature of the act, conjointly with the state of the agent and the object of the act, which qualifies and specifies the act and adds certain qualifications to the abstract idea of unition, closing, or reception. Consider the state of the receiver; guilty, miserable, undone, impotent, helpless, unworthy; and the nature and worth of the received, he being a divine, invisible Saviour: the end for which he is received, the benefits invisible: the ground on which he is received or closed with, the word of God, and his invitations and promises: the circumstances of those things that are received, supernatural, incomprehensible, wonderful, difficult, unsearchable: the proper act of unition or reception in such a case, is most aptly expressed by the word faith. Fearfulness is opposite to faith, Mark 4:40. “Why are ye so fearful?

How is it that ye have no faith?” And Revelation 21:8. “But the fearful and the unbelieving.” Justifying faith is sometimes called hope in Scripture. 46. The condition both of the first and second covenant, is a receiving, compliance with, or yielding to, a signification or declaration from God, or to a revelation made from God. A receiving or yielding to a signification of the will of God, as our sovereign Lord and Lawgiver is most properly called obedience. The receiving and yielding to a strange, mysterious revelation and offer which God makes of mercy to sinners, being a revelation of things spiritual, supernatural, invisible, and mysterious, through an infinite power, wisdom, and grace of God, is properly called faith. There is indeed obedience in the condition of both covenants, and there is faith or believing God in both. But the different name arises from the remarkably different nature of the revelation or manifestations made.

The one is a law; the other a testimony and offer. The one is a signification of what God expects that we should do towards him, and what he expects to receive from us; the other a revelation of what he has done for us, and an offer of what we may receive from him. The one is an expression of God’s great authority over us, in order to a yielding to the authority; the other is a revelation of God’s mysterious and wonderful mercy, and wisdom, and power for us, in order to a reception answerable to such a revelation.

The reason why this was not so fully insisted upon under the Old Testament, under the denomination of faith, was, that the revelation itself of this great salvation, was not thus explicitly and fully made.

It must most naturally be called faith,1. Because the word that is the object of it, is a revelation which most nearly concerns our interest and good; and that a revelation not of a work to be done by us, but an offer made to us only to be received by us.

If it were a manifestation otherwise than by testimony, a receiving of it, and yielding to it, — would not so naturally be called faith; and if a mere manifestation of something not nearly concerning us, it would not naturally be called faith. For idle stories, that do not concern us, are not the object of trust or dependence. If it were a manifestation in order to something expected from us; some work to be done by us; a yielding to it would not so properly be called faith, For yielding, then, would imply something more than just receiving the testimony. 2. Because the person that is the object of it, is revealed in the character of a wonderful Saviour. A receiving of a person in the character of a Saviour, is a proper act of trust and affiance. And a receiving a divine, invisible Saviour, that offers to save us by infinite power, wisdom, and mercy, and by very mysterious, supernatural works, is properly faith. 3. The benefits that are revealed, which are the objects of faith, are things spiritual, invisible, wonderful, and future; and therefore, embracing and depending on these, is properly faith. 47. Faith implies a cleaving to Christ, so as to be disposed to sell and suffer all for him. See John 12:42,43. “Nevertheless, among the chief nilers also, many believed on him; but because of the Pharisees they did not confess him, lest they should be put out of the synagogue; for they love the praise of men more than the praise of God.’ John 5:44. “How can ye believe, which receive honour one of another, and seek not the honour that cometh from God only?” 48. Faith is not all ‘kind of assent to the word of God as true and divine.

For so the Jews in Christ’s time assented to the books of Moses, and therefore Christ tells them, that they trusted in Moses; John 5:45. “There is one that accuseth you, even Moses, in whom ye trust.” Yet the very thing that Moses accuses them for, was not believing in him, i.e. believing so as to yield to his sayings, and comply with him, or obey him, as the phrase in the New Testament is concerning Christ. And therefore Christ says in the next verse, “For had ye believed Moses, ye would have believed me; for he wrote of me.” There may be a strong belief of divine things in the understanding, and yet no saving faith; as is manifest by 1 Corinthians 13:2. “Though I have all faith, so that I could remove mountains, and have no charity, I am nothing.” Not only trusting in Christ, as one that has undertaken to save us, and as believing that he is our Saviour, is faith; but applying to him, or seeking to him, that he would become our saviour, with a sense of his reality and goodness as a Saviour, is faith; as is evident by Romans 15:12. “In him shall the Gentiles trust.” Compared with the place whence it is cited, Hebrews 11:10. “To it shall the Gentiles seek;” together with Psalm 9:10. “And they that know thy name, will put their trust in thee: for thou, Lord, hast not forsaken them that seek thee.” Which agrees well with faith’s being called a looking to Christ, or coming to him for life, a flying for refuge to him, or flying to him for safety. And this is the first act of saving faith. And prayer s being the expression of faith, confirms this.

This is further confirmed by Isaiah 31:2. “Woe to them that go down to Egypt for help, and stay on horses, and trust in chariots, because they are many; and in horsemen, because they are very strong: but they look not unto the Holy one of Israel, neither-seek the Lord.” When it is said, Psalm lxix. 6. “Let not them that wait on thee, O Lord, be ashamed for my sake: let not those that seek thee be confounded for my sake:” it is equivalent to that scripture, “He that believeth shall never be confounded.” And when it is said, verse 32. “And your heart shall live that seek the Lord;” it is equivalent to that scripture, “The just shall live by faith.” So Psalm 22:26. and Psalm 70:4. And so Amos 5:4. “For thus saith the Lord unto the house of Israel, Seek ye me, and ye shall live.” And verse 6. “Seek the Lord, and ye shall live.” And ver. 8. “Seek him that made the seven stars and Orion, and turneth the shadow of death into the morning.” Song of Solomon 4:8. “Look from the top of Amana.” Isaiah 17:7,8. “At that day shall a man look to his Maker, and his eyes shall have respect to the Holy One of Israel, and he shall not look to the altars, the work of his hands neither shall respect that which his fingers have made, either the groves or the images.” Isaiah 65:22. “Look unto me, and be ye saved, all the ends of the earth.” Jonah 2:4. “1 will look again towards thine holy temple.” Micah 7:7. “Therefore I will look unto the Lord; I will wait for the God of my salvation: my God will hear me.” Psalm 34:5. “They looked unto him, and were lightened; their faces were not ashamed.” 49. Faith is a taking hold of God’s strength; Isaiah 27:5. “O let him take hold of my strength, that he may make peace with me, and he shall make peace with me.” Faith is expressed by stretching out the hand to Christ; Psalm lxviii. 31. “Ethiopia shall soon stretch out her hands to God.” So Christ said to the man that had the withered hand, “Stretch forth thine hand.” Promises of mercy and help are often in Scripture made to rolling our burden, and rolling ourselves, or rolling our way on the Lord. Proverbs 16:3. “Commit thy works unto the Lord, and thy thoughts shall be established.” Psalm 22:8. and 37:5. “He trusted on the Lord that he would deliver him: let him deliver him, seeing he delighted in him.” — “Commit thy way unto the Lord; trust also in him, and he shall bring it to pass.” 50. That there are different sorts of faith, and that all believing that Christ is the Son of God, and Saviour of the world, etc, is not true and saving faith, or that faith which most commonly has the name of faith appropriated to it in the New Testament, is exceedingly evident by John 6:64. “But there are some of you that believe not. For Jesus knew from the beginning, who they were that believed not, and who should betray him.”

Here all false disciples, that had but a temporary faith, that thought him to be the Messiah, but would fall away, as Judas and others are said to be those that believed not, making an essential difference between their belief, and that grace that has the term faith, or believing, appropriated to it. Faith is a receiving of Christ into the heart, in such a sense as to believe that he is what he declares himself to be, and to have such a high esteem of him as an excellent Lord and Saviour, and so to prize him, and so to depend upon him, as not to be ashamed nor afraid to profess him, and openly and constantly to appear on his side. See Romans 10:8-13. 51. Trusting in riches, as Christ uses the expression concerning the rich young man, and as the expression is used elsewhere, is an extensive expression, comprehending many dispositions, affections, and exercises of heart towards riches; so faith in Christ, or trusting in Christ, is as extensive.

The soul’s active closing or uniting with Christ, is faith. But the act of the soul, in its uniting or closing, must he agreeable to the kind and nature of the union that is to be established between Christ and the saints, and that subsists between them, and is the foundation of the saints communion with Christ. Such is the nature of it, that it is not merely like the various parts of a building, that are cemented and cleave fast together; or as marble and precious stones may be joined, so as to become one: but it is such a kind of union as subsists between the head and living members, between stock and branches; between which, and the head or stock, there is such a kind of union, that there is an entire, immediate, perpetual dependence for, and derivation of, nourishment, refreshment, beauty, fruitfulness, and all supplies; yea, life and being. And the union is wholly for this Purpose; this derivation is the end of it; and it is the most essential thing in the union.

Now such a union as this, when turned into act, (if I may so say,) or an active union of an intelligent rational being, that is agreeable to this kind of union, and is a recognition and expression, and as it were the active band of it, is something else besides mere love, It is an act most properly expressed by the name of faith, according to the proper meaning of the word so translated, as it was used in the days when the Scriptures were written. 52. Trusting in a prince or ruler, as the phrase was understood among the Jews, implied in it faithful adherence and entire subjection, submission, and obedience. So much the phrase plainly implies; Judges 9:15. “And the bramble said unto the trees, If in truth ye anoint me king over you, then come and put your trust in my shadow; and, if not, let fire come out of the bramble, and devour the cedars of Lebanon.” We have an account of the fulfilment of this parable in the sequel. How the men of Shechem did not prove faithful subjects to Abimelech, according to their covenant or agreement with him, but dealt treacherously with him. Ver. 23. And how accordingly Abimelech proved the occasion of their destruction. The like figure of speech is used to signify the nation’s obedience to the king of Assyria, Ezekiel 31:6. “All the fowls of heaven made their nests in his boughs, and under his branches did all the beasts of the field bring forth their young, and under his shadow dwelt all great nations.” So also it signifies the subjection of the nations to Nebuchadnezzar; Daniel 4:11,12. “The tree grew, and it was strong: the beasts of the field had shadow under it, and the fowls of the heaven dwelt in the boughs thereof, and all flesh fed of it.” The benefit that those who are the true subjects of Christ have by him, is expressed by the very same things; Ezekiel 17:23.” In the mountain of the height of Israel will I plant it: and it shall bring forth boughs, and bear fruit, and be a goodly cedar; and under it shall dwell all fowl of every wing; in the shadow of the branches thereof shall they dwell.” Our trusting in God and Christ, is often expressed by our trusting in his shadow, and under the shadow of his wings, and the like; Psalm 17:8. and 36:7. and 57:1. and 63:7. and 91:1. Song of Solomon 2:3. Isaiah 4:6. and 25:4. Here see Ruth 2:12. compared with chap. 1:16. John 3:36. “He that believeth on the Son hath everlasting life: he that believeth not the Son “ The force of the word may in some measure be learned from Acts 5:36,37. and Acts 5:40. “And to him they agreed or obeyed;” the word is the same in the Greek. And Acts 22:21. “But do not thou yield unto them;” the word is the same in the Greek. Acts 26:19. “I was not disobedient (apeiqeiv ) to the heavenly vision;” Romans 1:30. “ Disobedient to parents, ....” See also Acts 16:4. “Some of them believed (in the Greek epeisqhshson )and consorted with Paul and Silas.” Acts 14:2. “The unbelieving Jews, apeiqeiv “ Ephesians 2:2. “The spirit that now worketh in the children of disobedience, apeiqeiv “We may judge something of the force of the word peiqomai , by the signification of the word whence it comes peiqomai ; is the passive of peiqw which signifies, to counsel, to move or entice, draw or persuade unto. 53. That a saving belief of truth arises from love, or a holy disposition and relish of heart, appears by Philippians 1:9, is “And this I pray, that your love may abound yet more and more in knowledge, and in all judgment, that ye may approve things that are excellent.” That this approving of the things that are excellent, is mentioned as an instance of the exercise of that knowledge and judgment that is spoken of as the fruit of love, appears more plainly in the original, as the connexion is evident, eiv to dokimazein , unto the approving. The same thing appears by Thessalonians 2:12. “That they all might be damned, who believed not the truth, but had pleasure in unrighteousness.” 54. It is fit that, seeing we depend so entirely and universally, visibly, and remarkably, on God, in our fallen state, for happiness, and seeing the special design of God was to bring us into such a great and most evident dependence; that the act of the soul, by which it is interested in this benefit, bestowed in this way, should correspond; viz, a looking and seeking to, and depending on God for it; that the unition of heart, that is the proper term, should imply such an application of the soul to God, and seeking his benefits only and entirely, and with full sense of dependence on him, that as the condition before was obedience, or rendering to God, so now it should be seeking and looking to him, drawing and deriving from him, and with the whole heart depending on him, on his power and free grace, etc. Faith is the proper active union of the soul with Christ as our Saviour, as revealed to us in the gospel. But the proper active union of the soul with Christ as our Saviour, as revealed to us in the gospel, is the soul’s active agreeing, and suiting or adapting itself, in its act, to the exhibition God gives us of Christ, and his redemption; to the nature of the exhibition, being pure revelation, and a revelation of things perfectly above our senses and reason; and to Christ himself in his person as revealed, and in the character under which he is revealed to us; and to our state with regard to him in that character; and to our need of him, and concern with him, and his relation to us, and to the benefits to us, with which he is exhibited and offered to us in that revelation; and to the great design of God in that method and divine contrivance of salvation revealed. But the most proper name for such an action, union, or unition of the soul to Christ, as this, of any that language affords, is faith. 55. The revelation or exhibition that God first made of himself, was of his authority, demanding and requiring of us, that we should render something to him that nature and reason required. The act of the soul that is suitable to such an exhibition, may be expressed by submitting, doing, obeying, and rendering to God. The exhibition which God makes of himself, since our fall, in the gospel, is not of his power and authority, as demanding of us, but of his sufficiency for us, as needing, empty, helpless; and of his grace and mercy to us, as unworthy and miserable. And the exhibition is by pure revelation of things quite above all our senses and reason, or the reach of any created faculties, being of the mere good pleasure of God. The act in us, that is proper and suitable to, and well according to, such an exhibition as this, may be expressed by such names as believing, seeking, looking, depending, acquiescing, or in one word, faith. 56. That believing, in the New Testament, is much the same as trusting, in the Old, is confirmed by comparing Jeremiah 17:5. “Cursed is the man that trusteth in man, and maketh flesh his arm, and whose heart departeth from the Lord;” ver. 7. “Blessed is the man that trusteth in the Lord, whose hope the Lord is”-with Hebrews 3:12. “Take heed, brethren, lest there be in any of you an evil heart of unbelief, in departing from the living God.” It also is confirmed by this, that trusting in God, and hoping in him, are used in the Old Testament as expressions of the same import. So hope is often in the New Testament used to signify the same thing that, in other places, is signified by faith. Romans 15:12,13. “And again, Esaias saith, There shall be a root of Jesse, and he that shall rise to reign over the Gentiles, in him shall the Gentiles trust.” “Now the God of peace fill you with all joy and peace in believing, that ye may abound in hope through the power of the Holy Ghost.” Compare Daniel 3:38. with Daniel 6:23. and Hebrews 11:33,34.

