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

by Thomas Ridgley

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

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

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

Quest. LXII. What is the visible church?

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

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

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

Quest. LXIV. What is the invisible church?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

END OF THE SECOND VOLUME.

Footnotes

[1]. עשוז, ברא κτιζειν, ποιειν, γινεσθαι.

[2]. Of this opinion was Aristotle, and his followers; though he acknowledges, that it was contrary to the sentiments of all the philosophers that were before him, Vid. Arist. de Cœlo, Lib. I. cap. 2 who, speaking concerning the creation of the world, says, γενομενον μεν ουν απαντες ειναι φασιν.

[3]. Tertull. adv. Hermog. cap. 8. Hæreticorum Patriarchæ Philosophi; which was so memorable a passage, that it was quoted, upon the same occasion, by Jerom, and others of the fathers.

[4]. This was maintained by Aquinas, Durandus, Cajetan, and others; though opposed by Albertus Magnus, Bonaventure, &c.

[5]. Thus Augustin, speaking concerning the years from the time of the creation to his time, reckons them to be not full, that is, almost six thousand years; whereas in reality, it was but about four thousand four hundred, herein being imposed on by this translation. Vid. Aug. de Civ. Dei. Lib. XII. Cap. 10.

[6]. Every one, that observes the lxx. translation in their chronological account of the lives of the patriarchs, from Adam to Abraham, in Gen. chap. v. compared with chap. xi. will find, that there are so many years added therein to the account of the lives of several there mentioned, as will make the sum total, from the creation of the world to the call of Abraham, to be between fourteen and fifteen hundred years more than the account which we have thereof in the Hebrew text; which I rather choose to call a mistake, in that translation, than to attempt to defend it; though some, who have paid too great a deference to it, have thought that the Hebrew text was corrupted, after our Saviour’s time, by the Jews by leaving out those years which the lxx. have added, designing hereby to make the world believe that the Messiah was not to come so soon as he did, by fourteen or fifteen hundred years; and that therefore the Hebrew text, in those places, is to be corrected by that version; which I cannot but conclude to be a very injurious insinuation, as well as not supported by any argument that has the least probability in it.

[7]. Vid. Pomp. Mel. Lib. I. Cap. 9. who speaks of the annals of the kings of Egypt, as containing above thirteen thousand years; and others extend the antiquity of that nation many thousand years more. Vid. Diod. Sicul. Biblioth. Lib. I.

[8]. Vid. Cicero de Divinat. Lib. I. who condemns the Egyptians and Babylonians, as foolish, vain, yea impudent, in their accounts relating to this matter, when they speak, as some of them do, of things done four hundred and seventy thousand years before; upon which occasion, Lactantius, in Lib. 7. § 14. de Vita beata, passes this just censure upon them, Quia se posse argui non putabant, liberum sibi crediderunt esse mentiri; and Macrob. in somn. Scip. cap. 11. supposes that they did not measure their years as we do, by the annual revolution of the sun, but by the moon; and so a year, according to them, was no more than a month, which he supposes Virgil was apprised of, when he calls the common solar year, Annus Magnus, as compared with those short ones that were measured by the monthly revolution of the moon: but this will not bring the Egyptians and Chaldean accounts to a just number of years, but some of them would, notwithstanding, exceed the time that the world has stood. As for the Chinese, they have no authentic histories that give any account of this matter; but all depends upon uncertain tradition, transmitted to them by those who are their leaders in religious matters, and reported by travellers who have received these accounts from them, which, therefore, are far from deserving any credit in the world.

[9]. The reader will be highly gratified by a treatise of Dr. Hugh Williamson on climate, wherein he examines this subject.

[10]. The common distribution of time, into that which is αδηλον, before the flood, and μυθικον, after it, till they computed by the Olympiads; and afterwards that which they call ἱστορικον the only account to be depended upon, makes this matter farther evident.

[11]. See this argument farther improved, by those who have insisted on the first inventors of things; as Polydor. Virgil. de Rerum inventoribus; and Plin. Secund. Hist. Mundi. Lib. VII. cap. 56.-60. and Clem. Alex. Strom. Lib. I. Lucretius, though an assertor of the eternity of matter and motion, from his master Epicurus, yet proves, that the world, as to its present form, had a beginning; and what he says is so much to our present argument, that I cannot but mention it. Vid. Lucret. de Rer. Nat. Lib. V.

Prætera si nulla fuit genitalis origo Terrarum & Cœli, semperq; æterna fuere;

Cur supra bellum Thebanum, & funera Trojæ,

Non alias alii quoque res cecinere Poetæ?

Quo tot facta virum toties cecidere? neque usquam

Æternis famæ monimentis insita florent?

Verum, ut opinor, habet novitatem Summa, recensq;

Natura est Mundi, neque pridem exordia cepit.

Quare etiam quædam nunc artes expoliuntur.

Nunc etiam augescunt; nunc addita navigiis sunt.

Multa: modo organici melicos peperere sonores.

Denique Natura hæc rerum, ratioque reperta est

Nuper.——

[12]. See Vol. I. Pages 220, 221.

[13]. See Ray’s Wisdom of God in the Creation, page 182.

[14]. Whitby on Election, page 92, 93.

[15]. See Turret. Elenct. Tom. I. Loc. 5. Quest. 5.

[16]. Vid. Witsii in Symbol. Exercit. 8. § 66.

[17]. This is the main thing that is advanced by Des Cartes, in his philosophy, which formerly obtained more in the world than it does at present; though there are several divines in the Netherlands, who still adhere to, and defend that hypothesis. This was thought a sufficient expedient to fence against the absurdities of Epicurus, and his followers, who suppose that things attained their respective forms by the fortuitous concourse of atoms; nevertheless, it is derogatory to the Creator’s glory, inasmuch as it sets aside his immediate efficiency in the production of things.

[18]. This absurd opinion the Papists are very fond of, inasmuch as it serves their purpose in defending the doctrine of Transubstantiation.

[19]. Ambrose, in his Hexameron, Lib. II. cap. 3. as well as Basil, and others, suppose, that the use thereof is to qualify the extraordinary heat of the sun, and other celestial bodies, to prevent their burning the frame of nature, and especially their destroying this lower world; and others think, that they are reserved in store, to answer some particular ends of providence, when God, at any time, designs to destroy the world by a deluge; and consequently they conclude, that it was by a supply of water from thence, that there was a sufficient quantity poured down, when the world was drowned, in the universal deluge: but, though a late ingenious writer, [Vid. Burnet. Tellur. Theor. Lib. I. cap. 2.] supposes, that the clouds could afford but a small part of that water, which was sufficient to answer that end, which he supposes to be eight times as much as the sea contains; yet he does not think fit to fetch a supply thereof from the super-celestial stores, not only as supposing the opinion to be ill-grounded, but by being at a loss to determine how these waters should be disposed of again, which could not be accounted for any other way, but by annihilation, since they could not be exhaled by the sun, or contained in the clouds, by reason of their distant situation, as being far above them.

[20]. It is not על תקיע, but מעל לרקיע.

[21]. See Quest. CV.

[22]. Thus the learned Witsius, in Symbol. Exercitat. 8. § 78. exposes this notion, by referring to a particular relation given, by one, of mountains, vallies, seas, woods, and vast tracts of land, which are contained in the moon, and a describing the men that inhabit it, and the cities that are built by them, and other things relating hereunto, which cannot be reckoned, in the opinion of sober men, any other than fabulous and romantic.

[23]. This, supposing the fowl to be produced out of the water, mixed with earth, reconciles the seeming contradiction that there is between Gen. i, 20. and chap. ii. 19. in the former of which it is said, the fowl were created out of the water, and in the latter, out of the earth.

[24]. See Quest. XVII.

[25]. When we speak of the season of the year, we have a particular respect to that part of the earth, in which man at first resided; being sensible that the seasons of the year vary, according to the different situation of the earth.

[26].

——Ver illud erat, Ver magnus agebat

Orbis, & Hybernis parcebant flatibus Euri.

Virg. Georg. 2.

[27]. Vid. Augustin. de Civ. Dei, Lib. XV. cap. 23. Tertull. de Idololatria, & alibi passim.

[28]. This was the opinion of Aristotle, though he does not call them angels, but intelligent Beings, for angel is a character belonging to them, derived only from scripture; neither do we find that this work is assigned to them, as a part of their ministry therein.

[29]. See Quest. XIX.

[30]. It is strenuously maintained, by Baronius, Bellarmine, and many other writers; as also by many of the schoolmen, as Durandus, Tho. Aquinas, and others.

[31]. This book is sufficiently proved to be spurious, and not to have been known in the four or five first ages of the church, as not being mentioned by Jerom, Gennadius, and others, who make mention of the writers of their own and former ages, and pass their censures on them, as genuine or spurious. And, from others of the Fathers, who lived in those centuries, it plainly appears, that the doctrines maintained in this book, concerning the celestial hierarchy, were not then known by the church. It is also proved to be spurious, because the author thereof makes mention of holy places, such as temples, altars, &c. for divine worship, and catechumens, and the like, and many other things, unknown to the church till the fourth century; and he uses the word Hypostases to signify the divine Persons, which was not used till then. He also speaks of the institution of monks, and various sorts of them, which were not known till long after the apostolic age; yea, he quotes a passage out of Clemens Alexandrinus, who lived in the third century. These, and many other arguments, to the same purpose, are maintained, not only by Protestants, but some impartial Popish writers, which sufficiently prove it spurious. See Dallæus De Scrip. Dionys. Areop. and Du Pin’s history of ecclesiastical writers, Cent. 1. Page 32-34.