It is manifest, that trusting in God is a phrase of the same import with believing in him, by comparing isa. 49:23. “They shall not be ashamed that wait for me with Isaiah 28:16. and Romans 9:33. and 10:11. 1 Peter 6:6, 7, 8. These places show, that waiting for God, signifies the same as believing on him. And it is evident, by various passages of Scripture, that waiting on God, or for God, signifies the same as trusting in him. 57. That saving faith implies in its nature divine love, is manifest by 1 John 5:1. “Whosoever believeth that Jesus is the Christ, is born of God; and every one that loveth him that begat, loveth him also that is begotten of him.” The apostle’s design in this verse seems to be, to show the connexion there is between a true and sincere respect to God, and a respect to and union with Christ; so that he who is united to the Son, is so to the Father, and vice versa. As he believes in Christ, and so loves him, it is evident that he is a child of God, and vice versa. He whose heart is united to the Father, is so to the Son too. He that loveth him that begat, loveth him also that is begotten of him. (Compare chap. 2:22, 23, 24. and chap. 4:15. with John 14:1. and John 15:23,24.) The same is further manifest again by the following verses of this chapter, 3, 4, 5. “This is the love of God, that we keep his commandments; and his commandments are not grievous;” i. e, this is a good evidence that we have true love to God, that we are enabled to triumph over the difficulties we meet with in this evil world, and not to esteem the yoke of denial of our worldly lusts a grievous and heavy yoke, and on that account be unwilling to take it upon us. “For whosoever is born of God, overcometh the world; and this is the victory that overcometh the world, even our faith.” This is explaining what he had said before, that our love to God enables us to overcome the difficulties that attend keeping God’s commands; which shows that love is the main thing in saving faith, the life and power of it, by which it produces great effects; agreeably to what the apostle Paul says, when he calls saving faith, “faith effectual by love.” 58. Seeking God is from time to time spoken of as the condition of God’s favour and salvation, in like manner as trusting in him; Psalm 24:5,6. “He shall receive the blessing from the Lord, and righteousness from the God of his salvation, This is the generation of them that seek him; that seek thy face, O Jacob.” 1 Chronicles 16:10. “ Glory ye in his ho y name. Let the heart of them rejoice that seek the Lord.” See the same words in Psalm 105:3, Psalm 22:26. “The meek shall eat and be satisfied. They shall praise the Lord that seek him. Your heart shall live for ever.” Psalm 34:10. “The young lions do lack and suffer hunger; but they that seek the Lord shall not want any good thing.”

They that seek God are spoken of as those that love God’s salvation.

Psalm 70:4. “Let all those that seek thee, rejoice and be glad in thee; and let such as love thv salvation, say continually, Let the Lord be magnified.”

We have the same words again, Psalm 40:16. The expression seems to be in some measure parallel with trusting in God’s salvation; Psalm 78:22. “Because they believed not in God, and trusted not in his salvation.” And hoping in God’s salvation, Psalm 119:166. “I have hoped or thy salvation.”

And waiting for God’s salvation, Genesis 49:18. “ I have waited for thy salvation, O God.” Lamentations 3:25,26. “The Lord is good unto them that wait for him; to the soul that seeketh him. It is good that a man should both hope and quietly wait for the salvation of the Lord.” Micah 7:7. “I will wait for the God of my salvation.” Agreeably to this, despising the pleasant land, is spoken of as an exercise of the spirit of unbelief; Psalm 116:24. “ Yea, they despised the pleasant land; they believed not his word.” 59. Flying, resorting, or running to, as to a refuge, are terms used as being equivalent to trusting; Psalm 62:7,8. “ My refuge is in God. Trust in him at all times, God is a refuge for us.” Psalm 91:2. Proverbs 18:10. “The name of the Lord is a strong tower; the righteous runneth into it, and is safe.”

Psalm 71:1,3. “ In thee, O Lord, do I put my trust.”-” Be thou my strong habitation, whereunto I may continually resort. Thou hast given commandment to save me; for thou art my rock and my fortress.” Hebrews 6:18. “ Who have fled forrefuge to lay hold on the hope set before us.” 60. Waiting on the Lord, waiting for his salvation, and the like, are terms used as being equivalent to trusting in God in the Scripture. Psalm 25:2. “O my God, I trust in thee; let me not be ashamed.” Verse 5. “On thee do I wait all the day.” Verse 21. “Let integrity and uprightness preserve me, for on thee do I wait.” Psalm 37:3. “Trust in the Lord.” Ver. 5. “Trust also in him.” Verse 7. “ Rest on the Lord, and wait patiently for him.” Psalm 27:13,14. “ I had fainted, unless I had believed to see the goodness of the Lord in the land of the living. Wait on the Lord, and be of good courage, and he shall strengthen thine heart; wait, I say, on the Lord.” 61. Hoping in God, hoping in his mercy, etc. are used as terms equivalent to trusting in God. Psalm 78:7. “That they might set their hope in God.”

Psalm 146:5. “ Happy is that man that hath the God of Jacob for his aid; whose hope is in the Lord his God.” Jeremiah 14:8. “O the hope of Israel, and the Saviour thereof in time of trouble.” Jeremiah 17:7. “Blessed is the man that trusteth in the Lord; whose hope the Lord is.” Verse 13. “O Lord, the hope of Israel, all that forsake thee shall be ashamed.” Verse 17.” Thou art my hope in the day of evil.” 1 Peter 1:3,4,5, etc. “Hath begotten us again unto a lively hope, by the resurrection of Christ from the dead; to an inheritance incorruptible, etc. who are kept by the power of God through faith unto salvation, wherein ye greatly rejoice; that the trial of your faith being much more precious-whom having not seen, ye love; in whom, though now ye see him not, yet believing, ye rejoice, etc. receiving the end of your faith, even the salvation of your souls.” Verse 13. “ Be ye sober, and hope to the end, for the grace that is to be brought unto you at the revelation of Jesus Christ;” verse 21, 22. “Who by him do believe in God, who raised him up from the dead, and gave him glory, that your faith and hope might be in God: seeing ye have purified your souls in obeying the truth through the Spirit.” Chap. 3:15. “And be ready always to give an answer to every man that asketh you a reason of the hope that is in you.”

Hebrews 11:1. “Faith is the substance of things hoped for.” Matthew 12:21. “ In his name shall the Gentiles trust;” — in the original hope. 62. Looking to, or looking for, are used as phrases equivalent to trusting, seeking, hoping, waiting, believing on, etc. Numbers 21:9. “And it came to pass, that if a serpent had bitten any man, when he beheld the serpent of brass, he lived;” together with John 3:14,15. “And as Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, even so must the Son of man be lifted up; that whosoever believeth in him, should not perish, but have eternal life.” Isaiah 45:22. “Look unto me, and be ye saved, all the ends of the earth.” Psalm 123:1,2. “Unto thee I lift up mine eyes, O thou that dwellest in the heavens. Behold, as the eyes of servants look unto the hand of their master, and as the eyes of a maiden unto the hand of her mistress; so our eyes wait upon the Lord our God, until that he have mercy upon us.” 63. Rolling oneself, or burden, on the Lord, is an expression used as equivalent to trusting. Psalm 22:8.

He trusted in the Lord, that he would deliver him:” in the original, “ He rolled himself on the Lord.” Psalm 37:5.” Commit thy way unto the Lord; trust also in him, and he shall bring it to pass.” In the Hebrew, Roll thy way upon the Lord. Proverbs 16:3. “ Commit thy works unto the Lord, and thy thoughts shall be established.” In the Hebrew, Roll thy works. 64. Leaning on the Lords and staying ourselves on him, are of the same force. Micah 3:11.” Yet will they lean on the Lord.” Song of Solomon - 8:5. “Who is this that cometh up out of the wilderness, leaning on her beloved?” 65. Relying on God, 2 Chronicles 13:18. “Thus the children of Israel were brought under at that time, and the children of Judah prevailed; because they relied upon the Lord God of their fathers;” compared with verses 14, 15. wherein it is said, “ And when Judah looked hack, behold, the battle was before and behind; and they cried unto the Lord, and the priests sounded with the trumpets. Then the men of Judah gave a shout, and as the men of Judah shouted. it came to pass that God smote Jeroboam and all Israel, before Ahijah and Judah.” 66. Committing ourselves, our cause, etc. unto God, is of the same force.

Job 5:8. “I would seek unto God, and unto God would I commit my cause, who doth great things, and unsearchable, marvellous things without number.” 67. The distinction of the several constituent parts or acts of faith, in assent, consent, and affiance, if strictly considered and examined, will appear not to be proper and just, or strictly according to the truth and nature of things; because the parts are not all entirely distinct one from another, and so are in some measure confounded one with another: for the last, viz, affiance, implies the other two, assent and consent; and is nothing else but a man’s assent and consent, with particular relation or application to himself and his own case, together with the effect of all in his own quietness and comfort of mind, and boldness in venturing on this foundation, in conduct and practice.

Affiance consists in these five things: 1. Consent to something proposed, to be obtained by another person, as good, eligible, or desirable, and so for him. 2. Assent of the judgment to the reality of the good, as to be obtained by him; that he is sufficient, faithful, etc. 3. The mind’s applying itself to him for it, which is no other than the soul’s desiring him to possess us of this good consented to, expressing these desires before him, that he may see and take notice of them, i.e. expressing these desires with an apprehension that he sees our hearts, and designedly spreading them before him, to the end that they might he observed by him and gratified. 4. Hoping that the good will be obtained in this way; which hone consists in two things, viz, expectation of the good in this way; and in some, ease, quietness, or comfort of mind, arising from this expectation. 5. Adventuring some interest on this hope in practice; which consists either in doing something that implies trouble, or brings expense or suffering, or in omitting something that we should otherwise do; by which omission some good is foregone, or some evil is brought on.

If these acts cannot in strictness all take place at the same moment of time, though they follow one another in the order of nature, yet they are all implied in the act that is exercised the first moment, so far as that act is of such a nature as implies a necessary tendency to what follows. In these last three especially consists man’s committing himself for Christ as a Saviour, In the third and fourth especially consists the soul’s looking to Christ as a Saviour. 68. In that consent to the way or method of salvation, which there is in saving faith, the heart has especially respect to two things in that method, that are the peculiar glory of it, and whereby it is peculiarly contrary to corrupt nature: 1. Its being a way wherein God is so exalted and set so high, and man so debased and set so low. God is made all in all, and man nothing.

God is magnified as self-sufficient, and all-sufficient, and as being all in all to us; his power and grace, and Christ’s satisfaction and merits, being all: and man is annihilated; his power, his righteousness, his dignity, his works, are made nothing of. 2. Its being so holy a way; a way of mere mercy, yet of holy mercy; mercy in saving the sinner, by showing no favour or countenance to sin; a way of free grace, yet of holy grace; not grace exercised to the prejudice of God’s holiness, but in such a way as peculiarly to manifest God’s hatred to sin and opposition to it, and strict justice in punishing it, and that he will by no means clear the guilty; every way manifesting the infinite evil and odiousness of sin, much more than if there had been no salvation offered. Therefore, humiliation and holiness are the chief ingredients in the act of consent to this way of salvation.

In these things I have spoken only of a consent to the way or method of salvation, But in saving faith is included also a consent to the salvation itself; or the benefits procured. What is peculiarly contrary to this in corrupt nature, is a worldly spirit; and therefore in order to this act of consent there must be mortification to or weanedness from the world, and a selling of all for the pearl of great price.

Lastly. Besides all these, there is in saving faith a consent to Christ himself, or a closing of the heart or inclination with the person of Christ. This implies each of the three things forementioned, viz, humiliation, holiness, and renouncing the world. It implies humiliation; for as long as men deify themselves, they will not adore Jesus Christ. It implies sanctification; for Christ’s beauty, for which his person is delighted in and chosen, is especially his holiness. It implies forsaking the world; for as long as men set their hearts on the world as their chief good, and have that as the chief object of the relish and complaisance of their minds, they will not relish and take complaisance in Christ, and set their hearts on him as their best good.

The heart of a true believer consents to three things exhibited in the gospel of salvation. 1. The person who is the author of the salvation. 2. The benefit, or the salvation itself. 3. The way or method in which this person is the author of this benefit. 69. Faith implies a cleaving of the heart to Christ; because a trusting in others is spoken of as a departing of the heart from the Lord. Jeremiah 17:5. “Cursed is the man that trusteth in man, whose heart departeth from the Lord.” So a heart of unbelief is a heart that departeth from the Lord.

Hebrews 3:12. “ Lest there he in any of you an evil heart of unbelief, in departing from the living God.” Faith has a double office. It accepts Christ from God, and presents Christ to God. It accepts Christ in the word, and makes use of him in prayer. In the word, God offereth him to you as Lord and Saviour, to give you repentance and remission of sins. Now, when you consent to God’s terms, this is to believe in him. — Faith presents Christ to God; Ephesians 3:12. “In whom we have boldness and access with confidence, by the faith of him.” All religion lieth in coming to God by him.

Hebrews 7:25. “Wherefore he is able also to save them unto the uttermost, that come unto God through him; seeing he ever liveth to make intercession for them.” Dr. Manton, vol. v p. 382. 70. We often read in the New Testament of the calling of Christians, of their high calling; and that effect of God’s word and Spirit, by which they are brought to a saving faith, is called their calling; and true believers are spoken of as the called of God, called saints, etc. And this call is often represented as an invitation, an invitation to come to Christ, to come and join themselves to him, to come to follow him, to continue with him, to be of his party, his society, seeking his interest, etc. To come to him for his benefits, to come for deliverance from calamity and misery, to come for safety, to come for rest, to come to eat and drink; an invitation to come into his house, to a feast. And faith is often called by the name of ..., hearing, hearkening, yielding to, and obeying the gospel, obeying Christ, being obedient to the faith, obeying the form of doctrine, etc.