[32]. See Quest. XIX.

[33]. This book, which is called, Systema Theologicum, in which this matter is pretended to be defended, was published by one Peirerius, about the middle of the last century; and, being written in Latin, was read by a great many of the learned world: And, inasmuch as the sense of many scriptures is strained by him to defend it, and hereby contempt was cast upon scripture in general, and occasion given to many, who are so disposed, to reproach and burlesque it; therefore some have thought it worth their while to take notice of, and confute this new doctrine; after which, the author thereof, either being convinced of his error thereby, as some suppose, or being afraid lest he should suffer persecution for it, recanted his opinion, and turned Papist.

[34]. See Ray’s wisdom of God, in the work of creation, Part. II. and Derham’s Physico. Theology, Book V.

[35]. The Origin of the soul, at what time it enters into the body, whether it be immediately created at its entrance into the body, or comes out of a pre-existent state, are things that cannot be known from any fitness or reasonableness founded in the nature of things; and yet it is as necessary to believe this is done according to certain reasons of wisdom and goodness, as to believe there is a God.

Now, who can say that it is the same thing, whether human souls are created immediately for human bodies, or whether they come into them out of some pre-existent state? For aught we know, one of these ways may be exceeding fit and wise, and the other as entirely unjust and unreasonable; and yet, when Reason examines either of these ways, it finds itself equally perplexed with difficulties, and knows not which to chuse: but if souls be immaterial [as all philosophy now proves] it must be one of them.

And perhaps, the reason why God has revealed so little of these matters in holy Scripture itself, is, because any more particular revelation of them, would but have perplexed us with greater difficulties, as not having capacities or ideas to comprehend such things. For, as all our natural knowledge is confined to ideas borrowed from experience, and the use of our senses about human things; as Revelation can only teach us things that have some likeness to what we already know; as our notions of equity and justice are very limited, and confined to certain actions between man and man; so, if God had revealed to us more particularly, the origin of our souls, and the reason of their state in human bodies, we might perhaps have been exposed to greater difficulties by such knowledge, and been less able to vindicate the justice and goodness of God, than we are by our present ignorance. HUMAN REASON.

[36]. See Quest. lxxxvi.

[37]. It was denied, indeed, by the Epicureans, who were detested by the better sort of heathen, and reckoned the Libertines of the respective ages, in which they lived; and, though they may occasionally speak of a God, yet were deemed no better than Atheists. Diogenes Laertius [Vid. in Vit. Epicuri, Lib. X.] in the close of the life of Epicurus, gives a brief account of his sentiments about religion, which he lays down in several short Aphorisms; the first of which begins with this memorable passage, Το μακαριον και αφθαρτον ουτε αυτο πραγματα εχει ουτε αλλω παρεχει, Quod beatum & immortale est neque ipsum negotia habet, neque alii præbet; which expression some of the wiser heathen have taken just offence at. And accordingly Cicero, [Vid. ejusd. Lib. I. De Nat. Deor.] referring to this passage, says, that whatever veneration Epicurus pretended to have for the gods, yet he was no better than an Atheist, and brought a god into his philosophy, that he might not fall under the displeasure of the senate at Athens: thus he says, Novi ego Epicureos omnia Sigilla venerantes; quanquam video nonnullis videri Epicurum, ne in offensionem Atheniensium caderet, verbis reliquisse Deos, resustulisse: And Lactantius observes the same thing concerning him, and describes him as a deceiver and a hypocrite, Hic vero si aliud sensit, & aliud locutus est; quid aliud appellandus est, quam deceptor, bilinguis, malus, & propterea stultus? Vid. Lactant. de Ira Dei, Cap. 4. And as for the Poets, it was only the most vain among them, who gave countenance to immorality, and endeavoured to debauch the age in which they lived, that gave out this notion; and, in our age, this seems to be one of the first principles of Deism.

[38]. Vide ante. Vol. I. p. 532, in note.

[39]. See Charnock, Flavell, Dr. Collings, on Providence.

[40]. Some think, that those expressions, which we find in scripture, that speak of the devil, and his angels, and the prince of devils, import as much; but this we pretend not to determine.

[41]. This was the opinion of most if the fathers, in the three first centuries of the church, namely, Justin Martyr, Origen, Tertullian, Clemens, Alexandrinus, Lactantius, Irenæus, Cyprian, and others. Some of them appeared to have taken the hint thereof from some MS. of the LXX translation, which rendered the words in Gen. vi. 2. instead of the sons of God, the angels saw the daughters of men, &c. This translation being used by them, instead of the Hebrew text, which they did not well understand; though others took it from a spurious and fabulous writing, which they had in their hands, called Enoch, or, the prophecy of Enoch, or rather, Liber, παρα εγρηγορων, de Egregoris, a barbarous Greek word, used to signify angels, and taken from the character given them of watchers, in Daniel. Of this book, we have some fragments now remaining, in which there is such a ridiculous and fabulous account of this matter, as very much, herein exceeds the apocryphal history of Tobit. It gives an account of a conspiracy among the angels, relating to this matter; the manner of their entering into it, their names, the year of the world, and place in which this wickedness was committed, and other things, that are unworthy of a grave historian; and, the reckoning it among those writings, that are supposed to have a divine sanction, is little other than profaneness and blasphemy. Some of the fathers, who refer to this book, pretend it to be no other than apocryphal, and, had they counted it otherwise, all would have reckoned it a burlesque upon scripture; therefore Origen, who, on other occasions, seems to pay too great a deference to it, when Celsus takes notice of it, as containing a banter on the Christian religion, he is, on that occasion, obliged to reply to him, that book was not in great reputation in the church, Vid. Orig. contra Celsum, Lib. V. And Jerom reckons it among the apocryphal writings, Vid. Hieronym. in Catal. Script. Eccles. cap. 4. And Augustin calls it not only apocryphal, but, as it deserves, fabulous. Vid. ejusd. de Civ. Dei. Lib. XV. cap. 23.

[42]. Vide Dr. Wells’ Sacred Geography, and the excursions annexed to it.

[43]. See Quest. cxxxix.

[44]. See Quest. cxvi.

[45]. If there had been a period in which there was absolutely no existence, there would never have been any thing. Either man, or his Creator, or one more remote, has been from eternity, unless we admit the contradiction of an eternal succession. But because to create implies power and wisdom, which we have not the least reason to imagine any creature can possess, either man, and the world he possesses, have always been, or their maker. The history of man, the structure of languages, the face of the ground, &c. shew that man and his habitation have not been from eternity; therefore God is eternal. As all excellency is in himself or derived from him, his happiness depends only on himself; and the worlds he has made, are so far pleasing as they exhibit himself to himself. He could have made his intelligent creatures all confirmed in holiness, but he chose to confer liberty, which was a blessing till abused. He knew all the consequences, and that these would exercise his mercy and justice. Partial evil he determined should produce universal good, and that no evil should take place, but that which should eventually praise him.

The first intelligent creatures were purely spiritual, and each stood or fell for himself. He united in man the spiritual and corporeal natures; he formed his soul innocent and holy, and made ample provision for the comfort of his body; and as it would have been inconvenient to have brought all of the human family, which were to be in every generation, upon the earth at one time, and still more so, that, every one standing or falling for himself, the earth should be the common habitation of beings perfectly holy, happy, and immortal, and also of cursed perishing beings, he constituted the first man a representative of his race. “Let us make man,” the race in one. To be fruitful, multiply, fill, and subdue the earth, were directed to the race. “In the day thou eatest thereof, thou shalt die.” He did die spiritually, he lost his innocence, became the subject of guilt, shame, and fear; and all his posterity inherit the fallen nature. Being already cursed, when afterwards arraigned and sentenced, it was only necessary to curse his enjoyments in this world. His posterity were included, for they are subjected to the same afflictions and death. If they had not been included in the sentence “dust thou art, and unto dust shalt thou return,” as they were a part of his dust, not dying, it would not have been accomplished. That he represented the race appears also from this, that the command was given to him before his wife was formed, and also because it does not appear that her eyes were opened to see her guilt, and miserable condition until he had eaten of the fruit; then “the eyes of them both were opened.”

The remedy was provided before the creation, and nothing can be shown to prove that it is not complete in every instance when there is not actual guilt. That the woman was to have a seed the first parent heard announced in the sentence against the tempter, whilst standing in suspense momently in expectation of that death which had been threatened. If the plural had been used, this could have been no intimation of the seed Christ. Why was the word woman used, which excludes the man, and not the term man, which would have embraced both, unless the Son of the virgin was intended? It is all one great whole, perfectly seen only to God himself. “O the depth of the riches both of the wisdom and knowledge of God; how unsearchable are his judgments, and his ways past finding out.”

[46]. Vid. Grot. in Hos. vi. 7. Mihi latina hæc interpretatio non displicet, ut sensus hic sit; sicut Adam, quia pactum meum violavit, expulsus est ex Hedene; ita æquum est ex sua terra expelli.

[47]. When I speak of the advantages being, for substance the same, it is supposed, that there are some circumstances of glory, in which that salvation that was purchased by Christ, differs from that happiness which Adam would have been possessed of had he persisted in his integrity.

[48]. Yet it is the better opinion, that he was vulnerable only on one point.

[49]. The principal argument brought to prove this, is the application of that scripture, to this purpose, in Cant. viii. 5. I raised thee up under the apple tree; there thy mother brought thee forth, as if he should say, the church, when, fallen by our first parents eating the fruit of this tree, was raised up, when the Messiah was first promised. But, though this be a truth, yet whether it be the thing intended, by the Holy Ghost, in that scripture, is uncertain. As for the opinion of those who suppose it was a fig-tree, as Theodoret, [Vid. Quest, xxviii. in Gen.] and some other ancient writers; that has no other foundation, but what we read, concerning our first parents sewing fig leaves together, and making themselves aprons, which, they suppose, was done before they departed from the tree, their shame immediately suggesting the necessity thereof. But others think, that whatever tree it were, it certainly was not a fig-tree, because it can hardly be supposed but that our first parents, having a sense of guilt, as well as shame, would be afraid so much as to touch that tree, which had occasioned their ruin. Others conclude, that it was a vine, because our Saviour appointed that wine, which the vine produces, should be used, in commemorating his death, which removed the effects of that curse, which sin brought on the world: but this is a vain and trifling method of reasoning, and discovers what lengths some men run in their absurd glosses on scripture.

[50]. Vid. Joseph. Antiquit. Lib. I. cap. 2.

[51]. Vid. Socin. de Stat. Prim. Hom. & Smalc. de ver. & Nat. Dei. Fil.

[52]. This is beautifully described by Milton, (in his paradise lost, Book IX.) and many others have asserted the same thing for substance, as thinking it below the wisdom of the man to be imposed on; thereby insinuating, though without sufficient ground, that he had a greater degree of wisdom allotted to him than his wife.

[53]. Josephus indeed, (See Antiq. Lib. I. cap. 2.) intimates, that the serpent was, at first, endowed with speech, and that his loss of it was inflicted for his tempting man; but it is a groundless conjecture arising from a supposition, that those things spoken of in Gen. iii. which are attributed to the devil, were done without him, which is not only his opinion, but of many other Jewish writers, and several modern ones.

[54]. The words of the prohibition, in Gen. ii. 17. are, Ye shall surely die: whereas in the account she gives thereof to the serpent, her words are, פן תמתון which Onkelos, in his Targum, renders, Ne forte moriamini.

[55]. The command had been given to Adam: he was the representative of Eve and his posterity; accordingly, upon her eating, no change was discovered: but as soon as he ate, “the eyes of them both were opened.” They instantly felt a conscious loss of innocence, and they were ashamed of their condition.

This affection may have either good or evil as its exciting cause. The one species is praise-worthy, the other culpable. When there exists shame of evil, the honour of the party has been wounded.

Honour, the boast of the irreligious, is the vanguard of virtue, and is always set for her defence, while she is contented with her own station. But when honour assumes the authority, which belongs to conscience and reason, the man becomes an idolater. For conscience aims at God’s glory, honour at man’s; conscience leads to perfect integrity, whilst honour is contented with the reputation of it: the one makes us good, the other desires to become respectable. Conscience and religion will produce that, which honour aims at the name of. Honour without virtue, is mere hypocrisy.

But honour as ancillary to virtue, will detect and vanquish temptation, before virtue may apprehend danger: she is therefore to be regarded and fostered, but to be restrained within her own precincts.

Shame of good is rather an evidence of a want of honour, and springs from dastardly cowardice: it argues weak faith, superficial knowledge, and languid desires of good. Such knowledge and desires are barely enough to aggravate the guilt, and show it was deliberate.

The religious man must count upon opposition from a world hostile to holiness. His conduct and character will necessarily, by contrast, condemn those of the wicked. But he is neither to abandon his duty, but cause his light to shine; nor purposely afflict the sensibility of his enemies, but treat them with mildness and kindness. The demure and dejected countenance is to be avoided, not only because the Christian has a right to be cheerful, but because when voluntary, it is hypocritical; and because also it injures the cause by exciting disgust and contempt, and provoking persecution, where a mild and evenly deportment would command the respect and admiration even of the evil themselves.

Contempt and ridicule will come. But the Christian should know that this indicates defect in the authors of them. If religion were, as the infidel hopes it will prove, without foundation, to ridicule the conscientious man for his weakness, is rudeness, weakness, and want of generosity. If religion be doubtful, to ridicule it is to run the hazard of Divine resentment, and highly imprudent. If it be certain, it is to rush upon the bosses of God’s buckler, and the most horrid insolence.

Ridicule is no test of truth, for the greatest and most important truths may be subjected to wit; it is no index of strength of understanding; and wit and great knowledge almost never are found together. It indicates nothing noble or generous, but a little piddling genius, and contemptible pride.

He who yields to the shame of that which is good, weakens his powers of resistance, provokes the Spirit of grace, hardens his conscience, strengthens the hands of the enemy, excites the contempt of the wicked themselves, grieves his follow Christians, affronts God to his face, and incurs the judgment of Christ “Whosoever is ashamed of me and my words, of him will I be ashamed.”

[56]. If Adam represented Eve (his rib) in the covenant, she did not fall till he fell.

[57]. The compilers of the LXX. seem to have understood the words in this sense, when then render the text in Gen. ii. 17. η δ αν ημερα φαγητε απ αυτου θαγατω απο θανεισθε.

[58]. Τυπος, the Type.

[59]. Εφ᾽ ω.

[60]. The words are, ως δι ενος παραπτωματος, εις παντας ανθρωπους εις κατακριμα. The word Judgment, though not in the original, is very justly supplied in our translation, from verse 16. or else, as the learned Grotius observes, the word εγενετο might have been supplied; and so the meaning is, Res processit in condemnationem. And J. Capellus gives a very good sense of the text, when he compares Adam as the head, who brought death into the world, with Christ by whom life is obtained. His words are these: Quemadmodum omnes homines, qui condemnantur, reatum suum contraxerant, ab una unius hominis offensa; sic & quotquot vivificantur, absolutionem suam obtinuerunt ab una unius hominis obedientia.

[61]. The word κατακριμα is used in scripture, in a forensic sense, in those places of the New Testament, where it is found: Thus ver. 16. of this chapter, and chap. viii. 1. And accordingly it signifies a judgment unto condemnation; as also do those words, the sense whereof has an affinity to it, in Rom. viii. 34. τις ο κατακρινων; and also ακατακριτος, as in Acts xvi. 37. and chap. xxii. 25. So that, according to the construction of the word, though κριμα signifies judicium in general, κατακριμα signifies judicium adversus aliquem, or condemnatio.

[62]. That mankind are born and live in sin, maybe collected from various sources of argument; by matter of fact, none are found free from, who are capable of actual guilt, by the evils and death which a just God would not otherwise inflict; by the ideas of the ancients who speak of a degeneration from a golden, to an iron age, by the general practice of offering sacrifice, which is an acknowment of guilt, by the testimony of the heathens, that evil example has a preponderating influence over good, by the historical account of the fall of man in the scriptures, by their numerous testimonies that none are righteous before God or can be justified by their obedience to his laws, by the confessions of the saints, by the necessity of repentance in all, by the propriety of prayer for the pardon of sin, by Christ’s example of daily prayer which contains such a petition, by the necessity of faith that we may please God, by man’s unwillingness to be reconciled to God, and rejection of all the spiritual good things offered, and contempt of divine threatnings; and above all other proofs, by the coming and suffering of Christ.

[63]. The covenant of grace was from eternity, and implied his innocence.

[64]. This is not only agreeable to many instances contained in scripture, but it has been acknowledged to be just by the very heathen, as agreeable to the law of nature and nations. Thus one says: Sometimes a whole city is punished for the wickedness of one man: Thus Hesiod, πολλακι και ξυμπασα πολις κακου ανδρος επαυρει; and Horace says, Quicquid delirant reges, plectuntur Achivi: And one observes, that it was the custom of several cities of Greece, to inflict the same punishment on the children of tyrants, as their fathers had done on others: In Græcis civitatibus liberi tyrannorum suppressis illis, eodem supplicio afficiuntur. Vid. Cicer. Epist. ad Brut. XV. & Q. Curt. Lib. VI. speaks of a law observed among the Macedonians; in which, traiterous conspiracies against the life of the prince were punished, not only in the traitors themselves, but in their near relations, Qui regi infidiati essent, illi cum cognatis & propinquis suis morte afficerentur.

[65]. See Quest. xxvii.

[66]. See Quest. xxvii.

[67]. See Quest. cv.-cli.