Hence we may learn the nature of saving faith; that it is an accepting, yielding to, and complying with the gospel, as such a call and invitation; which implies the hearing of the mind, 1:c. the mind’s apprehending or understanding the call; a believing of the voice, and the offer and promises contained in it; and accepting, esteeming, prizing the person and benefits invited to; a falling in of the inclination, the choice, the affection, etc. 71. Faith, as the word is used in Scripture does not only signify dependence, as it appears in venturing in practice, but also appears in the rest of the mind, in opposition to anxiety; as appears by Matthew 6:25-34. “Take no thought — shall he not much more clothe you, O ye of little faith?” So Luke 12:22-32. “Take no thought how much more will he clothe you, O ye of little faith! Fear not, little flock, it is your Father’s good pleasure to give you the kingdom,” compared with Philippians 4:6,7. and I Peter 5:7. This is agreeable to a phrase used in the Old Testament for trusting, “Roll thy burden on the Lord.” Matthew 14:30,31. “But when he saw the wind boisterous, he was afraid; and beginning to sink, he cried, saying, Lord, save me. And immediately Jesus stretched forth his hand, and caught him, and said unto him, O thou of little faith, wherefore didst thou doubt?” 72. The following inquiries concerning saving faith, are proper and important 1. Whether justifying faith, in its proper essence, implies, besides the act of the judgment, also an act of the inclination and will? 2 . Whether it properly implies love in its essence? 3. What are the scripture descriptions, characters, and representations of justifying faith? 4. What is the true definition of justifying faith, a definition which agrees with the scripture representation of faith, and takes all in? 5. Whether the word faith, as used in the gospel, has a signification diverse from what it has in common speech? 6. Why the word faith is used to signify this complex act of the mind? 7. How far trusting in Christ is of the nature and essence of faith? 8. Whether assent, consent, and affiance, be a proper distribution of the various and distinct acts of faith. 9. Whether hope, as the word is used in the New Testament, be properly distinct from saving faith? 10. What does the word trust imply in common speech? 11. What it implies as used in the Scriptures? 12. In what sense faith implies obedience? 13. What is the nature of self-righteousness? 14. How self-righteousness is peculiarly opposite to the nature of faith? 15. In what sense there must be a particular application in the act of saving faith? 16. Whether the first act of faith is certainly more lively and sensible, than some of the weakest of the consequent acts of saving faith? 17. In what sense perseverance in faith is necessary to salvation? 18. What sort of evidence is it which is the principal immediate ground of that assent of the judgment which is implied in saving faith? 73. Calling on the name of Christ, is often spoken of as the proper expression of saving faith in Christ. Acts 2:21. Romans 10:13,14. 1 Corinthians 1:2. Acts 9:14,21,22,16. Faith is trusting in Christ. See Doddridge’s note on Acts 16:31.

What in that prophecy of the Messiah in Isaiah 42:4. is expressed thus, “The isles shall wait for his law,” is, as cited in Matthew 18:21. “In his name shall the Gentiles trust.”

Coming to Christ, and believing in him, are evidently used as equipollent expressions, in John 6:29,30. 35. 37, 40, 44, 45, 47, 64, 65. This coming, wherein consists believing, implies an attraction of the heart, as is manifest by verses 44, 45.

Christ, by eating his flesh and drinking his blood, evidently means the same thing that he intends in the same chapter, by believing in him, and coming to him. Compare John 6:50, 51-54. 56-58, with verses 29, 30, 35-37, 40, 44, 45, 47, 64, 65.

Saving faith is called in Hebrews 3:6. ..., “The confidence and the rejoicing of the hope.” Well expressing the act of the whole soul that is implied in saving faith, the judgment, the will, and affections. So in Hebrews 10:23. “Let us hold fast the profession of our faith.” In the original it is hope.

Justifying faith is nothing else but true virtue in its proper and genuine breathings adapted to the case, to the revelation made, the state we are in, the benefit to be received, and the way and the means of it, and our relation to these things.

Faith is a sincere seeking righteousness and salvation, of Christ, and in Christ. Romans 9:31,32. “Hath not attained to the law of righteousness.

Wherefore? Because they sought it not by faith, but as it were by the works of the law.” See also the promises made, both in the Old Testament and New, to them that seek the Lord. To saving faith in Christ belongs adoration, submission, and subjection, as appears by Isaiah 45:”Unto me every knee shall bow,” with the foregoing and following verses.

The general description of justifying faith is a proper reception of Christ and his salvation, or a proper active union of the soul to Christ as a Saviour. I say, a proper reception, which implies that it is a receiving him in a manner agreeable to his office and character and relation to us, in which he is exhibited and offered to us, and with regard to those ends and effects for which he is given to mankind, was sent into the world, and is appointed to be preached; and in a manner agreeable to the way in which he is exhibited, made known, and offered, i.e. by divine revelation, without being exhibited to the view of ourselves; and the nature of his person, character, offices, and benefits; and the way of salvation, as related to our faculties, mysterious and incomprehensible; and in a manner agreeable to our circumstances, and our particular necessities, and immediate and infinite personal concern with the revelation and offer of the Saviour. A union of soul to this Saviour, and a reception of him and his salvation, which is proper in these respects, is most aptly called by the name of faith. 74. That love belongs to the essence of saving faith, is manifest by comparing Isaiah 64:4. “Men have not heard nor perceived by the ear, etc. what he hath prepared for him that waiteth for him,” as cited by the apostle, 1 Corinthians 2:9. “ It is for them that love him.” Now it is evident that waiting for God, in the Old Testament, signifies the same with faith in God, or trusting in God.

Dr. Goodwin, in vol. 1. of his Works, p. 286. says, “The papists say, wickedly and wretchedly, that love is the form and soul of faith.” But how does the truth of this charge of wickedness appear?

It was of old the coming to the sacrifice, as one consenting to the offering active in choosing and constituting that as his offering, and looking to it as the means of atonement for his sins, that interested him in the sacrifice; as appears by Hebrews 10:1,2. “Could never make the comers thereunto perfect. For then, the worshippers, once purged, should have had no more conscience of sins.” Compare chap. 9:9.

Believing in one for any benefit, as sufficient for the benefit, and disposed to procure it, and accordingly leaving our interest with him, with regard to that benefit, is implied in trusting in him, “Wilt thou trust him, because his strength is great? Or wilt thou leave thy labour with him? Wilt thou believe him, that he will bring home thy seed, and gather it into thy barn?” (Job 39:11.)

As the whole soul in all its faculties is the proper subject and agent of faith, so undoubtedly there are two things in saving faith, viz, belief of the truth, and an answerable disposition of heart. And therefore faith may be defined, a thorough believing of what the gospel reveals of a Saviour of sinners, as true and perfectly good, with the exercise of an answerable disposition towards him. That true faith, in the scripture sense of it, implies not only the exercise of the understanding, but of the heart or disposition, is very manifest. Many important things pertaining to Saving religion, which the Scripture speaks of under the name of some exercise of the understanding, imply the disposition and exercise of the heart also. Such as, knowing Godunderstanding the word of God having eyes to see, and a heart to understand. And piety is called wisdom. So men’s wickedness is called ignorance, folly, etc. A being wise in one’s own eyes, implies a high opinion of himself, with an agreeable or answerable disposition.

It is evident that trust in Christ implies the disposition or will, the receiving and embracing oh’ the heart. For we do not trust in any person or thing for any thing but good, or what is agreeable to us; ‘what we choose, incline to, and desire. Yea, trusting commonly is used with respect to great good: good that we choose, as what we depend upon for support, satisfaction, happiness, etc. 75. The following things concerning the nature of faith, are extracted from Dr. Sherlock’s Several Discourses, preached at Temple Church; discourse 14. page 257, etc.

Faith, as some think, is no proper subject or exhortation. For if faith is a mere act of the mind judging upon motives of credibility, it is as reasonable to exhort a man to see with his eyes, as to judge with his understanding.

But then, if this be the true notion of faith, how comes it that in every age we find the praises of it in the gospel? What is t here in this to deserve the blessings promised to the faithful? Or whence is it that the whole of our salvation is put upon this foot? How come all these prerogatives to belong to faith, if faith be nothing else but believing things in themselves credible?

Why are we not said to be justified by light as well as by ‘faith? For is not there the same virtue in seeing things visible, as in believing things credible? Tell me then, what is faith, that it should raise men above the level of mortality, and make men become like the angels of heaven?-But further, if it be only an act of the understanding formed upon due reasons, how comes it to be described in Scripture as having its seat in the heart?

The apostle in the text (Hebrews 3:12.) cautions against an evil heart of unbelief; and the same notion prevails throughout the books of Scripture, and is as early as our Saviour’s first preaching. Faith, which is the principle of the gospel, respects the promises and declaration of God, and includes a sure trust and reliance on hum for the performance. Beyond this, there is no further act of faith. We are not taught to believe this, in order to our believing something else; but here, faith has its full completion, and leads immediately to the practice of virtue and holiness. For this end was the Son of God revealed, to make known the mind and will of the Father, to declare his mercy and pardon, and to confirm the promises of eternal life to mankind, He that believes and accepts this deliverance from the bondage of sin, and through patience and perseverance in well doing, waits for the blessed hope of immortality; who passes through the world as a stranger and pilgrim, hooking for another country, and a city whose builder is God; this is he whose faith shall receive the promise, whose confidence shall have great recompence of reward.”

Here Dr. Sherlock speaks of that true christian faith, which is the principle of the gospel, as including a sure trust and reliance on God. The sante author elsewhere, in the same book, page 251. speaks of reliance or dependence on God, as arising from a principle of love to God, in the words following: “ The duties we owe to God, are founded in the relation between God and us. I observed likewise to you, that love naturally transforms itself into all relative duties, which arise from the circumstances of the person related. Thus, in the present case, if we love God, and consider him as Lord and Governor of the world, our love will soon become obedience. If we consider him as wise, and good, and gracious, our love will become honour and adoration. If we add to these our own natural weakness and infirmity, love will teach us dependence, and prompt us in all our wants to fly for refuge to our Great. Protector.” 76. That expression in Psalm h. 5. “Gather my saints, that have made a covenant with me by sacrifice,” seems to show that such is the nature of true faith in Christ, that believers do therein, by the sincere, full act of their minds and hearts, appoint Christ to be their sacrifice; as such, bring him an offering to God; i.e. they entirely concur with what was done in his offering himself a sacrifice for sinners, as a real sacrifice sufficient and proper for them, trusting in this sacrifice. Faith is the believer’s coming to God, and giving himself up to God, hoping for acceptance by this sacrifice, and taking God for his God, hoping for an interest in him as such by this sacrifice, that so God may be his God, and he one of his people. 77. it does not seem congruous, and in itself it is not proper, for God quite to pass over sin, rebellion, and treachery, and receive the offender into his entire favour, either without a repentance and sorrow, and detestation of his fault, adequate to the aggravation of it, (which can never be,) or, if there be another that appears in his stead, and has dune and suffered so much as fully to satisfy and pay the debt, it will not be proper to forgive him, whatever is done for him by his representative for his expiation, tinless there be an accepting of it by the offender for that end, a sense of its being adequate to the offence, and an applying of the mind to him, atid a recumbence upon him for satisfaction. This now seems to me evident from the very light of nature. 78. Justifying faith is more properly called faith than acceptance, because the things received are spiritual and unseen, and because they are received as future, and entirely the free gift of God. 79. Even the being of a God can be made most rationally and demonstratively evident, by divine revelation, and by gracious spiritual illumination; after the same manner as we have shown the christian religion, the superstructure built upon that foundation, is evident. Suppose all the world had otherwise been ignorant of the being of a God before, yet they might know it, because God has revealed himself; he has shown himself; he has said a great deal to us, and conversed much with us. And this is every whit as rational a way of being convinced of the being of God, as it is of being convinced of the being of a man who comes from un unknown region, and shows himself to us, and converses with us for a long time. We have no other reason to be convinced of his being, than only that we see a long series of external concordant signs of an understanding, will, and design, and various affections. The same way God makes known himself to us in his word. And if we have a full and comprehensive knowledge of the revelation made, of the things revealed, and of the various relations and respects of the various parts, their harmonies, congruities, and mutual concordances, there appear most indubitable signs and expressions of a very high and transcendent understanding, together with a great and mighty design, an exceeding wisdom, or most magnificent power and authority, a marvellous purity, holiness, and goodness. So that if we never knew there was any such being before, yet we might be certain that this must be such a one. 80. One that is well acquainted with the gospel, and sees the beauties, the harmonies, the majesty, the power, and the glorious wisdom of it and the like, may, only by viewing it, be as certain that it is no human work, as a man that is well acquainted with mankind and their works, may, by contemplating the sun, know it is not a human work; or, when he goes upon an island, and sees the various trees, and the manner of their growing, and blossoming, and bearing fruit, may know that they are not the work of man. 81. Faith is very often in the Scripture called trust, especially in the Old Testament. Now, trusting is something more than mere believing. Believing is the assent to any truth testified; trusting, always respects truth that nearly concerns ourselves, in regard of some benefit of our own that it reveals to us, and some benefit that the revealer is the author of. It is the acquiescence of the mind in a belief of any person, that by his word reveals or represents himself to us as the author of some good that concerns us. If the benefit be a deliverance or preservation from misery, it is a being easy in a belief that he will do it. So, if we say, a man trusts in a castle to save him from his enemies, we mean, his mind is easy, and rests in a persuasion that it will keep him safe. If the benefit be the bestowment of happiness, it is the mind’s acquiescing in it, that he will accomplish it; that is, he is persuaded he will do it; he has such a persuasion, that he rejoices in confidence of it.

Thus, if a man has promised a child to make him his heir, if we say he trusts in him to make him his heir, we mean he has such a belief of what he promises, that his mind acquiesces and rejoices in it, so as not to be disturbed by doubts and questions whether he will perform it. These things all the world means by trust. The first fruit of trust is being willing to do and undergo in the expectation of some thing. He that does not expect the benefit, so much as to make him ready to do or undergo, dares not trust it; he dares not run the venture of it. Therefore, they may be said to trust in Christ, and they only, that are ready to do and undergo all that he desires, in expectation of his redemption. And the faith of those that dare not do so, is unsound. Therefore, such trials are called the trials of faith.

But this is to be considered, that Christ does not promise that he will be the author of our redemption, but upon condition; and we have-not performed that condition, until we have believed. Therefore, we have no grounds, until we have once believed, to acquiesce in it that Christ will save us.

Therefore the first act of faith is no more than this, the acquiescence of the mind in him in what he does declare absolutely. It is the soul’s resting in him, and adhering to him, so far as his word does reveal him to all as a Saviour for sinners, as one that has wrought out redemption, as a sufficient Saviour, as a Saviour suited to their case, as a willing Saviour, as the author of an excellent salvation, etc. so as to be encouraged heartily to seek salvation of him, to come to him, to love, desire, and thirst after him as a Saviour, and fly for refuge to him. This is the very same thing in substance, as that trust we spoke of before, and is the very essence of it.

This is all the difference, that it was attended with this additional belief, viz. that the subject had performed the condition, which does not belong to the essence of faith. That definition which we gave of trust before, holds, viz. the acquiescence of the mind in the word of any person who reveals himself to us as the author of some good that nearly concerns us. Trusting is not only believing that a person will accomplish the good he promises: the thing that he promises may be very good, and the person promising or offering may be believed, and yet not properly trusted in; for the person to whom the offer is made, may not be sensible that the thing is good, and he may not desire it. If he offers to deliver him from something that is his misery, perhaps he is not sensible that it is his misery; or, he may offer to bestow that which is his happiness, but he may not be sensible that it is happiness. If so, though he believes him, he does not properly trust in him for it; for he does not seek or desire what he offers; and there can be no adherence or acquiescence of mind. If a man offers another to rescue him from captivity, and carry him to his own country; if the latter believes the former will do it, and yet does not desire it, he cannot be said to trust in him for it. And if the thing be accounted good, and he believed, yet if the person to whom it is offered does not like the person that does it, or the way of accomplishment of it, there cannot be an entire trust, because there is not a full adherence and acquiescence of mind. 82. There are these two ways in which the mind may be said to be sensible that any thing is good or excellent: 1. When the mind judges that any thing is such as, by the agreement of mankind, is called good or excellent, viz. that which is most to general advantage, and that between which and reward there is a suitableness; or that which is agreeable to the law of the country or law of God. It is a being merely convinced in judgment that a thing is according to the meaning of the word, good, as the word is generally applied. 2. The mind is sensible of good in another sense, when it is so sensible of the beauty and amiableness of the thing, that it is sensible of pleasure and delight in the presence of the idea of it. This kind of sensibleness of good, carries in it an act of the will, or inclination or spirit of the mind, as well as of the understanding. 83. The conditions of justification are, repentance and faith; and the freedom of grace appears in the forgiving of sin upon repentance, or only for our being willing to part with it, after the same manner as the bestowment of eternal life, only for accepting of it. For to make us an offer of freedom from a thing, only for quitting of it, is equivalent to the offering the possession of a thing for the receiving of it. God makes us this offer, that if we will in our hearts quit sin, we shall be freed from it, and all the evil that belongs to it, and flows from it; which is the same thing as the offering us freedom only for accepting it. Accepting, in this case, is quitting and parting with, in our will Is and inclination. So that repentance is implied in faith; it is a part of our willing reception of the salvation of Jesus Christ; though faith, with respect to sin, implies something more in it, viz, a respect to Christ, as him by whom we have deliverance. Thus by faith we destroy sin, Galatians 2:18. 84. As to that question, Whether closing with Christ in his kingly office be of the essence of justifying faith? I would say, 1. That accepting Christ in his kingly office, is doubtless the proper condition of having an interest in Christ’s kingly office, and so the condition of that salvation which he bestows in the execution of that office; as much as accepting the forgiveness of sins is the proper condition of the forgiveness of sin. Christ, in this kingly office, bestows salvation; and therefore, accepting him in his kingly office, by a disposition to sell all and suffer all in duty to Christ, and giving proper respect and honour to him, is the proper condition of salvation, This is manifest by Hebrews 5:9. “And being made perfect he became the author of eternal salvation to all them that obey him;” and by Romans 10:10. “For with the heart man believeth unto righteousness, and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation.” The apostle speaks of such a confessing of Christ, or outward and open testifying our respect to him, and adhering to our duty to him as exposed to suffering, reproach, and persecution. And that such a disposition and practice is of the essence of saving faith, is manifest by John 12:42,43. “Nevertheless, among the chief rulers also, many believed on him; but because of the Pharisees they did not confess him, lest they should be hut out of the synagogue: for they loved the praise of men more than the praise of God; ‘-compared With John 5:44. “How can ye believe, which receive honour one of another, and seek not the honour that cometh from God only?” 2 . Accepting Christ as a priest and king, cannot be separated. They not only cannot be separated, or be asunder in their subject, but they cannot be considered as separate things in their natures; for they are implied one in another. Accepting Christ as a king, is ‘implied in accepting him as a priest; for, as a priest, he procures a title to the benefits of his kingly office; and therefore, to accept him as a priest, implies an accepting him in his kindly office: for we cannot accept the purchase of his priesthood, but by accepting the benefits purchased. If faith is supposed to contain no more immediately, than only an accepting of Christ as a Mediator for our justification; vet that justification implies a giving a title to the benefit’s of his kingly office, viz, salvation from sin, and conformity to his nature and will, and actual salvation by actual deliverance from our enemies, and the bestowment of glory. 85. Faith divine, is a spiritual conviction of the truth of the things of religion. Some have objected against a spiritual sight of divine things in their glorious, excellent, and divine form, as being the foundation of a conviction of the truth or real existence of them, because, say they, the existence of things is in the order of nature before forms or qualities of them as excellent or odious; and so the knowledge of their existence must go before the sight of their form or quality; they must be known to be before they are seen to be excellent. I answer, It is true, things must be known to be before they are known to be excellent, if by this proposition it be understood, that things must be known really to exist, before they can be known really to exist excellent, or really to exist with such and such beauty. And all the force of the objection depends on such a meaning of this assertion. But if thereby be intended, that a thing must be known to have a real existence, before the person has a clear understanding, idea, or apprehension of the thing proposed or objected to his view, as it is in its qualities either odious or beautiful, then the assertion is not true; for his having a clear idea of something proposed to his understanding or view, as very beautiful or very odious, as is proposed, does not suppose its reality; that is, it does not presuppose it, though its real existence may perhaps follow from it. But, in our way of understanding things in general of all kinds, we first have some understanding or view of the thing in its qualities, before we know its existence. Thus it is in things that we know by our external senses, by our bodily sight for instance. We first see them, or have a clear idea of them by sight, before we know their existence by our sight.

We first see the sun, and have a strong, lively, and clear idea of it in its qualities, its shape, its brightness, etc. before we know there actually exists such a body. 86. Faith in Christ is the condition of salvation. It observable, that as trusting in God, hoping in him, waiting for him, etc. are abundantly insisted on in the Old Testament, as the main condition of God’s favour, protection, deliverance, and salvation, in the book of Psalm and elsewhere; so, in most of those places where these graces of trust and hope are so insisted upon, the subjects of them are represented as being in a state of trial, trouble, difficulty, danger, opposition, and oppression of enemies, and the like, And the clearer revelation, and more abundant light of the New Testament, bring into clearer view the state that all mankind are in with regard to those things that are invisible, the invisible God, an invisible world, and invisible enemies, and so show men’s lost, miserable, captivated, dangerous, and helpless state, and reveal the infinite mercy of God, and his glorious all-sufficiency to such wretched, helpless creatures, and also exhibit Christ in the character of the Saviour of the miserable, the great Redeemer of captives, etc. Hence faith, trust, and hope, are most fitly insisted on as the duty and qualification peculiarly proper for all mankind, and the virtue proper to be exercised in their circumstances towards God and Christ, as they reveal themselves in the gospel, as belonging to them in their character and relation to us, and concern with us, in which they are there exhibited; and as the grand condition of our salvation, or our receiving those which we, as sinful, miserable, and helpless creatures, need from them, and which Christ, as a Redeemer, app ears ready to bestow. 87. Dr. Manton reconciles the apostle James and the apostle Paul in the following manner, in his 5th volume of Sennons, p. 374.” Justification hath respect to some accusation: now, as there is a twofold law, there is a twofold accusation and justification; the law of works, and the law of grace. Now, when we are accused as breakers of the law of works, that is, as sinners obnoxious to the wrath of God, we plead Christ’s satisfaction as our righteousness, no works of our own. But when we are accused as nonperformers of the conditions of the covenant of grace, as being neglecters and rejecters of Christ the Mediator, we are, justified by producing our faith or sincere obedience; so that our righteousness by the new covenant is subordinate to our universal righteousness, with respect to the great law of God; and that we have only by Christ. if we are charged that we have broken the first covenant, the covenant of works, we allege Christ’s satisfaction and merit. If charged not to have performed the conditions of the law of grace, we answer it by producing our faith, repentance, and new obedience, and so show it to be a false charge. Our first and supreme righteousness consists in the pardon of our sins, and our acceptance in the beloved, and our right to impunity and glory. Our second and subordinate righteousness, in having the true condition of pardon and life, In the first sense, Christ’s righteousness alone is our justification and righteousness.

Faith and repentance, or new obedience, is not the least part of it. But, in the second, believing, repenting, and obeying, is our righteousness in their several respective ways, that the righteousness of Christ may be ours, and continue ours.” See also Dr. Manton on James, p. 310, 311, 312, and p. 331, etc.

Faith is connected with obedience. The very acceptance of Christ in his priestly office, making atonement for sin by his blood, and fulfilling the law of God by his perfect obedience unto death; and so the very approbation of the attribute of God, as it is there exhibited, an infinitely holy mercy: I say, merely the soul’s acceptance and approbation of these things, do thoroughly secure holiness of heart and life in the redeemed of Jesus Christ. They will secure their conformity to the law of God, though, by this very mercy, and this very Saviour, they are set at liberty from the law, and are no longer under the law, as a law with its sanctions immediately taking hold of them, and binding them by its sanctions or threatenings, connecting and binding together its fulfilment and life, and its violation and death. Our hearts approving of that holy mercy of God that appears in his showing mercy to sinners, in the way of perfectly satisfying the law, suffering all the penalty of it, and of perfectly fulfilling and answering the precepts of it, implies a heart fully approving the law itself, as most worthy to be fulfilled and satisfied, approving the authority that established the law, and so its infinite worthiness of being obeyed; in that we approve of it, that so great a person should submit to that authority, and do honour to it, by becoming a servant to obey God, and a sacrifice to satisfy for the contempt done his authority, and that we approve the holy law itself as worthy of such great honour to be done it. It imp lies a heart entirely detesting sin, and in some sort, sensible of the infinite detestableness of it; that we approve of God’s making such a manifestation of his detestation of it, and approve of the declared fitness and necessity of its being punished with so great a punishment as the sufferings of Christ. Our accepting such sufferings as an atonement for our sin, implies a heart fully repenting of and renouncing sin; for it implies not only a conviction that we deserve so great a punishment, and not only a mere conviction of conscience, but an approbation of heart of the connexion of such sin with such punishment. which implies a hatred of the sin punished; and the heart’s entire approbation of such methods perfectly to fulfil the obedience of the law, by so great a person, and by his doing so great things, and denying himself so much, implies a very high approbation of this law, and the authority of the lawgiver. Therefore, this acceptance of Christ as a Saviour, by his obedience and atonement, and an acceptance of God’s holy mercy, forgiving sin, and giving life in this way, does we’ll secure universal obedience to the law of God, as a law of liberty, and with a free and ingenuous spirit, by the obedience of children, and not of slaves. Thus, the faith that justifies the sinner, destroys sin; and the heart is purified by faith. So far as this evangelical spirit prevails, so far fear, or a legal spirit, will be needless to restrain from sin, and so far will such a legal spirit cease and be driven away.

Coroll. What has been observed, is a confirmation that this is the true nature of justifying faith, and that the essence of it lies very much in the approbation and acceptance of the heart. 88. 1 John 5:1,2,3,4,5. “ Whosoever believeth that Jesus is the Christ, is born of God; and every one that loveth him that begat, loveth him also that is begotten of him. By this we know that we love the children of God, when we love God, and keep his commandments. For this is the love of God, that we keep his commandments; and his commandments are not grievous. For whatsoever is born of God, overcometh the world: and this is the victory that overcometh the world, even our faith.” It is a doctrine taught in this text, that saving faith differs from all common faith in its nature, kind, and essence. This doctrine is inferred from the text, thus: it is said,” Whosoever believeth that Jesus is the Christ, is born of God;” by which is manifest, that there was some great virtue that apostles and Christians in those days used to call by the name of faith or believing, believing that Jesus is the Christ, and the like; which was a thing very peculiar and distinguishing, and belonging only to those that were born of God. Thereby cannot be meant, therefore, only a mere assent to the doctrines of the gospel, because that is common to saints and sinners, as is very evident. The apostle James plainly teaches in chapter 2:that this faith may be in those that are not in a state of salvation, And we read in the Evangelists, of many that in this sense believed, to whom Christ did not commit himself, because he knew what was in them; John 2:at the latter end, and many other places. When it is said, “Whosoever believe that Jesus is the Christ, is born of God;” thereby cannot be meant, whosoever has such an assent as is perfect, so as to exclude all remaining unbelief; for it is evident, that the faith of good men does not do this. Thus, a true believer said, “Lord, I believe; help thou mine unbelief;” (Mark 9:24.) and Christ is often reproving his true disciples, that they have so little faith.

He often says to them, “O ye of little faith;” and speaks sometimes as if their faith were less than a grain of mustard-seed. Nor can the apostle, when he says, “Whosoever believeth that Jesus is the Christ, is born of God,” mean, that whosoever has a predominant assent, or an assent that prevails above his dissent, or whose judgment preponderates that way, and has more weight in that scale than the other; because it is plain that it is not true that every one that believes in this sense, is born of God. Many natural, unregenerate men, have such a preponderating judgment of the truth of the doctrines of the gospel; without it there is no belief of it at all.

For believing, in the lowest sense, implies a preponderating judgment; but it is evident, as just now was observed, that many natural men do believe; they do judge that the doctrine is true, as the devils do. And again, when the apostle says, “Whosoever believeth that Jesus is the Christ, is born of God;” all that he intends, cannot be only, that whosoever is come to a certain particular intermediate degree of assent between the lowest degree of preponderating assent and a perfect assent, excluding all remains of unbelief; he cannot mean any certain particular intermediate degree of assent, still meaning nothing but mere assent by believing. For he does not say, he that believes or assents that Jesus is the Christ, to such a certain degree is born of God; but whosoever believes that Jesus is the Christ, is born of God by which must be understood, that whosoever at all performs that act which the apostle calls by that name, or whosoever has any thing at all of that kind of virtue which the apostle calls believing, is born of God; and that he that is not born of God has not that virtue that he meant, but is wholly without it. And besides, it would be unreasonable to suppose, that by this believing, which the apostle there and elsewhere lays down as such a grand note of distinction between those that are born of God, and those that are not, is meant only a certain degree of assent, which such have, that differs less from what those may have that are not born of God, than nine hundred and ninety-nine from a thousand; yea, that differs from it an infinitely little. For this is the case, if the difference be only gradual, and it be only a certain degree of faith that is the mark of being born of God. If this was the apostle’s meaning, he would use words in a manner not consistent with the use of language, as he would call things infinitely nearly alike by such distant and contrary names; and would represent the subjects in whom they are, as of such different and contrary characters, calling one believer, and the other unbeliever, one the children of God, and those that are born of God, and the other the children of the devil, as this apostle calls all that are not horn of God, in this epistle, (see chapter 3:9, 10.) and would represent one as setting to his seal that God is true, and the other as making him a liar, as in the 10th verse of the” context. And besides, if this were the case, if believers in this sense only, with such an infinitely small gradual difference, was all that he meant, it would be no such notable distinction between those that are born of God and those that are not, as the apostle represents, and as this apostle, and other apostles, do every where signify. Nay, it would not be fit to be used as a sign or characteristic for men to distinguish themselves by; for such minute gradual differences, which in this case would be alone certainly distinguishing, are altogether undiscernible, or at least with great difficulty determined; therefore, are not fit to be given as distinguishing notes of the christian character. If words are every where used after this manner in the Bible, and, by faith in Christ, as the word is generally used there, is meant only the assent of the understanding, and that not merely a predominant assent, nor vet a perfect assent, excluding all remaining unbelief, but only a certain degree of assent between these two, rising up just to such a precise height, so that he that has this shall every where be called a believer; and he whose assent, though it predominates also, and rises up as high as the other within an infinitely little, shall be called an unbeliever, one that wickedly makes God a liar, etc, this is in effect to use words without any determinate meaning at all, or, which is the same thing, any meaning proportioned to our understandings; therefore, there is undoubtedly some great and notable difference between the faith of those who are in a state of salvation, and that of those who are not: insomuch that, without that very faith, according to the common use of language in these days, those who were not in a state of salvation, may be said not to believe at all. And besides, that virtue that the apostle here speaks of as such a great and distinguishing note of a child of God, he plainly speaks of as a supernatural thing, as something not in natural men, and given only in regeneration or being born of God, which is the great change of men from that which is natural to that which is supernatural.