[68]. Gen. vi. 5. Is a picture of antideluvian iniquity, it not only proves that guilt was universal, and all men affected; that it was general, the greater portion of the actions of men being evil; but that the depravity of every unsanctified man was total, extending not merely to his thoughts, but to his imagination יצר, the first frame or form of the thoughts. They were not partially, but only evil, and that not occasionally but continually. Yet the race who were destroyed, must have performed relative duties, parental and filial; and the tribes seem to have lived as free from war, at least, as those who have existed since the flood. If crimes before the flood exceeded in degree and multitude those of modern times, yet if they differed not in their nature, it will follow, that when the unrenewed in our days, are kind parents, dutiful children, honest men, and good citizens, they may be totally depraved; the “imagination of the thoughts of their hearts may be only evil continually.” As we know not their hearts, are to judge of them by their fruits, and are charitably to impute their actions to better motives, we may with propriety commend what God will condemn. He sees the intentions, and the aversion of heart to him and holiness, and though he may reward virtuous conduct in this world, to encourage virtue, yet will eventually judge righteous judgment, and connect every action with its motives.

This scripture also shews us not only, that the material goodness of actions will not recommend them to God, but that conscientiousness in the discharge of relative duties, (for this must have existed before the flood,) will not recommend them where the love of God, which is peculiar to the renewed mind, is absent.

[69]. The Marcionites in the second century, and the Manichees in the third.

[70]. See Page [54]-57, ante.

[71]. See a book, supposed to be written in defence hereof by Glanvil, entitled, Lux Orientalis.

[72]. Tertullian was of this opinion, [Vid. ejusd. de Anima] and Augustin, though he sometimes appears to give into the opinion of the traduction of the soul; yet, at other times, he is in great doubt about it, as ready to give it up for an indefensible opinion, Vid. Aug. de Orig. Anim. & in Gen. ad liter lib. 10.

[73]. Vid. Pictet. Theol. Chr. Lib. V. cap. 7. Absit ut animam creari impuram dicamus, cum nihil impurum e Dei manibus prodire possit.—Dum infans est in utero matris, cum intime ei conjungatur, objecta in ejus cerebrum easdem impressiones efficiunt, ac in matris cerebrum.—Hoc patet ex eo quod contingit mulieribus prægnantibus; cum enim avide inspiciunt aliquid, vel rubro, vel flavo colore, vel pallido tinctum, contigit sæpissime ut infantes quos in utero gestant, tali colore tincti nascantur. Ita intime corpus & animam uniri, ut ad motum corporis, ceriæ oriantur in mente cogationes.—Motus, qui fiunt in cerebro infantium idem præstare in illis, ac in matribus, nempe eorum animam recens creatam rebus sensibilibus & carnalibus alligare; unde videmus infantium animas omnia ad se & ad suum referre corpus.

[74]. See Du Moulin’s Anatomy of Armnianism, Chap. X. § 3, 15, 17.

[75]. See Turret. Instit. Theol. Elenct. Tom. I. Loc. 9. Q. 12. § 8, 9. Licet anima sine ulla labe creatur a Deo, non creatur tamen cum justitia originali, qualis anima Adami, ad imaginem Dei; sed cum ejus carentia in pœnam primi peccati. Ut hic distinguendum sit inter animam puram, impuram, & non puram. Illa pura dicitur, quæ ornata est habitu sanctitatis; impura, quæ contrarium habitum injustitiæ habet; non pura, quæ licet nullum habeat habitum bonum, nullum tamen habet malum, sed creatur simpliciter cum facultatibus naturalibus; qualis supponitur creari a Deo post lapsum, quia imago Dei amissa semel per peccatum, non potest amplius restitui, nisi regenerationis beneficio per Spiritum Sanctum. Quamvis autem animæ creantur a Deo destitutæ justitia originali; non propterea Deus potest censeri author peccati, quia aliud est impuritatem infundere, aliud puritatem non dare, qua homo se indignum reddidit in Adamo.

[76]. See Perkins on the Creed.

[77]. The mind of man is as open to the view of God, as our words or actions are; the intention is ordinarily the seat of guilt; for the merely physical action of the body deserves neither praise nor blame; the Lord is able not only to detect, but to punish in every instance such guilt; his justice therefore requires that he should exercise such power.

To prefer the creatures to the Creator, is to deny his superior excellency, and that he is the source from whence we have derived the good which we possess; it is to give the honour which is due to him, unto others; it is a robbery committed on him; it is a revolting from his allegiance, and treason, which ought to be punished.

It is an evidence that we have no love for him, when we desire communion and acquaintance with other objects on their own account. It is a proof of enmity against him, for we cannot at the same time fix our highest affections on sensual pursuits and on holiness; and an attachment to the former evinces hatred of the latter; and so an aversion to an holy God. If we are enemies to God, Omnipotence must and will prevail, nor can he suffer in the universe, his enemies to be finally prosperous, possessing still their enmity.

Where there exists not the love of God, there is no obedience to his laws, for this is the principle of obedience; all the good deeds of such are but a semblance of holiness, and must be rejected by him who views the motive with the action. Disobedience to his laws is to be punished with death, the implied penalty of all divine laws; and the least punishment that the magnitude of an offence against an infinite Majesty can admit.

[78]. See Quest. cv.-cli.

[79]. See Aug. contra Julianum, Lib. V. cap. 8. Ego non dico, parvulos sine baptismo Christi morientes tanta pœna esse plectendos; ut eis non nasci potius expediret. Et ejusd. de peccat. merit. & remsis. Lib. I. cap. 16. Potest proinde recte dici, parvulos eine baptismo de corpore exeuntes, in damnatione omnium mitissima futuros.

[80]. See Quest. cli. clii.

[81]. Vid Bez. in loc. Ubicunque Ira est, ibi & peccatum; quo sine exceptione involvi totam humanam gentem idem testatur, Rom. i. 18. Sed naturam tamen intellige non quatenus creata est; verum quatenus per Diaboli suggestionem corrupta est a seipsa.

[82]. It has been frequently objected, if they that are in the flesh be dead in sin, or so wholly inclined to evil, that they “cannot please God,” they must be viewed as miserable rather than guilty, as objects of pity rather than subjects for punishment.

To analyse is to enervate this objection. Wherein consists the impotency, and what is the guilt of an evil action? If there be any physical defect in the understanding, or any external obstacle, which may prevent a conformity to the revealed will of God; it is an excuse, the party is clear: but this inability is of a different kind; the sensual heart is prevailingly inclined to the objects of time and sense, and the mind possesses no ability to resist its strongest inclination, which is but the common case of every deliberate choice. Evil men cannot see, because they shut their eyes; they cannot hear, because they stop their ears; they cannot come to Christ, or, which is the same thing, will not apply to him by faith. They persevere in such opposition until death or despair fixes their enmity; except their wills are changed, and they are drawn by divine grace.

The guilt of an evil action, depends not upon, or exists not in the mere action of the body; otherwise brutes, and machines of wood and metal, would be subjects of blame. The guilt is seated in the intention, and lies in the inclination of the mind to that which is prohibited; and the habitual preponderancy of the inclinations to evil, marks a worse character, than a sudden and individual choice of it.

If the prevailing desires of that which is evil, be the only impotency of the state of death in sin, and at the same time the only guilt of the party; this inability and guilt are concomitant, and always in exact proportion to each other; or rather may be considered as the same thing, under different aspects and names: it results therefore that as certainly as vice is not virtue, the impotency to good of the unrenewed man, is no excuse for his guilt.

[83]. χισις, means animal nature in man. The relief of the body is spoken of.

[84]. Ver. 20. is a parenthesis, except, “in hope,” “Waiteth &c. sons of God ... in hope that the creature, &c.”

[85]. See Quest. lxxxix.

[86]. The faculties of the soul speak it made for eternity; particularly conscience points to a time of retribution. The same truth may be deduced from the holiness, justice, and even the goodness of God; from the moral agency of man; from the course of the conduct of men; and from the unequal administration of justice: but the solid and clear proofs are found in the word of God. How pitiable the condition of that man, who having spent his life without a view to a final account, has no other hope in the hour of death, except that which is founded upon the groundless supposition, that God will cease to be holy, just, and true; that he will change from his original purpose, subvert the order of his government, and surrender the demands of religion, conscience, and reason, to save the guilty in their sins.

Humanity would lead us to entertain a secret wish, that the impenitent should be permitted to drop into non-existence, and that the demands of justice should be waved; but this sentiment is unadvised, and springs from an ignorance of the demerit of sin; defective views of the importance of rectitude in the administration of the divine government; from imperfect conceptions of God’s perfections; from our own interest, or from a faulty sympathy for the undeserving. Existence is a blessing; but when prostituted to the dishonour of the Creator, the party will not be at liberty to throw it up when he chooses, and thus elude the demands of justice.

The minds of the unrenewed are directed prevailingly to temporal things; a total separation from them, is, perhaps, the first sense of punishment which is felt. They have not in life sought eternal happiness, yet they generally have supposed it possible to be attained, or that mercy would bestow it. The discovery of their eternal separation from heaven, the society of the blessed, the beatific vision of God, from fulness of joys, and rivers of pleasures, will produce abject despair. This will be aggravated by the reflection that they might have been happy. The blessings of providence, the mercy of God in making provision for their recovery, the love and compassion of Christ, the means of grace, the invitations and warnings of the Gospel, all abused and lost, will augment their remorse to an inconceivable degree. The malice and horrors of their cursed society of fiends and damned spirits, will be another source of torment.