Men may have what is natural, by their being born, born in a natural way; but they have what is supernatural, by being born again, and born of God.

But says the apostle, “Whosoever believeth that Jesus is the Christ, is born of God.” The same faith is plainly spoken of as a supernatural thing in the foregoing chapter, ver. 15. “Whosoever shall confess that Jesus is the Son of God, God dwelleth in him, and he in God.”

But common faith is not a supernatural thing, any more than a belief of any history, It is obtained by the same means. If one be natural, and the other supernatural, then undoubtedly the difference is not only such a gradual difference, differing but an infinitely little. If all lies in the degree of assent, let us suppose that a thousand degrees of assent be required to salvation, and that there is no difference in kind in the faith of others; how unreasonable is it to say, that when a man can naturally raise his assent to nine hundred and ninety-nine degrees, yet he cannot reach the other degree by any improvement, but there must he a new birth in order to the other degree! And as it is thus evident, that the faith or believing that Jesus is the Christ which the apostle speaks of in the text, is some virtue intended by the apostle, differing not only in degree, but in nature and kind, from any faith that unregenerate men have; so I would observe, that it is evident that this special faith, of which the apostle speaks, that so differs from common faith, is not only a faith that some Christians only have obtained, but that all have it that are in a state of salvation; because the same faith is often spoken of as that which first brings men into a state of salvation, and not merely as that which Christians attain to afterwards, after they have performed the condition of salvation.

How often are we taught that it is by faith in Christ we are justified; and that he that believes not, is in a state of condemnation; and that it is by this men pass from a state of condemnation to a state of salvation. Compare John 5:21. “Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that heareth my words, and believeth on him that sent nie, hath everlasting life, and shall not come into condemnation, but is passed from death unto life;” with chapter 3:18. “He that believeth on him, is not condemned; but he that believeth not, is condemned already, because he hath not believed in the name of the onlybegotten Son of God.” And this faith that thus brings into a state of life, is expressed in the same words as it is in the text, in John 20:31. “But these things are written, that ye might believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God; and that believing, ye might have life through his name.”

Thus it is manifest that the faith spoken of in the text, is the faith that all men have that are in a state of salvation, and the faith by which they first come into salvation, and that it is a faith especially differing in nature and kind from all common faith.

In the further prosecution of this discourse, I shall, 1 . Bring some further arguments to prove, that saving faith differs from common faith in nature and essence. 2. Show wherein the essential difference lies, confirming the same from the Scriptures, which will further prove the truth of the doctrine.

First . I am to bring some further arguments to prove the doctrine: and here I would observe, that there is some kind of difference or other, is most apparent from the vast distinction made in Scripture, insomuch, that those who have faith, are all from time to time spoken of as justified, and in a state of salvation, having a title to eternal life, etc. Romans 1:16,17. “The gospel is the power of God to salvation to every one that believeth.” And chapter 3:22. “Even the righteousness of God, which is by faith of Jesus Christ, unto all and upon all that believe.” Romans 10:4. “Christ is the end of the law for righteousness to every one that believeth.” Acts 13:39. “ And by him all that believe are justified.” In these and other places, a state of salvation is predicted of every one that believeth or hath faith. It is not said of every one that believeth and walks answerably, or of every one that believeth and takes up an answerable resolution to obey; which would be to limit the proposition, and make an exception, and be as much as to say, not every one that is a believer, but to such believers only as not only believe, but obey. But this does not consist with these universal expressions: “The gospel is the power of God to salvation to every one that believeth.” “The righteousness of God is unto all and upon all them that believe.” “Christ is the end of the law for righteousness to every one that believeth.” And by the supposition, they that have not saving faith are in a state of damnation; as it is also expressly said in Scripture, “ He that believeth not, shall be damned,” and the like. So that it is evident that there is a great difference between the virtue that the Scripture calls by the name faith, and speaks of as saving faith, let it be what it will, and all that is or can be in others. But here I would observe particularly: the difference must either be only in the degree of faith, and in the effects of it, or it is in the nature of the faith itself. And I would, I. Show that it is not merely a difference in degree. 1. There are other scriptures, besides the text, that speak of saving faith as a supernatural thing. Matthew 16:15,16, 17’. “He saith unto them, But whom say ye that I am? And Simon Peter answered and said, Thou art Christ, the Son of the living God. And Jesus answered and said unto him, Blessed art thou, Simon Bar-jona; for flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven.” This must evidently be understood of a supernatural way of coming by this belief or faith; such a way as is greatly distinguished from instruction or judgment in other matters, such as the wise and prudent in temporal things had. So Luke 10:21,22.” In that hour, Jesus rejoiced in spirit, and said, I thank thee, O Father, Lord of heaven and earth, that thou hast hid these things from the wise and prudent, and hast revealed them unto babes: even so, Father, for so it seemeth good in thy sight. No man knoweth who the Son is, but the Father; and who the Father is, but the Son, and he to whom the Son will reveal him.” So, to the same purpose is John 6:44,45. “No man can come to me, except the Father, which hath sent me, draw him: and I will raise him up at the last day. It is written in the prophets, And they all shall be taught of God every man therefore that hath heard, and hath learned of the Father, cometh unto me.” And what is meant, is not merely that God gives it in his providence; for so he gives the knowledge of those wise and prudent men mentioned in the fore-cited passage. It is said, that he gives it by the teachings of his Spirit, as appears by 1 Corinthians 12:2. “No man can say that Jesus is the Lord, but by the Holy Ghost.” And the common influences of the Spirit, such as natural men, or men that are unregenerated, may have, are not meant, as appears by what the same apostle says in the same epistle, chap. 2:14. “ But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God; for they are foolishness unto him; neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned.” The things of the Spirit of God, to which the apostle has a special respect, are the doctrine of Christ crucified, as appears by the beginning of the chapter, and by the foregoing chapter, which he says is to the Jews a stumbling block, and to the Greeks foolishness, And that the influence of the Spirit, in which this saving faith is given, is not any common influence, or any thing like it, but is that influence by which men are God’s workmanship, made over again, or made new creatures, is evident, by Ephesians 2:8,9,10. “For by grace are ye saved, through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God not of works, lest any man should boast. For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus unto good works, which God hath before ordained that we should walk in them.” And so it is manifest by the text, that this influence, by which this faith is given, is no common influence, but a regenerating influence, 1 John 5:1-5.” Whosoever believeth that Jesus is the Christ, is born of God; and every one that loveth him that begat, loveth him also that is begotten of him. By this we know that we love the children of God, when we love God, and keep his commandments,” etc, It is spoken of as a great work, so wrought by God, as remarkably to show is power, 2 Thessalonians 1:11. “Wherefore also we pray always for you, that our God would count you worthy of this calling, and fulfil all the good pleasure of his goodness, and the work of faith with power.” And that which makes the argument yet more clear and demonstrative is, that it is mentioned as one of the distinguishing characters of saving faith, that it is the faith of the operation of God; “You are risen with him through the faith of the operation of God, who hath raised him from the dead.” (Colossians 2:12.)

Now, would this faith be any distinguishing character of the true Christian, if it were not a faith of a different kind from that which others may have?

And besides, it is evidently suggested in the words, that it is by a like wonderful operation as the raising of Christ from the dead; especially taken with the following verse. The words taken together are thus, verse 12, 13. “Buried with him in baptism, wherein also you are risen with him through the faith of the operation of God, who raised him from the dead. And you, being dead in your sins, and the uncircumcision of your flesh, hath he quickened together with him, having forgiven you all trespasses.” Let this be compared with Ephesians 1:18,19. “The eyes of your understanding being enlightened; that ye may know what is the hope of his calling, and what the riches of the glory of his inheritance in the saints, and what is the exceeding greatness of his power to us-ward who believe, according to the working of his mighty power.” Now, is it reasonable to suppose, that such distinctions as these would be taught, as taking place between saving faith and common faith, if there were no essential difference, but only a gradual difference, and they approached infinitely near to each other? 2. The distinguishing epithets and characters ascribed to saving faith in Scripture, are such as denote the difference to be in nature and kind, and not in degree only. One distinguishing epithet is precious, 2 Peter 1:1. “Like precious faith with us.” Now, preciousness is what signifies more properly something of the quality, than of the degree. As preciousness in gold is more properly a designation of the quality of that kind of substance, than the quantity. And therefore, when gold is tried in the fire to see whether it be true gold or not, it is not the quantity of the substance that is tried by the fire, but the precious nature of the substance. So it is when faith is tried to see whether it be a saving faith or not. 1 Peter 1:7. “ That the trial of your faith being much more precious than of gold that perisheth, though it be tried with fire, might be found unto praise, and honour, and glory, at the appearing of Jesus Christ.” If the trial was not of the nature and kind, but only of the quantity of faith, how exceedingly improper would be the comparison between the trial of faith and the trial of gold!

Another distinguishing scripture note of saving faith is, that it is the faith of Abraham. Romans 4:16. “Therefore it is of faith, that it might be by grace; to the end the promise might be sure to all the seed, not to that only which is of the law, but to that also which is of the faith of Abraham, who is the father of us all.” Now, the faith of Abraham cannot be the faith of that degree of which Abraham’s was; for undoubtedly multitudes are in a state of salvation, that have not that eminency of faith. Therefore, nothing can be meant by the faith of Abraham, but faith of the same nature and kind.

Again, another distinguishing scripture note of saving faith is, that it is faith unfeigned. 1 Timothy 1:5. “Now the end of the commandment is charity, out of a pure heart, and of a good conscience and of faith unfeigned.” Timothy 1:5. “ When I call to remembrance the unfeigned faith that is in thee, which dwelt first in thy grandmother Lois, and thy mother Eunice; and I am persuaded that in thee also.” Now this is an epithet that denotes the nature of a thing, and not the degree of it. A thing may be unfeigned, and yet be but to a small degree. To be unfeigned, is to be really a thing of that nature and kind which it pretends to be; and not a false appearance, or mere resemblance of it. Again, another note of distinction between saving faith and common faith, plainly implied in Scripture, is, that it differs from the faith of devils. It is implied in James 2:18,19.” Yea, a man may say, Thou hast faith, and I have works: show me thy faith without thy works, and I will show thee my faith by my works. Thou believest that there is one God; the devils also believe and tremble.” Here it is first implied, that there is a difference between saving faith and common, that may be shown by works; a difference in the cause, that may be shown by the effects; and then it is implied this difference lies in something wherein it differs from the faith of devils; otherwise there is no force in the apostle’s reasoning. But this difference cannot lie in the degree of the assent of the understanding; for the devils have as high a degree of assent as the real Christian. The difference then must lie in the Peculiar nature of the faith. 3. That the difference between common faith and saving faith does not lie in the degree only, but in the nature and essence of it, a is; that those who are in a state of damnation a e spoken of as being wholly destitute of it, as wholly without that sort of faith that the saints have, They are spoken of as those that believe not, and having the gospel hid from them, being blind with regard to this light; as 2 Corinthians 4:3,4. “But if our gospel be hid, it is hid to them that are lost in whom the God of this world hath blinded the minds of them which believe not lest the light of the glorious gospel of Christ, who is the image of God, should shine unto them.” Now, can these things be said with any propriety, of such as are lost in general, if many of them, as well as the saved, have the same sort of faith of the same gospel, but only in a less degree, and some of them falling short in degree, but very little, perhaps one degree in a million? How can it be proper to speak of the others, so little excelling them in the degree of the same light, as having the light of the knowledge of the glory of God shining unto them, and beholding as with open face the glory of the Lord, as is said of all true believers in the context? While those are spoken of as having the gospel hid from them, their minds blinded, lest the light of the glorious gospel should shine unto them, and so as being lost, or in a state of damnation? Such interpretations of Scripture are unreasonable. 4. That the difference between saving faith and common faith is not in degree, but in the nature and kind, appears from this, that in the Scripture, saving faith, when weakest, and attended with very great doubts, yet is said never to fail. Luke 22:31,32. “And the Lord said, Simon, Simon, behold, Satan hath desired to have you, that he may sift you as wheat: but have prayed you thee, that thy faith fail not; and when thou art converted, strengthen thy brethren.” The faith of Peter was attended with very great doubts concerning Christ and his cause. Now, if the distinction between saving faith and other faith be only in the degree of assent, whereby a man was brought fully to assent to the truth, and to cease greatly to question it; then Peter’s faith would have failed, He would have been without any saving faith. For he greatly questioned the truth concerning Christ and his kingdom, especially when he denied him. Other disciples did so too; for they all forsook him and fled. Therefore it follows, that there is something peculiar in the very nature of saving faith, that remains in times even of greatest doubt, and even at those times distinguishes it from all common faith.

I now proceed, II. To show that it does not consist only in the difference of effects. The supposition that I would disprove is this, That there is no difference between saving faith and common faith as to their nature: all the difference lies in this, that in him that is in a state of salvation, faith produces another effect; it works another way; it produces a settled determination of mind, to walk in a way of universal and persevering obedience. In the unregenerate, although his faith be the same with that of the regenerate, and he has the same assent of his understanding to the truths of the gospel, yet it does not prove effectual to bring him to such a resolution and answerable practice. In opposition to this notion, I would observe, 1. That it is contrary to the reason of mankind, to suppose e different effects, without any difference in the cause. t has ever been counted to be good reasoning from the effect to the cause; and it is away of reasoning that common sense leads mankind to. But if, from a different effect, there is no arguing any difference in the cause, this way of reasoning must be given up. If there be a difference in the effect, that does not arise from some difference in the cause, then there is something in the effect that proceeds not from its cause, viz. that diversity; because there is no diversity in the cause to answer it: therefore, that diversity must arise from nothing, and consequently is no effect of any thing; which is contrary to the supposition. So this hypothesis is at once reduced to a contradiction. If there be a difference in the effect, that difference must arise from something; and that which it arises from, let it be what it will, must be the cause of it. And if faith be the cause of this diversity in the effect, as is supposed, then I would ask, what is there in faith, that can be the cause of this diversity, seeing there is no diversity in the faith to answer it? To say that the diversity of the effect arises from likeness or sameness in the cause, is a gross and palpable absurdity; and is as much as to say, that difference is produced by no difference: which is the same thing as to say, that nothing produces something. 2. If there were a difference in the effects of faith, but no difference in the faith itself, then no difference of faith could be showed by the effects. But that is contrary to Scripture, and particularly to James 2:18.” Yea, a man may say, Thou hast faith, and I have works: show me thy faith without thy works, and I will show thee my faith by my works.” The apostle can mean nothing else by this, than that I will show thee by my works that I have a right sort of faith. I will show thee that my faith is a better faith than that of those who have no works. I will show thee the difference of the causes, by the difference oh the effect. This the apostle thought good arguing. Christ thought it was good arguing to argue the difference of the trees from the difference of the fruits; Matthew 12:33.” A tree is known by its fruit.” How can this be, when there is no difference in the tree? When the nature of the tree is the same, and when, indeed, though there be a difference of the effects, there is no difference at all in the faith that is the cause? And if there is no difference in the faith that is the cause, then certainly no difference can be shown by the effects. When we see two human bodies, and see actions performed and works produced by the one, and not by the other, we determine that there is an internal difference in the bodies themselves: we conclude that one is alive, and the other dead; that one has an operative nature, an active spirit in it, and that the other has none; which is a very essential difference in the causes themselves. Just so we argue an essential difference between a saving and common faith, by the words or effects produced; as the apostle in that context observes, in the last verse of the chapter,” For as the body without the spirit is dead, so faith without works is dead also.”

I come now, in the second place, to show wherein saving faith differs essentially from common faith: and shall endeavour to prove what I lay down from the Scripture, which will give farther evidence to the truth of the doctrine.

There is, in the nature and essence of saving faith, a receiving of the object of faith, not only in the assent of the judgment, but with the heart, or with the inclination and will of the soul. There is in saving faith, a receiving of the truth, not only with the assent of the mind, but with the consent of the heart; as is evident by 2 Thessalonians 2:10.” Received not the love of the truth that they might be saved.” And the apostle, describing the nature of saving faith, from the example of the ancient patriarchs, Hebrews 11:describes their faith thus, verse 13. “ These all died in faith, not having received the promises; but, having seen them afar off, were persuaded of them, and embraced them.” And so the evangelist John calls faith a receiving of Christ; John 1:12.” But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name.” Here, the apostle expressly declares, that he whom he means by a receiver, was the same with the believer on Christ, or one that has saving faith. And what else can be meant by receiving Christ, or accepting him, than an accepting him in heart. is not a taking him with the hand, or any external taking or accepting him, but the acceptance of the mind. The acceptance of the mind is the act of the mind towards an object as acceptable, but that in a special manner, as the act of the inclination or will.

And it is further evident, that saving faith has its seat not only in the speculative understanding or judgment, but in the heart or will; because, otherwise it is not properly of the nature of a virtue, or any part of the moral goodness of the mind: for virtue has its special and immediate seat in the will; and that qualification, that is not at all seated there, though it be a cause of virtue, or an effect of it, yet is not properly any virtue of the mind, nor can properly be in itself a moral qualification, or any fulfilment of a moral rule. But it is evident, that saving faith is one of the chief virtues of a saint, one of the greatest virtues prescribed in the moral law of God.

Matthew 23:23. “Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites; for ye pay tithe of mint, and anise, and cummin, and have omitted the weightier matters of the law, judgment, mercy, and faith: these ought ye to have done, and not to leave the other undone.” It is a principal duty that God required, John 6:28,29. “Then said they unto him, What shall we do that we may work the works of God? Jesus answered and said unto them, This is the work of God, that ye believe on him whom God hath sent.” 1 John 3:2. “And this is his commandment, that ye believe on the name of his Son Jesus Christ, and love one another, as he gave us commandment.” And therefore it is called most holy faith, Jude 20. But if it be not seated in the will, it is no more a holy faith, than the faith of devils, That it is most holy, implies, that it is one thing wherein christian holiness does principally consist.

An objection may be raised against this last particular, viz, that the words, faith and believing, in common language, signify no more than the assent of the understanding.

Answer 1. It is not at all strange, that in matters of divinity and of the gospel of Christ, which are so exceedingly diverse from the common concerns of life, and so much above them, some words should be used in somewhat of a peculiar sense. The languages used among the nations of the world, were not first framed to express the spiritual and supernatural things of the gospel of Christ, but the common concernments of human life. Hence it comes to pass, that language in its common use, is not exactly adapted to express things of this nature; so that there is a necessity, that when the phrases of common speech are adopted into the gospel of Christ, they should some of them be used in a sense somewhat diverse from the most ordinary use of them in temporal concerns. Words were first devised to signify the more ordinary concerns of life: hence, men find a necessity, even in order to express many things in human arts and sciences, to use words in something of a peculiar sense; the sense being somewhat varied from their more ordinary use; and the very same words, as terms of art, do not signify exactly the same thing that they do in common speech. This is well known to be the case in innumerable instances; because the concerns of the arts and sciences are so diverse from the common concerns of life, that unless some phrases were adopted out of common language, and their signification something varied, there would be no words at all to be found to signify such and such things pertaining to those arts. But the things of the gospel of Christ are vastly more diverse from the common concerns of life, than the things of human arts and sciences: those things being heavenly things, and of the most spiritual and sublime nature possible, and most diverse from earthly things. Hence the use of words in common language, must not be looked upon as a universal rule to determine the signification of words in the gospel: but the rule is the use of words in Scripture language. What is found in fact to be the use of words in the Bible, by comparing one place with another, that must determine the sense in which we must understand them.

Answer 2. The words in the original, translated faith, and believing, such pistiv, pisteuw peiqw and pepoiqhsiv , as often used in common language, implied more than the mere assent of the understanding: they were often used to signify affiance or trusting; which implies an act of the will, as well as of the understanding: it implies, that the thing believed is received as good and agreeable, as well as true. For trusting always relates to some good sought and aimed at in our trust; and therefore ever more implies the acceptance of the heart, and the embracing of the inclination, and desire of the soul. And therefore, trusting in Christ for salvation, implies, that he and his redemption, and those things wherein his salvation consists, are agreeable and acceptable to us.

Answer 3. Supposing saving faith to be what Calvinistical divines have ordinarily supposed it to be, there seems to he no one word in common an ua e, so fit to express it, as faith, w’u~~, as it most commonly is in the original. Orthodox divines, in the definitions of faith, do not all use exactly the same terms, but they generally come to the same thing. Their distinctions generally signify as much as a person’s receiving Christ and his salvation as revealed in the gospel, with his ‘whole soul; acquiescing in what is exhibited as true, excellent, and sufficient for him.. And to express this complex act of the mind, I apprehend no word can be found more significant than faith, which signifies both assenting and consenting: because the object of the act is wholly supernatural, and above the reach of mere reason, and therefore exhibited only b revelation and divine testimony: and the person to be believed in, is exhibited and offered in that revelation, especially under the character of a Saviour, and so, as an object of trust: and the benefits are all spiritual, invisible, wonderful, and future. If this be the true account of faith, beware how you entertain any such doctrine, as that there is no essential difference between common and saving faith; and that both consist in a mere assent of the understanding to the doctrines of religion, That this doctrine is false, appears by what has been said; and if it be false, it must needs be exceedingly dangerous. Saving faith, as you well know, is abundantly insisted on in the Bible, as in a peculiar manner the condition of salvation; being the thing by which we are justified. How much is that doctrine insisted on in the New Testament! We are said to be “justified by faith, and by faith alone: By faith we are saved; and this is the work of God, that we believe in him whom he hath sent: The just shall live by faith: We are all the children of God by faith in Jesus Christ: He that believeth shall be saved, and he that believeth not shall be damned.” Therefore, doubtless, saving faith, whatsoever that be, is the grand condition of an interest in Christ, and his great salvation. And if it be so, of what vast importance is it, that we should have right notions of what it is! For certainly no one thing whatever, nothing in religion, is of greater importance, than that which teaches us how we may be saved. If salvation itself be of infinite importance, then it is of equal importance that we do not mistake the terms of it; and if this be of infinite importance, then that doctrine that teaches that to be the term, that is not so, but very diverse, is infinitely dangerous. What we want a revelation from God for chiefly, is, to teach us the terms of his favour, and the way of salvation, And that which the revelation God has given us in the Bible teaches to be the way, is faith in Christ. Therefore, that doctrine that teaches something else to be saving faith, that is essentially another thing, teaches entirely another way of salvation: and therefore such doctrine does in effect make void the revelation we have in the Bible; as it makes void the special end of it, which is to teach us the true way of salvation. The gospel is the revelation of the way of life by faith in Christ. Therefore, he who teaches something else to be that faith, which is essentially diverse from what the gospel of Christ teaches, he teaches another gospel; and he does in effect teach another religion than the religion of Christ. For what is religion, but that way of exercising our respect to God, which is the term of his favour and acceptance to a title to eternal rewards? The Scripture teaches this, in a special manner, to be saving faith in Jesus Christ. Therefore, he that teaches another faith instead of this, teaches another religion. Such doctrine as I have opposed, must be destructive and damning, z. c. directly tending to man’s damnation; leading such as embrace it, to rest in something different from the grand condition of salvation. And therefore I would advise you, as you would have any regard to your own soul’s salvation, and to the salvation of your posterity, to beware of such doctrine as this.

CHAPTER - CONCERNING THE PERSEVERANCE OF SAINTS. 1. THERE IS just the same reason for those commands of earnest care and laborious endeavours for perseverance, and threatenings of defection, notwithstanding its being certain that all that have true grace shall persevere, as there is for earnest endeavours after godliness, and to make our calling and election sure, notwithstanding all that are elected shall undoubtedly be saved. For as the case with respect to this. is the same, decree or no decree, every one that believes shall be saved, and he that believes not shall be damned. They that will not live godly lives, find out for themselves that they are not elected; they that will live godly lives, have found out for themselves that they are elected. So it is here: he that to his utmost endeavours to persevere in ways of obedience, finds out that his obedience and righteousness are true; and he that does not, discovers that his is false. 2. As persons are commanded and counselled to repent and be converted, though it is already determined whether they shall be converted or no; after the same manner, and with the same propriety, persons are commanded and counselled to persevere, although by their being already converted, it is certain they shall persevere. By their resolutely and stedfastly persevering through all difficulties, opposition, and trials, they obtain an evidence of the truth and soundness of their conversion; and by their unstableness and backsliding, they procure an evidence of their unsoundness and hypocrisy, And it always happens, that persons who have the most need of being cautioned and counselled against falling and apostacy, by reason of the weakness of their grace, have most need of an evidence of the truth of their grace. And those who have the least need of any evidence, by reason of the strength and lively exercise of grace, have least need of being warned against falling, they being least in danger of it. And so the same persons, when they are most in danger of falling-by reason of the languishing of their graces, their ill-temper and workings of corruption-have most need of evidence; and, when in least need of care and watchfulness not to fall, by reason of the strength and vigorous actings of grace, they have least need of evidence. So that there is as much need of persons exercising care and diligence to persevere in order to their salvation, as there is of their attention and care to repent and be converted. For our own care and diligence is as much the proper and decreed means of perseverance, as of any thing else; and the want of perseverance, as of any thing else; and the want of perseverance, is as much an evidence of the want of true conversion, as the want of conversion is a sign of the want of election.

Labour and diligence to persevere, is as rational a way to make sure of the truth of grace, as they are to make sure of the truth of election. God’s wrath and future punishment are proposed to all sorts of men, as motives to an universal and constant obedience, not only to the wicked, but also to the godly. Indeed, those that have obtained full assurance of their safe estate, are not capable of this motive, and they have no need of it. But when persons are most capable of the fear of hell, through their want of assurance — and their uncertainty, whether or no they are not exposed to damnation — by reason of the weakness of their grace, then they have most need of caution.

Coroll. — Here we may observe, that it is not the scripture way of judging of the truth of grace, to be determined principality by the method and steps of the first work, but by the exercise and fruits of grace in a holy life. 3. Perseverance in faith is, in one sense, the condition of justification; that is, the promise of acceptance is made only to a persevering sort of faith; and the proper evidence of its being of that sort is actual perseverance, Not but that a man may have good evidences that his faith is of that sort, before he has finished his perseverance, yea, the first time that he exercises such a faith, if the exercises of it are lively and vigorous. But when the believer has those vigorous exercises of faith, by which he has clear evidences of its being of a persevering kind, he evermore feels most disposition and resolution to persevere, and most of a spirit of dependence upon God and Christ to enable him so to do. 4. As to passages of Scripture like that, Ezekiel 18:24. wherein are declared the fatal consequences of turning or falling away from righteousness, they do not at all argue but that there is an essential difference, in the very nature of the righteousness of those that persevere, and the righteousness of those that fall away. The one is of a lasting sort, the other not; and so, falling away or holding out, are in those places resected as natural fruits or discoveries of the nature of the righteous or of the wicked. If a man that had a prospect of being ere long in calamitous circumstances, of being poor, and the object of general contempt, and should make this declaration concerning his friend, or him that now appeared to be such, that if his friend would cleave to him through all his circumstances, he would receive him and treat him ever after as his true friend, but otherwise he would utterly desert him as a false friend; this would not argue, that he thought there was no difference between the love of friendship that was persevering, and that which fails when it is tried; but only, that those difficulties discover the difference, and show whose love is of a lasting sort, and whose not. The promises in Scripture are commonly made to the signs of grace; though God knows whether men be sincere or not, without the signs whereby men know it 5. God, when he had laid out himself to glorify his mercy and grace in the redemption of poor fallen men, did not see meet, that those who are redeemed by Christ, should be redeemed so imperfectly, as still to have the work of perseverance left in their own hands. They had been found already insufficient for this even in their perfect state, and are now ten times more liable than formerly to fall away and not to persevere, if, in their fallen broken state, with their imperfect sanctification, the care of the matter be trusted with them. Man, though redeemed by Christ, so as to have the Holy Spirit of God, and spiritual life again restored in a degree; yet is left a poor, piteous creature, because all is suspended on his perseverance as it was at first; and the care of that affair is left with him as it was then; and he is ten times more likely to fall away than he was then, if’ we consider only what he was in himself to preserve him from it. The poor creature sees his own insufficiency to stand, from what has happened in time past; his own instability has been his undoing already; and now he is vastly more unstable than before. The great thing wherein the first covenant was deficient, was, that the fulfilment of the righteousness of the covenant, and man’s perseverance, was intrusted with man himself, with nothing better to secure it than his own strength. And therefore, God introduces a better, which should be an everlasting covenant, a new and living way; wherein that which was wanting in the first should be supplied, and a remedy should be provided against that, which under the first covenant proved man’s undoing, viz. man’s own weakness and instability; by a Mediator being given, who is the same yesterday, to-day, and for ever; who cannot fail; who should undertake for his people, and take care of them. He is able to save to the uttermost all that come unto God through him; and ever lives to make intercession for them. God did not see it fit that man should be trusted to stand in his own strength a second time. It is not fit that in a covenant of grace, wherein all is of mere, free, and absolute grace, that the reward of life should be suspended on the perseverance of man, as dependent on the strength and stedfastness of his own will. It is a covenant of works, and not a covenant of grace, that suspends eternal life on what is the fruit of a man’s own strength. Eternal life was to have been of works in those two respects, viz, as it was to have been for man s own righteousness, and as it was suspended on the fruit of his own strength.