Great as these distresses may be, the separate spirits are dreading greater evils. “Hast thou come to torment us before the time?” When the judgment has passed, “death,” the bodies which had been dead, “and hell,” the spirits which had been in Hades, “shall be cast into the lake of fire.” If their bodies shall be raised spiritual, incorruptible, and immortal, which is affirmed of the righteous; and seems probable, because the earth will be destroyed, and they will be associated with spirits, yet the sense of the pain, which arises from burning, may be given and continued in them by the application of fire, or even without it.

But that which imbitters all their distresses in the highest degree, is, that they shall be eternal. The original words of the scripture expressive of their perpetuity, being unrestrained by any implied or expressed limitation, should be understood as when applied to Deity, or the happiness of the saints. The same perpetual duration is also shown by negation, which is the strongest language. “The worm dieth not, and the fire is not quenched;” it is “unquenchable fire,” and “their end,” (or final state,) “is to be burned.” We read of a sin which shall “not be forgiven.” “Not every one—shall enter into the kingdom;” and where Christ is, they “cannot come.” They will “have judgment without mercy.” None of these things are true, if all men shall be saved.

Perhaps justice required that these evils should be disclosed; but if they be unjust, it was improper to threaten them. Our aversion to them springs from our ignorance of the evil of sin. Nevertheless, the sacrifice of Christ, and the warnings of scripture, speak their extent; and the continuance of the damned in sin, establishes their certainty.

[87]. See Vol. I. Page 462.

[88]. See Quest. xx. Page 70. Ante.

[89]. ברית.

[90]. διαθηκη.

[91]. Rather, “ratified over a dead body,” an ancient mode of covenanting.

[92]. These style it, Testamento Foedus, or Foedus Testamentarium, or Testamentum Foederale.

[93]. The Hebrew word in this, and the two other scriptures above mentioned, is ערב which signifies, In fidem suam recipere; spondere pro aliquo; and it is used in several other scriptures, in the same sense, for a person’s undertaking to be a surety for another. See Gen. xliii. 6. chap. xliv. 32. Prov. xi. 15. Job xvii. 3. 2 Kings xviii. 32. and elsewhere.

[94]. Διατιθεμαι υμιν, καθως διεθετο μοι ο πατηρ μου βασιλειαν.

[95]. See Page [168]. ante.

[96]. We are not to suppose that they shall not teach every man, &c. is designed to exclude all public and private, ministerial, family, and social instruction; for this is founded on the law of nature, and is enforced in the New Testament institution of a gospel-ministry to continue to the consummation of all things, (Matth. xxviii. 20. and Eph. iv. 11, 12, 13.) and in the obligation that it has laid upon Christian parents to bring up their children in the nurture and admonition of the Lord; (Eph. vi. 4.) as also in the directions that are given in this very epistle, chap. iii. 13. and x. 24, 25. to private Christians, to exhort one another daily, &c. This passage therefore must be taken, either in a comparative sense, as such expressions often are: (See Isa. xliii. 18. Jer. xxiii. 18. and Mat. ix. 13) Or else with reference to that manner of teaching which was used, and rested in under the obscurities of the Old Testament dispensation, and the corrupt interpretations of the Jewish doctors; or both may be included. Guyse.

[97]. Such an one is more properly called Internuncius, than Mediator.

[98]. Vid. Bez. and Whitby in loc.

[99]. See Quest. lxvii.

[100]. “The law of God itself requires no creature to love him, or obey him, beyond his strength, or with more than all the powers which he possesses. If the inability of sinners to believe in Christ, or to do things spiritually good, were of this nature, it would undoubtedly form an excuse in their favour; and it must be as absurd to exhort them to such duties, as to exhort the blind to look, the deaf to hear, or the dead to walk. But the inability of sinners is not such as to induce the Judge of all the earth, (who cannot do other than right) to abate in his requirements. It is a fact that he does require them, and that without paying any regard to their inability, to love him, and to fear him, and to do all his commandments always. The blind are admonished to look, the deaf to hear, and the dead to arise. Isa. xlii. 18. Ephes. v. 14. If there were no other proof than what is afforded by this single fact, it ought to satisfy us that the blindness, deafness, and death of sinners, to that which is spiritually good, is of a different nature from that which furnishes an excuse. This however is not the only ground of proof. The thing speaks for itself. There is an essential difference between an inability which is independent of the inclination, and one that is owing to nothing else. It is equally impossible, no doubt, for any person to do that which he has no mind to do, as to perform that which surpasses his natural powers; and hence it is that the same terms are used in the one case as in the other. Those who were under the dominion of envy and malignity, COULD NOT speak peaceably; and those who have eyes full of adultery, CANNOT cease from sin. Hence also the following language—How CAN ye, being evil, speak good things?—The natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God, neither CAN he know them—The carnal mind is enmity against God; and is not subject to the law of God, neither indeed CAN be—They that are in the flesh CANNOT please God—No man CAN come to me, except the Father who sent me draw him.—It is also true, that many have affected to treat the distinction between natural and moral inability as more curious than solid. ‘If we be unable, say they, we are unable. As to the nature of the inability, it is a matter of no account. Such distinctions are perplexing to plain Christians, and beyond their capacity.’ But surely the plainest and weakest Christian in reading his bible, if he pay any regard to what he reads, must perceive a manifest difference between the blindness of Bartimeus, who was ardently desirous that he might receive his sight, and that of the unbelieving Jews, who closed their eyes, lest they should see, and be converted, and healed; Mark x. 51. Matt. xii. 15. and between the want of the natural sense of hearing, and the state of those who have ears, but hear not.

“So far as my observation extends, those persons who affect to treat this distinction as a matter of mere curious speculation, are as ready to make use of it as other people where their own interest is concerned. If they be accused of injuring their fellow-creatures, and can allege that what they did was not knowingly, or of design, I believe they never fail to do so: or when charged with neglecting their duty to a parent, or a master; if they can say in truth that they were unable to do it at the time, let their will have been ever so good, they are never known to omit the plea: and should such a master or parent reply by suggesting that their want of ability arose from want of inclination, they would very easily understand it to be the language of reproach, and be very earnest to maintain the contrary. You never hear a person, in such circumstances, reason as he does in religion. He does not say, ‘If I be unable, I am unable; it is of no account whether it be of this kind or that:’ but labours with all his might to establish the difference. Now if the subject be so clearly understood and acted upon where interest is concerned, and never appears difficult but in religion, it is but too manifest where the difficulty lies. If by fixing the guilt of our conduct upon our father Adam, we can sit comfortably in our nest; we shall be very averse to a sentiment that tends to disturb our repose, by planting a thorn in it.

“It is sometimes objected, that the inability of sinners to believe in Christ, is not the effect of their depravity; for that Adam himself in his purest state was only a natural man, and had no power to perform spiritual duties. But this objection belongs to another topic, and has, I hope, been already answered. To this, however, it may be added—The natural man who receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God, (1 Cor. ii. 14.) is not a man possessed of the holy image of God, as was Adam, but of mere natural accomplishments; as were the wise men of the world, the philosophers of Greece and Rome, to whom the things of God were foolishness. Moreover, if the inability of sinners to perform spiritual duties, were of the kind alleged in the objection, they must be equally unable to commit the opposite sins. He that from the constitution of his nature is absolutely unable to understand, or believe, or love a certain kind of truth, must of necessity be alike unable to shut his eyes against it, to disbelieve, to reject, or to hate it. But it is manifest that all men are capable of the latter; it must therefore follow, that nothing but the depravity of their hearts renders them incapable of the former.

“Some writers, as hath been already observed, have allowed that sinners are the subjects of an inability which arises from their depravity; but they still contend that this is not all; but that they are both naturally and morally unable to believe in Christ; and this they think agreeable to the scriptures, which represent them as both unable and unwilling to come to him for life. But these two kinds of inability cannot consist with each other, so as both to exist in the same subject, and towards the same thing. A moral inability supposes a natural ability. He who never in any state was possessed of the power of seeing, cannot be said to shut his eyes against the light. If the Jews had not been possessed of natural powers, equal to the knowledge of Christ’s doctrine, there had been no justice in that cutting question and answer, Why do ye not understand my speech? Because ye CANNOT hear my word. A total physical inability must of necessity supersede a moral one. To suppose, therefore, that the phrase, No man CAN come to me, is meant to describe the former; and, Ye will not come to me that ye may have life, the latter; is to suppose that our Saviour taught what is self-contradictory.

“Some have supposed that in ascribing physical or natural power to men, we deny their natural depravity. Through the poverty of language, words are obliged to be used in different senses. When we speak of men as by nature depraved, we do not mean to convey the idea of sin being an essential part of human nature, or of the constitution of man as man: our meaning is, that it is not a mere effect of education and example; but is from his very birth so interwoven through all his powers, so ingrained, as it were, in his very soul, as to grow up with him, and become natural to him.

“On the other hand, when the term natural is used as opposed to moral, and applied to the powers of the soul, it is designed to express those faculties which are strictly a part of our nature as men, and which are necessary to our being accountable creatures. By confounding these ideas we may be always disputing, and bring nothing to an issue.

“Finally, It is sometimes suggested, that to ascribe natural ability to sinners to perform things spiritually good, is to nourish their self-sufficiency; and that to represent their inability as only moral, is to suppose that it is not insuperable, but may after all be overcome by efforts of their own. But surely it is not necessary, in order to destroy a spirit of self-sufficiency, to deny that we are men, and accountable creatures; which is all that natural ability supposes. If any person imagine it possible, of his own accord to chuse that to which he is utterly averse, let him make the trial.