For, though our first parent depended on the grace of God, the influence of his Spirit in his heart; yet that grace was given him already, and dwelt in him constantly, and without interruption, in such a degree as to hold him above any lust or sinful habit or principle. Eternal life was not me rely suspended on that grace that was given him, and dwelt in him, but on his improvement of that grace which he already had. For, in order to his Perseverance, there was nothing further promised beyond his own strength; no extraordinary occasional assistance was promised. It was not promised but that man should be left to himself as he was. But the new covenant is of grace, in a manner distinguishing from the old, in both these respects, that the reward of life is suspended neither on his own strength nor worthiness. It provides something above either. But if eternal life under the new covenant was suspended on man s own perseverance, or his perseveringly using diligent endeavours to stand without the promise of any thing farther to ascertain it than his own strength, it would herein be further from being worthy to be called a covenant of grace than the first covenant; because man’s strength is exceedingly less than it was then, and he is under far less advantages to persevere. And if he should obtain eternal life by perseverance in his own strength now, eternal life would, with respect to that, be much more of himself than it would have been by the first covenant; because perseverance now would be a much greater thing than under those circumstances; and he has but an exceeding small part of that grace dwelling in him, to assist him, that he had then and that which he has, does not dwell in him in the exercise of it by such a constant law as grace did then, but is put into exercise by the spirit of grace, in a far more arbitrary and sovereign way. 6. Again, Christ came into the world to do that in which mere men failed.

He came as a better surety, and that in him those defects might be supplied, which proved to be in our first surety, and that we might have a remedy for the mischief that came by those defects. But the defect of our first surety was, that he did not persevere. He wanted stedfastness; and therefore God sent us, in the next surety, one that could not fail; but should surely persevere, But this is no supply of that defect to us, if the reward of life be still suspended on perseverance, which has nothing, as to ourselves, greater to secure it still, than the strength of mere man; and the perseverance of our second surety is no remedy against the like mischief, which came by failure of our first surety; but on the contrary, we are much more exposed to the mischief than before. The perseverance on which life was suspended, depended then indeed on the strength of mere man; but now (on the supposition) it would be suspended on the strength of fallen man.

In that our first surety did not persevere, we fell in and with him; for doubtless, if he had stood, we should have stood with him. And therefore when God in mercy has given us a better surety to supply the defects of the first, a surety that might stand and persevere, and one that has actually persevered through the greatest imaginable trials; doubtless we shall stand and persevere in him. After all this, eternal life will not be suspended on our perseverance by our own poor, feeble, broken strength. Our first surety, if he had stood, would have been brought to eat of the tree of life, as a seal of a confirmed state of life in persevering and everlasting holiness and happiness; and he would have eat of this tree of life as a seal of persevering confirmed life, not only for himself, but as our head. As when he eat of the tree of knowledge of good and evil, he tasted as our head, and so brought death on himself and all his posterity; so, if he had persevered, and had eat of the tree of life, He would have tasted of that as our head, and therein life and confirmed holiness would have been sealed to him and all his posterity. But Christ, the second Adam, acts the same part for us that the first Adam was to have done, but failed. He has fulfilled the law, and has been admitted to the seals of confirmed and everlasting life. God, as a testimony and seal of his acceptance of what he had done as the condition of life, raised him from the dead, and exalted him with his own right hand, received him up into glory, and gave all things into his hands.

Thus the second Adam has persevered, not only for himself, but for us; and has been sealed to confirmed and persevering and eternal life, as our head; so that all those that are his, and who are his spiritual posterity, are sealed in him to persevering life, Here it will be in vain to object, that persons’ persevering in faith and holiness is the condition of their being admitted to the state of Christ’s posterity, or to a right in him; and that none are admitted as such till they have first persevered. For this is as much as to say, that Christ has no church in this world; and that there are none on this side the grave admitted as his children or people; because they have not yet actually persevered to the end of life, which is the condition of their being admitted as his children and people; which is contrary to the whole Scripture.

Christ having finished the work of Adam for us, does more than merely to bring us back to the probationary state of Adam, while he had yet his work to finish, knowing his eternal life uncertain, because suspended on his uncertain perseverance. That alone is inconsistent with Christ’s being a second Adam. For if Christ, succeeding in Adam’s room, has done and gone through the work that Adam was to have done, and did this as our representative or surety, he has not thereby set this only in Adam’s probationary, uncertain state, but has carried us, who are in him, and are represented by him, through Adam’s working probationary state, unto that confirmed state that Adam should have arrived at, if he had gone through his own work. 7. That the saints shall surely persevere, will necessarily follow from this, that they have already performed the obedience which is the righteousness by which they have justification unto life; or it is already performed for them, an imputed to them: for that supposes, that it is the same thing in the sight of God as if they had performed it. Now, when the creature has once actually performed and finished the righteousness of the law, he is immediately sealed and confirmed to eternal life. There is nothing to keep him off from the tree of life. But as soon as ever a believer has Christ’s righteousness imputed to him, he has virtually finished the righteousness of the law.

It is evident the saints shall persevere, because they are already justified.

Adam would not have been justified till he had fulfilled and done his work; and then his justification would have been a confirmation, It would have been an approving of him as having done his work. and as standing entitled to his reward. A servant that is sent out about a work, is not justified by his master till he has done; and then the master views the work, and seeing it to be done according to his order, he then approves and justifies him as having done his work, and being now entitled to the promised reward; and his title to his reward is no longer suspended on any thing remaining. So, Christ having done our work for us, we are justified as soon as ever we believe in him, as being, through what he has accomplished and finished, now already actually entitled to the reward of life. And justification carries in it not only remission of sins, but also being adjudged to life, or accepted as entitled by righteousness to the reward of life; as is evident, because believers are justified by communion with Christ in his justification. But the justification of Christ did most certainly imply both these things, viz. his being now judged free of that guilt which he had taken upon him, and also his having now fulfilled all righteousness-his having perfectly obeyed the Father, and done enough to entitle him to the reward of life as our head and surety-and therefore he then had eternal life given him as our head.

That life which was begun when he was raised from the dead, was eternal life. Christ was then justified in the same sense that Adam would have been justified, if he had finished his course of perfect obedience; and therefore implies in it confirmation in a title to life, as that would have done; and thus, all those that are risen with Christ, and have him for their surety, and so are justified in his justification, are certainly in like manner confirmed.

And again, that a believer’s justification implies not only a deliverance from the wrath of God, but a title to glory, is evident by Romans 5:12. where the apostle mentions both these as joint benefits implied in justification: “Therefore, being justified by faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ. By whom also we have access into this grace wherein we stand, and rejoice in hope of the glory of God.” So, remission of sins and inheritance among them that are sanctified, are mentioned together, as what are jointly obtained by faith in Christ: Acts 26:18. “ That they may receive forgiveness of sins, and inheritance among them that are sanctified, through faith that is in me.” Both these are undoubtedly implied in that passing from death unto life, which Christ speaks of as the fruit of faith, and which he opposes to condemnation: John 5:24. “Verily I say unto you, he that heareth my word, and believeth on him that sent me, hath everlasting life, and shall not come into condemnation, but is passed from death unto life.”

To suppose that a right to life is suspended on our own perseverance, which is uncertain, and has nothing more sure and stedfast to secure it than our own good-wills and resolutions, (which way soever we suppose it to be dependant on the strength of our resolutions and wills, either with assistance, or in the improvement of assistance, or in seeking assistance,) is exceedingly dissonant to the nature and design of the gospel scheme. For, if it were so, it would unavoidably deprive the believer of the comfort, hope, and joy of salvation: which would be very contrary to God’s design in the scheme of man’s salvation, which is to make the ground of our peace and joy in all respects strong and sure: or else, he must depend much on himself, and the ground of his joy and hope must in a great measure be his own strength, and the stedfastness of his own heart, the unchangeableness of his own resolutions, etc.; which would be very different from the gospel scheme. 8. It is one act of faith to commit the soul to Christ’s keeping in this sense, viz. to keep it from falling. The believing soul is convinced of its own weakness and helplessness, its inability to resist its enemies, its insufficiency to keep itself, and so commits itself to Christ, that he would be its keeper. The apostle speaks of his committing his soul by faith to Christ, under great sufferings and trials of his perseverance; 2 Timothy 1:12. “For which cause also I suffer these things. Nevertheless, I am not ashamed: for I know whom I have believed, and am persuaded that he is able to keep that which I have committed to him against that day.” And we are commanded to commit our way and our works unto the Lord; Psalm 37:5. Proverbs 16:3. Faith depends on Christ for all the good we need, and especially good of this kind, which is of such absolute necessity in order to the salvation of our souls. The sum of the good that faith looks for, is the Holy Spirit. It looks for spiritual and eternal life; for perfect holiness in heaven, and persevering holiness here. For the just shall live by faith. It seems to be because continuance in faith is necessary to continuance in justification, at least in part, that the apostle expresses himself as he does, Romans 1:17. “For therein the righteousness of God is revealed from faith unto faith; as it is written, The just shall live by faith.” For it is by faith that we first perceive and know this righteousness, and do at first receive and embrace it; and being once interested in it, we have the continuance of faith in future persevering exercises of it made sure to us. And thus that is fulfilled, “The just shall live by faith.” Agreeable to 1 Peter 1:5. “We are kept by the power of God through faith unto salvation.” And also Hebrews 10:35-39. “Cast not away therefore your confidence, which hath great recompence of reward. For ye have need of patience, that after ye have done the will of God, ye might receive the promise. For yet a little while, and he that shall come, will come, and will not tarry. Now, the just shall live by faith; but if any man draw back, my soul shall have no pleasure in him. But we are not of them who draw back unto perdition, but of them that believe to the saving of the soul.” 9. Perseverance is acknowledged by Calvinian divines, to be necessary to salvation. Yet it seems to me, that the manner in which it is necessary has not been sufficiently set forth. It is owned to be necessary as a sine qua non: and also, that though it is not that by which we first come to have a title to eternal life, yet it is necessary in order to the actual possession of it, as the way to it; that it is as impossible we should come to it without perseverance, as it is impossible for a man to go to a city or town, without travelling throughout the road that leads to it. But we are really saved by perseverance; so that salvation has a dependence on perseverance, as that which influences in the affair, so as to render it congruous that we should be saved. Faith (on our part) is the great condition of salvation; it is that by which we are justified and saved. But in this faith, the perseverance that belongs to it is a fundamental ground of the congruity that faith gives to salvation. Perseverance indeed comes into consideration, even in the justification of a sinner, as one thing on which the fitness of acceptance to life depends. For, God has respect to perseverance as being virtually in the first act. And it is looked upon as if it were a property of that faith by which the sinner is then justified. God has respect to continuance in faith; and the sinner is justified by that, as though it already were; because by divine establishment it shall follow; and so it is accepted, as if it were a property contained in the faith that is then seen. Without this, it would not be congruous that a sinner should be justified at his first believing; but it would be needful that the act of justification should be suspended till the sinner had persevered in faith. There is the same reason why it is necessary that the union between Christ and the soul should remain in order to salvation, as that it should be begun; for it is begun to the end that it might remain. And if it could be begun without remaining, the beginning would be in vain. The soul is saved no otherwise than by union with Christ, and so is fitly looked upon as his. It is saved in him; and in order to that, it is necessary that the soul now be in him, even when salvation is actually bestowed, and not merely that it should once have been in him; and therefore God, in justifying a sinner, even in the first act of faith, has respect to the congruity between justification and perseverance of faith. So that perseverance is necessary to salvation, not only as a sine qua non, or as the way to possession; but it is necessary even to the congruity of justification. 10. That perseverance is thus necessary to salvation, not only as a sine qua non, but by reason of such an influence and dependence, seems manifest from Scripture; as particularly, Hebrews 10:38,39. “Now the just shall live by faith. But if any man draw back, my soul shall have no pleasure in him.

But we are not of them who draw back unto perdition, but of them that believe unto the saving of the soul.” Romans 11:20. “Well, because of unbelief they were broken off. But thou standest by faith. Be not high minded, but fear.” John 15:7. “If ye abide in me, and my words abide in you, ye shall ask what ye will, and it shall be done unto you.” Hebrews 3:14. “For we are made partakers of Christ, if we hold the beginning of our confidence firm unto the end.” Chap. 5:12. “Be ye followers of them, who through faith and patience inherit the promises.” So that not only the first act of faith, but subsequent acts of faith, and perseverance in faith, do justify the sinner; although salvation is in itself sure and certain after the first act. For the way in which the first act of faith justifies, is not by making the futurition of salvation certain in itself; for that is as certain in itself by the divine decree, before the first act of faith, as afterwards.

Salvation is in some sense the sinner’s right, before he believes. It was given him in Christ, before the world was. But before a sinner believes, he has not any thing from God that he can lay hold of, so as to either challenge it, or on good grounds hope for it. He cannot be said to have any right, because be has no congruity; and as to the promise made to Christ, he has no hold to that, because that is not revealed to him. If God had declared and promised to the angels that such a man should be saved; that would not give him any right of his own, or any ground of challenge. A promise is a manifestation of a person’s design of doing some good to another, to the end that he may depend on it, and rest in it. The certainty in him arises from the manifestation; and the obligation in justice to him arises from the manifestation being made to him, to the effect that he might depend on it. And therefore subsequent acts of faith may be said to give a sinner a title to salvation, as well as the first. For, from what has been said, it appears that the congruity arises from them, as well as the first; they in like manner containing the nature of unition to Christ as mediator; and they may have as great, nay, a greater hand in the manifestation of the futurition of salvation to us for our dependence, than the first act. For our knowledge of this may proceed mainly from after-acts, and from a course of acts. The Scripture speaks of after-acts of faith in both Abraham and Noah, as giving a title to the righteousness which is the matter of justification. See Romans 4:3. Hebrews 11:7. 11, The doctrine of perseverance is manifest from the nature of the mediation of Christ. For as Christ is a mediator to reconcile God to man, and man to God, and as he is a middle person between both, and has the nature of both, so he undertakes for each, and, in some respect, becomes surety for each with the other. He undertakes and becomes a surety for man to God. He engages for him, that the law, that was given him, shall be answered; and that justice, with respect to him, shall be satisfied, and the honour of God’s majesty vindicated. So he undertakes and engages for the Father with man, in order to his being reconciled to God, and induced to come to him, to love him, and trust confidently in him, and rest quietly in him. He undertakes for the Father’s acceptance and favour, John 14:21. “He that loveth me shall be loved of my Father.” He undertakes that the Father shall hear and answer their prayers. He becomes surety to see that their prayers are answered; John 14:13. “Whatsoever ye shall ask of the Father in my name, that will I do, that the Father may be glorified in the Son.” He undertakes that they shall have all necessary supplies of grace from the Father; and he engages for the continuance of God’s presence with them, and the continuance of his favour, and of the supplies of grace necessary to uphold and preserve them, and keep them from finally perishing; John 14:16. “And I will pray the Father, and he shall give you another Comforter, that he may abide with you for ever.” And ver. 23. “If a man love me, he will keep my words, and my Father will love him, and we will come to him, and make our abode with him.” Christ does not only declare that God will give us needed grace, but he himself undertakes to see it done. He promises that he will bestow it from the Father; John 15:26. “But when the Comforter is come, whom I will send you from the Father.”

It was necessary that some one should thus undertake for God with man, for the continuance of his pardoning and sanctifying grace, in order to the sinner’s being fully reconciled to God, and brought fully and quietly to rest in him as his God: otherwise the sinner, conscious of his own weakness and sinfulness, could have no quiet rest in God, for fear of the union being broken between God and him, and for fear of incurring God’s displeasure and wrath, and so having God an enemy for ever, He is in a capacity to undertake for us, and be surety for us, with the Father, because he puts himself in our stead. He also is in a capacity to undertake for the Father, and be surety for him with us, because the Father hath put him in his stead.

He puts himself in our stead as priest, and answers for us, and does and suffers in that office what we should have done and suffered; and God puts him in his stead as King. He is appointed to the government of the world, as God’s vicegerent, and so, in that office, answers for God to us, and does, and orders, and bestows, that which we need from God. He undertakes for us in things that are expected of tis as subjects, because he puts himself into our subjection. He a pears in the form of a servant for us.

So he undertakes for the Father, in that which is dcsired and hoped for of him as king: for the Father hath put him into his kingdom and dominion, and has committed all authority and power unto him. He is in a capacity to undertake for the Father with us, because he can say, as in John 16:15. “All things that the Father hath are mine.” 12. The first covenant failed of bringing man to the glory of God, through man’s instability, whereby he failed of perseverance. Man’s changeableness was the thing wherein it was weak. It was weak through the flesh. But God had made a second covenant in mercy to fallen man, that in the way of this covenant he might be brought to the glory of God, which he failed of under the other. But it is God’s manner, in things that he appoints and constitutes, when one thing fails of its proper end, he appoints another to succeed in the room of it; to introduce that the second time, in which the weaknesses and defects of the former are supplied, and which never shall fail, but shall surely reach its end, and so shall remain as that which needs no other to succeed it. So God removed the first dispensation by Moses, Hebrews 8:7-13. “For if the first covenant had been faultless, then should no place have been sought for the second,” etc. So the priesthood of the order of Aaron ceases, because of the weakness and insufficiency of it to answer the ends of priesthood, which are, to reconcile God to man.

Therefore God introduces another priesthood, of the order of Melchizedec, that is sufficient, and cannot fail, and remains for ever. Hebrews 7:So Moses, the first leader of Israel, failed of bringing them into Canaan; but Joshua, the second leader, did not fail. The kingdom of Saul, the first anointed of the Lord, did not continue; but the kingdom of the second anointed remains for ever. The first sanctuary that was built in Israel, was a movable tabernacle, and therefore ready to vanish away, or be removed finally:-and God forsook the tabernacle of Shiloh, But the second sanctuary was a firm building, an immovable temple, which was typically an everlasting sanctuary, and that which God wou ld never forsake; 2 Samuel 7:10,11. So the first covenant, that God made with Adam, failed, because it was weak through the weakness of human nature, to whose strength and stability the keeping was intrusted. Therefore God introduces another better covenant, committed not to his strength, but to the strength of one that was mighty and stable, and therefore is a sure and everlasting covenant. God intrusted the affair of man’s happiness on a weak foundation at first, to show man that the foundation was weak, and not to be trusted to, that he might trust in God alone. The first was only to make way for the second. God lighted up a divine light in man’s soul at the first; but it remained on such a foundation, that Satan found means to extinguish it; and therefore, when God lights it up a second time, it is that it may never be extinguished. 13. Some things may yet remain, that are properly the conditions of salvation; on which salvation may be suspended, that it may well excite to the utmost caution, lest we should come short of eternal life, and should perish for the want of them, after it is already become impossible that we should fail of salvation. For the condition on which the man Christ Jesus was to obtain eternal life, was his doing the work which God had given him to do; his performing perfect persevering obedience, and his therein conquering Satan and the world, and all opposition, and enduring all sufferings that he met with. Therefore Christ used the utmost diligence to do this work, and used the utmost caution lest he should fail of it; and prayed with strong crying and tears, and wrestled with God in a bloody sweat, that he might not fail, but might have God’s help to go through. Yet it was impossible he should fail of eternal life, and the whole reward that had been promised him. The joy that was set before him, was not only certain to him, but he had a proper title to it as God’s heir, by reason of his relation to God the Father, as being his only-begotten Son. It was impossible that he should fail in the work to which he was appointed, as God bad promised him sufficient and effectual grace and help to persevere, and already had made known his election: Psalm 110:7.” He shall drink of the brook in the way, therefore shall he lift up the head.” Isaiah 42:1. “Behold my servant whom I uphold; mine elect, in whom my soul delighteth. I have put my Spirit upon him. He shall bring forth judgment to the Gentiles,” Verse 4. “He shall not fail nor be discouraged.” And verse 6. “I the Lord have called thee in righteousness: I will hold thine hand and keep thee.” So it was in effect promised in the revelations that were made to Mary and Joseph, Zechariah, etc. and so to himself in answer to his prayers, by a voice from heaven.. “ I have both glorified it, and will glorify it again.” It appears that all was certain beforehand, by God’s actually saving great numbers beforehand, on the ground of his future perseverance in his work. 14. Grace is that which God implants in the heart against great opposition of enemies, great opposition from the corruption of the heart, and from Satan and the world. Great are the efforts of all these against the implantation of it, and they all labour to the utmost to keep it out. Seeing therefore that God manifests his all-conquering power in giving grace a place in the heart in spite of those enemies, he will doubtless maintain it there against their united efforts to root it out. He that has so gloriously conquered them in bringing in grace, will not at last suffer himself to be conquered, by their expelling that which he has so brought in by his mighty power. He that gloriously subdued those enemies under his feet, by bringing this image of his into the soul, will not suffer this image of his finally to be trampled under their feet. God alone could introduce it. It was what he undertook; and it was wholly his work, and doubtless he will maintain it. He will not forsake the work of his own hands. Where he has begun a good work, he will carry it on to the day of Christ. Grace shall endure all things, and shall remain under all things; as the expression panta upomenei literally signifies, in 1 Corinthians 13:7. 15. The Spirit of God was given at first, but was lost. God gives it a second time, never to be utterly lost. The Spirit is now given in another manner than it was then. Then indeed it was communicated, and dwelt in their hearts. But this communication was made without conveying at the same time any proper right or sure title to it. But when God communicates it the second time, as he does to a true convert, he withal gives it to him to be his own; he finally makes it over to him in a sure covenant. He is their purchased and promised possession. Man, in his first estate, had no benefit at all properly made over to him: fir God makes over benefits only by covenant: and then the condition of the covenant had not been fulfilled. But now, man, at his first conversion, is justified and adopted: he is received as a child and an heir, as a joint heir with Christ. His fellowship is with the Father, and with his Son Jesus Christ. God is theirs, and Christ is theirs; and the Holy Ghost is theirs; and all things are theirs. The Holy Spirit, who is the sum of all good, is their inheritance; and that little of it that they have in this life, is the earnest of their future inheritance, till the redemption of the purchased possession. heaven is theirs: their conversation is there. They are citizens of that city, and of the household of God. Christians are represented as being come already to heaven, to mount Zion, the city of the living God; to an innumerable company of angels, etc.-Heaven is the proper country of the church. They are raised up together with Christ, and made to sit together in heavenly places: “They are blessed with all spiritual blessings in heavenly places.” (Ephesians 2:6.)

The whole tenor of the gospel shows, that Christians have actually a full and final right made over to them, to spiritual and heavenly blessings. 16. That the saints should be earnestly exhorted and pressed to care and caution, and earnest endeavours to persevere, is most reasonable; and it cannot be otherwise, notwithstanding their having an absolute, unchangeable promise, that they shall persevere. For still perseverance is their duty, and what they are to do in obedience to God. For that is the notion of perseverance, their holding out in the way of God’s commandments. But if it were absurd to command them to persevere, as the work they have to do, then how would they do it in obedience to him?

The angels in heaven are confirmed, and it is promised unto them that they never shall sin: yet it is proper for God to give them commands, though in so doing he requires the improvement of their care and endeavours to obey and fulfil his will exactly. It is not obedience, if they do not take care and endeavour to obey. If they should cease to take care, that very thing would prove their fall. So, in this case, if Christians cease to take care to persevere, that very thing is falling away. 17. It shows the infallible perseverance of true Christians, that their spiritual life is a participation with Christ in the life that he received as risen from the dead. For they live by Christ’s living in them: Galatians ii’ 20. “ I am crucified with Christ; nevertheless I live; yet not I, but Christ liveth in me; and the life which I now live in the flesh, I live by the faith of the Son of God, who loved me, and gave himself for me:” that is, by the life that be has received since his resurrection, and by his communicating to them that fulness which he received when he rose from the dead. When he rose, he received the promise of the Father, the Spirit of life without measure, and he sheds it forth on believers. The oil poured on the risen head goes down to the skirts of the garments; and thus Christ lives in believers by his Spirit dwelling in them. Believers, in their conversion, are said to be risen with Christ; Colossians 2:12,13. “Ye are risen with him through the faith of the operation of God, who hath raised him from the dead. And you, being dead in your sins, and the circumcision of your flesh, hath he quickened together with him.” And chap. 3:1. “ If ye then be risen with Christ,” etc. And Ephesians 2:5,6. “Even when we were dead in sins, hath quickened us together with Christ, and hath raised us up together.” Romans 5:10. “For if, when we were enemies, we were reconciled to God by the death of his Son, much more, being reconciled, we shall be saved by his life.” This spiritual resurrection and life is procured and purchased for Christ’s members, by Christ’s suffering obedience, in the same manner as his own resurrection and life is purchased by it. And they receive life as united to him, as members of a risen Saviour, and as being married in their conversion to him. 18. The perseverance of faith is necessary to a congruity to salvation. For it is implied in several places of Scripture, that if true believers should fail in persevering in faith, they would be in a lost state; John 18:8,9. “Jesus answered, I have told you that I am he If therefore ye seek me, let these go their way: that the saying might be fulfilled which he spake, “Of them which thou gayest me, have I lost none:” i.e. Christ took care that they might go away, that they might not be in the way of such temptations as would he in danger of overthrowing them, so that they should not persevere, And it is implied, that if they were overthrown, and should not persevere, Christ would have lost them; the saving relation that they stood in to Christ would have been dissolved. The same seems fully implied in Christ’s prayer in the 17th chapter of John. Thus, he makes use not only of their having received God’s word, and believed that God had sent him, but their having kept his word, as a good plea for their title to that favour and acceptance of the Father, which he asks of the Father for them; as ver. 6, 7, 8, etc. — The same is implied in the 11th verse: “Holy Father, keep through thine own name those whom thou hast given me, that they may he one, as we are.” This implies, that their being one, or their standing in a saving relation to him, and in union with his mystical body, depends on the perseverance of their faith, even that union on which a title to all spirittial and saving benefits depends, which is more fully spoken of in the 21st and following verses. This perseverance of believers seems to he the benefit, which is the principal subject of this whole prayer. And in Luke 22:31,32. it is implied, that if Peter’s faith had failed, Satan would have had him: “And the Lord said, Simon, Simon, Satan hath desired to have you, that he may sift you as wheat; but I have prayed for thee that thy faith fail not.” i Pet. 1:5. “ Who are kept by the power of God, through faith unto salvation.” Where it seems implied, that if they were not kept through faith, or if their faith did not persevere, they never would come to salvation. So, believers being overthrown in their faith, or their not knowing Christ’s voice and following him, is called a being plucked out of Christ’s hand; and it is implied, that the consequence would be their perishing. It also seems to be implied, that their possession of eternal life by Christ’s gift depends on their perseverance; John 10:27,28. “My sheep hear my voice, and I know them, and they follow me; and I will give unto them eternal life, and they shall never perish, neither shall any pluck them out of my hand.” And in the 15th chapter of John, believers persevering in faith in Christ, or their abiding in him, is spoken of as necessary to the continuance of the saving union and relation that is between Christ and believers, and Christ’s abiding in them; as ver. 4, 5. “Abide in me, and I in you. I am the vine, ye are the branches. He that abideth in me, and I in him, the same bringeth forth much fruit.” And in the 6th verse, it is spoken of as the necessary consequence of their not abiding in Christ, if that were possible; that the union should be utterly broken between Christ and them, and that damnation should be the consequence. “If a man abide not in me, he is cast forth as a branch, and is withered, and men gather them and cast them into the fire and they are burned.” And in the 7th verse, this perseverance of faith is spoken of as the necessary means of the success of faith as expressed in prayer, which is faith’s voice, necessary to obtain those good things which faith and prayer seek, “If ye abide in me, and my words abide in you, ye shall ask what ye will, and it shall be done unto you.” And in the 9th and 10th verses, it is implied, that Christ’s acceptance of us, and favour to us as his, depends on our perseverance: “As the Father hath loved me, so have I loved you.