“Some have alleged, that ‘natural power is only sufficient to perform natural things; and that spiritual power is required to the performance of spiritual things.’ But this statement is far from accurate. Natural power is as necessary to the performance of spiritual, as of natural things: we must possess the powers of men in order to perform the duties of good men. And as to spiritual power, or, which is the same thing, a right state of mind, it is not properly a faculty of the soul, but a quality which it possesses: and which though it be essential to the actual performance of spiritual obedience, yet is not necessary to our being under obligation to perform it.” Fuller.

[101]. See Vol. 1. page 479, 480.

[102]. The former of these is generally styled, Via ad regnum; the latter, Causa regnandi.

[103]. See Quest. xcii.

[104]. Vid. Spencer. de leg. Hebr. and ejusd. Dissert. de Urim & Thummim; & Marshami Can. Chron.

[105]. Vid. Witsii Egyptiaca.

[106]. Præcepta observantiæ.

[107]. αντιτυπος.

[108]. See Psal. lxii. the title, compared with the subject-matter of the Psalm, which speaks of Christ in the person of Solomon.

[109]. See Vol. I. pages 53-56.

[110]. The first, he and his followers call, Oeconomia promissionis, or, ante-legalis; the second, Oeconomia legalis; the third, Oeconomia evangelica.

[111]. Minus plena, or minus vera.

[112]. For the proof of this, they often refer to that scripture in Rom. iii. 25. in which it is said, Whom God hath set forth to be a propitiation, to declare his righteousness, for the remission of sins that are past, through, or after, the forbearance, of God, which they suppose to contain an intimation of the privilege which the gospel-church enjoyed, namely, remission of sins; whereas, under the legal dispensation, there was nothing else apprehended by them, but the forbearance of God: so that the Old Testament-church had παρεσιν αμαρτιων; the New Testament church, αφεσιν; and they all suppose, that they looked upon Christ as Fide-jussor, and not Expromissor, which are terms used in the civil law; the former of which signifies a person’s undertaking to be a surety, and, at the same time, leaving the creditor at his liberty to exact the debt, either of him, or the debtor himself; whereas, Expromissor, signifies, a person’s undertaking to be a surety, in so full and large a sense, as that, by virtue hereof, the debtor is discharged. Therefore, since they did not, so clearly, know that God would discharge them, by virtue of Christ’s undertaking to be a Surety, but concluded that he might exact the debt, either of him, or them; this was the foundation of that terror and bondage, which they were perpetually subject to.

[113]. See Page 379. Vol. I.

[114]. See Quest. xliv.

[115]. See Vol. I. Page 243.

[116]. See Quest. ix, x, xi.

[117]. Vide the note, Vol. I. Page 279.

[118]. For this reason, the Sabellians are often called, by ancient writers, Patripassians.

[119]. See the same scriptures, and others to the like purpose, before cited, for the proof of Christ’s proper deity, under Quest. ix. x. xi. Vol. I. Page 302, to 319, and also what has been said concerning his Sonship, as implying him to be God-man Mediator. Vol. I. Page 274, 279, &c.

[120]. Nestorius was Bishop of Constantinople, in the reign of Theodosius, the younger, A. D. 428. who very warmly maintained, that the Virgin Mary was not the mother of that Person that was God, but of a distinct human Person, called Christ, which was censured and condemned by the council at Ephesus, A. D. 431.

[121]. These are called Eutychians, from Eutyches, an abbot of Constantinople, who, when he had gained a great deal of reputation, in disputing against Nestorius, in the council at Ephesus, a few years after, viz. A. D. 448. propagated his opinion, which was condemned, as heretical, in the council at Chalcedon, A. D. 451.

[122]. This absurd opinion, subversive of Christianity, was propagated by several among the Gnosticks, in the second century, who, for this reason, were called Docetæ.

[123]. αφαντος εγενετο.

[124]. See Page [112] ante.

[125]. So the Hebrew word ought to be rendered, rather than therefore; for so it is understood in other scriptures, particularly in Jer. xxx. 16.

[126]. This is a just distinction relating to signs mentioned in scripture; in which, sometimes a sign did not take place till the thing signified, or brought to remembrance thereby, had been accomplished. See Exod. iii. 12. 1 Sam. ii. 34. Isa. xxxvii. 30. Jer. xliv. 29, 30. as Bishop Kidder well observes. See Demonstrat. of the Messias, Part II. page 105, in Fol.

[127]. The Hebrew word עלמה is truly rendered a Virgin, as it is translated by the LXX. [η παρθενος] who well understand the sense of it, in this and other places, where we meet with it; as also doth the Chaldee Paraphrast thus understand it, and the Syriac, Arabic, and vulgar Latin versions: and this sense agrees with the grammatical construction of the word, which is derived from עלם abscondit, and it alludes to the custom used among the Jews of keeping their virgins concealed till they were married; therefore as a learned writer well observes, עלמה Notat statum solitarium domi delitescentium ideoq; cælebum & virginum; and in those two places, in which it is objected by the Jews, that the word does not signify a virgin, but a young woman, namely, Prov. xxx. 19 and Cant. vi. 8. In the former, as one observes, Promptissimum est intelligere vincula amoris quibus virgo incipit adstringi futuro sponso suo; and therefore it may be understood of a virgin, in the literal sense of the word. Vid. Cocc. Lexic. in Voc. The LXX. indeed, render it, ανδρος εν νεοτητι, and the vulgar Latin version, Viri in adolescentia; but the Chaldee Paraphrast renders it, Viri in virgine. And as for the later scripture, in which it is said, there are threescore queens, and fourscore concubines, and virgins without number, it is plain, the word virgins is not opposed to young women, for such were many of them that are called queens and concubines, but to persons defloured; therefore we may conclude, that the word always signifies a virgin, and therefore is rightly translated in the text, under our present consideration.

[128]. So the word is properly rendered by the Chaldee Paraphrast.

[129]. See Joseph. Antiq. Lib. XVIII. cap. 1. & Lib. XX. cap. 2. & de Bell. Jud. Lib. II. cap. 6.

[130]. Βασιλειαν ο καιρος, ανεπεισθε.

[131]. Vid. Sueton in Vespas. Percrebuerat oriente toto, ventus & constans opinio, esse in fatis; ut eo tempore Judea, profecti, rerum potirentur; & Tacit. Histor. Lib. V. Pluribus persuasio inerat, antiquis sacerdotum literis contineri, eo ipso tempore fore ut valesceret, Oriens, profectiq; Judea rerum potirentur.

[132]. See Lightfoot’s works, Vol. I. Pag. 765, 766.

[133]. See Vol. I. Page 291, 292.

[134]. It is otherwise styled, Necessitas consequentiæ.

[135]. And in presenting his glorious body with the marks of suffering.

[136]. See Vol. I. page 261.

[137]. This is generally styled, by divines, Communicatio idiomatum in concreto, non in abstracto.

[138]. See Vol. I. page 296, 306.

[139]. Prophets were, indeed, oftentimes set apart for that office, without anointing; but it seems probable, from the command of God to Elijah, to anoint Elisha to be a prophet in his room, that when they were called, in an extraordinary manner, to be public prophets, and in that respect, as it is said concerning the prophet Jeremiah, [chap. i. 10.] Set over nations and kingdoms, then they were not only sanctified and ordained hereunto, but the ceremony of anointing was used, especially when some other prophet was appointed to instal them in this office. And as for kings, though they were not always anointed, yet this ceremony was generally used, as is observed by some Jewish writers, when the kingdom was rent out of the hand of one, and another was, by immediate divine direction, substituted to reign in his stead: thus, when the kingdom was taken from Saul, David was anointed; and it was also used in other instances, though the crown was inherited by lineal descent, when any other made pretensions to it. Thus David commanded Solomon to be anointed, because Adonijah pretended to it, [1 Kings i. 34.] And Joash was anointed, though he had a right to the crown, as descended from Ahaziah, who was king before him, because the crown had, for some time, been usurped by Athaliah, [2 Kings xi. 12.] In these, and such like cases, kings were installed in their office by unction, though, in other instances, it was not universally practised.

[140]. See Vol. I. Page 347-350.

[141]. See Vol. I. Page 291, 292.

[142]. The force of this argument, and the application of these and several other scriptures to Christ, depend upon this supposition, which, we take for granted, and, were it needful, might easily be proved, that whenever a divine person is said, in scripture, to appear in the form of an angel, or to appear in a cloud as a symbol, or emblem of his presence, this is always meant of our Saviour. But compare Watts’s Works, 5 vol. 381, and Edwards’s Works, 4 vol. 491.

[143]. Vid. Ephiph. Hær. Page 67. § 7.

[144]. Among the latter, is the learned Dr. Lightfoot. See his Works, Vol. I. Page 12. and Vol. II. Page 327.

[145]. We have no account of the year when this battle was fought; but it is evident that it was before Isaac was born, and consequently before Abraham had lived 25 years in the land of Canaan. And that Shem was then living, appears from hence, that from the flood to Abraham’s coming into the land of Canaan, was 427 years, as appears by considering the sum total of the years of the lives of the patriarchs, mentioned in Gen. xi. 10. & seq. and also that Terah was 130 years old when Abraham was born, as appears, by comparing Gen. xi. 32. with Acts vii. 4. and Gen. xii. 4. and by considering Abraham as 75 years old, as it is there said he was, when he left Haran. Now Shem was born 98 or 100 years before the flood, as appears by comparing Gen. v. 32. with chap. xi. 10. and vii. 11. Therefore, when Abraham went out of his country into the land of Canaan, Shem was 525 or 527 years old; and, when Shem died, he was 600 years old, Gen. xi. 10, 11. therefore Shem lived more than half a hundred years after this battle was fought.

[146]. See Jurieu’s critical history, vol. I. chap. 11.

[147]. As yet there was no church.

[148]. See critical history, vol. I. page 110.

[149]. This opinion is maintained by Cunæus, [Vid. ejusd. Repub. Hebr. Lib. III. cap. 3.] and some others after him.

[150]. “Some insist that he is none other than the Son of God himself, who, assuming the appearance, or reality, of humanity, exhibited to Abraham an early picture of his future priesthood.

“This is all over contemptible.—1. Because every high priest is taken from among men; the appearance of humanity is not enough.—2. Because if he was at that time a priest, and discharged the duties of his office, he must have ‘suffered often,’ (twice) ‘from the beginning of the world;’ and not ‘by the once offering up of himself have for ever perfected them who are sanctified:’ then, moreover, Abraham would have received the promised blessing, contrary to the scriptures: and, in fine, the appearance of the Son of God, as the Son of Mary, was superfluous. If, to avoid those absurdities, it be alleged that though he appeared as a priest, he did not discharge the duties of his office: then, in the first place, he is degraded into a mere pageant, an officer without functions: and, in the second place, he is stripped of all typical character: for the priest who neither sacrifices, nor intercedes, can never be a type of one who does both.—3. Because, if Melchisedec was the Son of God, whether in real humanity, or only in its appearance, he must have been a type of himself; the ideas of identity and similarity are confounded; and Paul instead of saying, αφωμοιωμενος τω υιω του Θεου, that he was ‘made like to the Son of God,’ should have said, ων ο υιος του Θεου, that he was the Son of God.—4. Because it would be unworthy the manly sense of Paul, to say nothing of inspiration, to labour through a long dissertation to prove a mere truism, which it would disgrace an ideot to utter, and insult a child to offer for information; namely, that Messiah’s priesthood was very like itself.—5. Because it would be extremely irreverent to suppose, that the adorable God lifted up his hand and swore, that his Son’s priesthood, should be like his Son’s priesthood. An identical proposition does not require such a solemn confirmation.”

Gray on Priesthood.

[151]. He liveth for any thing to the contrary shewn in his history.

[152]. “That death is a punishment for sin, and that all mankind are by death offered as a sacrifice for sin, is not only a doctrine of revealed Religion, but the plain dictate of Reason. For, though it is Revelation alone that can teach us, how God threatened death as the punishment of a particular sin, yet Reason must be obliged to acknowledge, that men die, because they are sinners. But if men die, because they are sinners, and Reason itself must receive this, as the most justifiable cause of Death; then Reason must allow, that the death of all mankind is appointed by the true God, as a sacrifice for sin. But, if Reason must acknowledge the death of all mankind as a sacrifice for sin, then it can have no just objection against the sacrifice of Christ, because it was human.

“Revelation, therefore, teaches nothing more hard to be believed on this point, than Reason teaches. For, if it be just and fit in God, to appoint and devote all men to death, as the proper punishment of their sins; how can it be proved to be unjust and unfit in God, to receive the death of Jesus Christ, for the same ends?”

Human Reason.

[153]. All the reasons upon which pardons are granted in human governments fail in the Divine.

[154]. “The scripture insists on full atonement, and yet every where holds up the deliverance of sinners as an act of pure grace. This is a gordian knot in divinity. Let us not by violence cut it asunder, but attempt fairly to untie it.

Before we proceed, it may not be improper to observe, that the greatest difficulty with which this part of the subject is embarrassed, appears to have originated in the want of an accurate definition of justice and grace. Theologians have said much about these, yet few have defined them with sufficient accuracy to render them intelligible, or make them appear consistent. I shall therefore,

First, explain the meaning of the word grace.

Secondly, the meaning of the word justice.

Thirdly, apply these explanations to this part of the subject, with a view to solve the difficulty with which it is embarrassed.

First. What are we to understand by the word grace?

We are to understand by it the exercise of favour, and consequently the bestowment of good where evil is deserved, and may in justice be inflicted. Where there is no exposure to evil, there is no room for the exercise of grace. He who is not guilty is not a subject of pardon. He who does not deserve punishment cannot be said to be freed from it by an act of favour. Grace therefore always implies, that the subject of it is unworthy, and would have no reason to complain, if all the evil to which he is exposed were inflicted on him. Grace will appear great according to the view which the sinner has of his own ill desert, and the consciousness he possesses of the punishment or evil from which he is delivered. Grace and justice are opposite in their nature. Grace gives; justice demands. Their provinces are entirely separate. Though they are united, yet they are not blended in man’s salvation. Hence that remarkable passage in Rom. xi. 6: ‘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.’

Secondly. What are we to understand by the word justice? It assumes three denominations—commutative, distributive, and public.

1. Commutative justice respects property only.[^[155]] ‘It consists in an equal exchange of benefits,’ or in restoring to every man his own.

2. Distributive justice respects the moral character of men. It respects them as accountable creatures, obedient or disobedient. It consists in ascertaining their virtue and sin, and in bestowing just rewards, or inflicting just punishments.

3. Public or general justice, respects what is fit or right, as to the character of God, and the good of the universe. In this sense, justice comprises all moral goodness, and properly means the righteousness or rectitude of God, by which all his actions are guided, with a supreme regard to the greatest good. Justice, considered in this view, forbids that any thing should take place in the great plan of God, which would tarnish his glory, or subvert the authority of his law.

Thirdly. Let us now apply these explanations to the solution of the difficulty under consideration.

1. Did Christ satisfy commutative justice? Certainly not. Commutative justice had no concern in his sufferings. Men had taken no property from God, and consequently were under no obligation to restore any. But do not the scriptures represent Christ as giving himself a ransom, and as buying his people with a price? They do. They also represent men, while under the influence of sin, as prisoners, slaves, captives. These expressions are all figurative, borrowed from sensible to express moral or spiritual things, and therefore are not to be explained as if literally true. If we say that Christ hath redeemed us, that he has bought us, that he has paid the debt and discharged us—if we have any consistent meaning, it must be this: That in consequence of what Christ has done, we are delivered from sin, in as great a consistency with justice, as a debtor is delivered from his obligation, or the demands of law, when his debt is paid. That is, God extends pardon in such a way, through Christ, that he does not injure the authority of his law, but supports it as effectually as if he inflicted punishment.

2. Did Christ satisfy distributive justice? Certainly not. Distributive justice respects personal character only. It condemns men because they are sinners, and rewards them because they are righteous. Their good or ill desert are the only ground on which distributive or moral justice respects them. But good and ill desert are personal. They imply consciousness of praise or blame, and cannot be transferred or altered so as to render the subjects of them more or less worthy. What Christ did, therefore, did not take ill desert from men, nor did it place them in such a situation that God would act unjustly to punish them according to their deeds. If a man has sinned, it will always remain a truth that he has sinned, and that according to distributive justice he deserves punishment. In this sense justice admits the condemnation of Paul as much as it does of Judas. The salvation of the former is secured, and his condemnation rendered impossible by another consideration.

3: Did Christ satisfy public justice? Undoubtedly he did. This is evident from what has already been advanced respecting the necessity of atonement, in order to a consistent exercise of mercy. Christ’s sufferings rendered it right and fit, with respect to God’s character and the good of the universe, to forgive sin. The atonement made by Christ presented the law, the nature of sin, and the displeasure of God against it, in such a light, that no injury would accrue to the moral system, no imputation would be against the righteousness of the great Legislator, though he should forgive the sinner, and instate him in eternal felicity. Perfect justice therefore is done to the universe, though all transgressors be not punished according to their personal demerit. The death of Christ therefore is to be considered as a great, important, and public transaction, respecting God and the whole system of rational beings. Public justice requires, that neither any of these be injured, nor the character and government of the great Legislator disrespected, by the pardon of any. In these respects public justice is perfectly satisfied by the death of Christ. This is evident from the following passages of scripture. Rom. iii. 21; ‘But now the righteousness (rectitude or justice) of God is manifested without the law, being witnessed by the law.’ Before the introduction of these words, the apostle had demonstrated, that the whole world, Jews and Gentiles, were all under sin and condemnation. ‘Now,’ says he, ‘we know that whatsoever things the law saith, it saith to them that are under the law, that every mouth may be stopped, and the whole world become guilty before God.’ All, if treated according to distributive justice, must be found guilty and condemned. ‘Therefore,’ says Paul, ‘by the deeds of the law shall no flesh be justified.’ How, then, it might be inquired, can any be justified, and yet God not give up his law, but appear perfectly righteous and just? The answer follows. ‘By the righteousness of God, which is manifested without the law, being witnessed by the law.’ Rom. iii. 21. That is, the righteousness or justice of God, with respect to himself and the universe, is clearly manifested, though he do not execute the law, as to distributive justice, on transgressors, but pardon and save them. This is so far from being contrary to the law, that it is witnessed by the law. For the sufferings of Christ demonstrate, that God no more gives up the penalty of the law, than if he should inflict it on the original transgressor. The righteousness or justice manifested in this way is through Christ; ‘whom,’ says Paul, ‘God hath set forth to be a propitiation, through faith in his blood.’ For what end? ‘To declare his righteousness for the remission of sins.’ ‘To declare at this time his righteousness (for this purpose) that he might be just, and the justifier of him that believeth in Jesus,’ Rom. iii. 25, 26. Hence it is said, ‘Christ is the end of the law for righteousness to every one that believeth,’ Rom. x. 4. That is, the end of the law is as fully answered in the salvation of men by Christ, as it would have been if they had never transgressed, but had obtained life by perfect obedience. It is said, ‘If we confess our sins, he is just to forgive us our sins,’ 1 John i. 9. He is just to himself, to his law, to the universe. God styles himself ‘a just God, and a Saviour.’ Is. xlv. 21. Hence justice and mercy harmonize in man’s salvation.

From the preceding statement of the nature of grace and justice, it appears,

First, That atonement, and consequently the pardon of sin, have no respect to commutative justice.

Secondly, That the sufferings of Christ did not satisfy distributive justice, since that respects personal character only; and therefore, with respect to distributive justice, salvation is an act of perfect grace.

Thirdly, That Christ’s sufferings satisfied public justice; and therefore, with respect to public justice, salvation is an act of perfect justice.

Thus the seeming inconsistency between full atonement for sin, and pure grace in salvation, vanishes and disappears. The system of redemption rises into view like a magnificent edifice, displaying the greatest order, proportion and beauty.”

Dr. Maxcy.

“To reconcile grace with justice in the salvation of the sinner, is the Gordian knot, which divines generally have been unable to untie. Upon the principle of an indefinite atonement, the difficulty vanishes. If all the sins of a certain individual have been atoned for by the Redeemer, free grace will not appear in his pardon; because justice would, in that case, require his salvation. But justice is threefold, commutative, distributive, and public. Commutative justice has no concern in this case. Public justice is satisfied by the atonement, because the governor of the universe displays his displeasure at sin in general in the sufferings of Christ. The exercise of distributive justice is entirely set aside, and herein is grace exhibited, the sinner is pardoned at the expence of distributive justice.”

“Although we have stated this argument with all the precision of which we are capable, we must observe, that notwithstanding the show of minute discussion which it makes, its whole force consists in its obscurity, and the confusion of ideas which it produces. The indistinctness of vision which it causes, is the only reason for any man’s offering his hand to those who, by proposing it, promise to be his guide to the temple of truth.

We object to this division of a divine attribute—we object to the use which is made of it—we object to the argument, because it multiplies, instead of solving difficulties—and it takes for granted, what does not exist, a difficulty in reconciling justice with grace.

We object to this division of a divine attribute. It is not correct, even as it applies to man. We are perfectly aware that the Schoolmen, following the steps of heathen philosophers, adopted this division. Suarez builds upon it the doctrine of merit, in order to supply the traffic of indulgences with works of supererogation.[^[156]] But, however variously divine justice may be exercised about its several objects, we have no reason to believe, that there are three different attributes of justice, or even that the principle in man, which induces him to act honestly in commercial transactions, and to give to every man his due, is any way different from the principle which influences a good magistrate to conduct with equity his public administration. It is one principle exercised upon various objects. The Scriptures, which uniformly ascribe righteousness to Jehovah, and afford instances of its exercise in thrice three various ways, never intimate that there are three distinct attributes of divine justice.[^[157]]

We object to the use that is made of this division. There is no reason for excluding commutative justice any more than distributive, as distinct from public justice, from having any reference to the case of the sinner’s pardon. We can readily conceive of a civil ruler, having, independently of his official duties, certain private and personal duties to discharge towards those, who, in such case, are upon terms of equality with himself. But no equality exists between the creature and Creator. The pardon of sin most assuredly approaches as near to the forgiveness of a debt as the remission of a personal offence, which has no reference to the divine authority. Sin is a want of conformity unto, or a transgression of THE LAW.[^[158]] Besides, the Scriptures frequently represent Jehovah condescending to act towards men upon the footing of a previously existing contract or covenant, but never upon the footing of private relation, setting aside his authority. He hath taught us to pray, “Forgive us our debts;” but never to say, “pardon private offences which are no transgression of thy law.” We cannot even conceive of the exercise of distributive justice by the Lord, separate from his authority as our king, our lawgiver, and our judge. We cannot conceive, that it is matter of indifference whether God does or does not exercise distributive justice towards his creatures; and much less can we admit that even, for the sake of mercy, he is ever guilty of one act of distributive injustice. We, therefore, object to the use which is made of this threefold division of the attribute of justice. And we also,

Object to the whole argument which it involves, because it multiplies instead of solving difficulties around the doctrine of the sinner’s justification.

It requires us to believe that God has violated, or set aside the demands of distributive justice in the salvation of his chosen—that the sufferings of our Redeemer were the punishment, not of transgressions which are, in fact, committed, but of sin in the abstract—and that public justice requires only an exhibition of the divine displeasure at sin.

Sin, in the abstract, is only a word. Like an algebraical character, it represents all the transgressions of individual persons. These particular sins are realities; but sin in general, or in the abstract, is only the sign, the word, which we employ in reasoning.[^[159]] It is not for the sign, but the thing that Jesus suffered.

The word sin, too, represents the transgressions of angels. If the Redeemer suffered for sin in general, he made atonement for devils, although he took not on him the nature of angels. And if public justice demanded no more than the display of Jehovah’s hatred of sin, then Christ is dead in vain, for such display is made in the everlasting punishments of Hell. But justice demanded more. It demanded the punishment of the sinner; and could not be satisfied with any thing short of this, unless Messiah should so unite himself to sinners, not only by assuming their nature, but by becoming in law their representative, as to bear all the sins of all the persons for whom his sufferings were intended to atone. We object also to this argument in defence of indefinite atonement,

Because it takes for granted, what does not exist, that if all the demands of divine justice are satisfied to the full by the atonement, then grace is excluded from our pardon. This is not the case. Justice is indeed satisfied. It does not oppose, but demand the salvation of all for whom Christ died. Here is no difficulty—no Gordian knot. Grace reigns through righteousness. We refer our readers to what is said on this subject, page 377, and conclude our examination of this argument in the words of the Assembly of Divines at Westminster. “Although Christ, by his obedience and death, did make a proper, real, and full satisfaction to God’s justice in the behalf of them that are justified; yet, inasmuch as God accepteth the satisfaction from a surety, which he might have demanded of them, and did provide this surety, his own only son, imputing his righteousness to them, and requiring nothing of them for their justification, but faith, which also is his gift, their justification is to them of free grace.”

Christian’s Magazine, vol. iii.

Atonement imports reconciliation, a being at one. The Hebrew signifies to cover. The Greek word denotes a commutation, as of enmity for friendship. But we use atonement for ransom, or price, and we never pray for it. Redemption imports a deliverance. To say that the ransom was paid indefinitely, that is, not more for one than another, is plainly contrary to his views, who spoke of those who were given to him, and of his laying down his life for his sheep. His sacrifice was real, and its object could not be sin in general, a mere abstract term; a sacrifice of which Satan might avail himself, as well as man. If the atonement, and redemption be indefinite, so were the decrees or purposes, the suretyship of Christ, the foreknowledge of God, and the promotion of the glory of God in the work.

On the other hand, to represent these transactions, so strictly as matters of debt, and credit, as that the quantum of price was exactly commensurate to the guilt of the saved, and neither more nor less, is not warranted by the word of God. This is to impute the cause of damnation to Christ’s not having died for those who perish; and not to their guilt. Both these conclusions are erroneous. Christ died for all men, and every man, not in the sense of the universalists, not in the same sense as he died for his sheep; but that his sacrifice is sufficient for all; and God the Father, whose mercy can reach no fallen creature, but in Christ, has authorized the offer of covenant mercy to all; and desires the destruction of none. Thus men perish only by their sins. The Sacrifice of Christ is of infinite value, for he is a Divine person; and the sins of all men can be no more than infinite.

The truth seems to be, that the sacrifice is infinite; that the offer is to be general; that man perishes by his own fault only; and all this is according to the eternal purposes of God. Nevertheless the salvation of the saints was certain; the price particularly paid with a view to them; who are eventually effectually called, justified, sanctified, and brought to glory.

[155]. See Doddridge’s Lectures, p. 190; and also Dr. Edwards’ third sermon, preached it New Haven, 1735.

[156]. See Owen on Jus. chap. ii.

[157]. “Were this the proper place, it would be easy to show, by a criticism on the best writers upon this subject, that their definitions of commutative, distributive, and public justice, interfere, and are otherwise essentially incorrect.”

[158]. Shorter Catechism.

[159]. “Did we deem it eligible to introduce metaphysics into this discussion, we could more effectually expose the idea of punishing a nonentity—‘sin in the abstract.’ We are no conceptualists; and the controversy between the Nominalists and Realists is now at an end. It prevailed long enough. It agitated the European universities, interested thrones, and shed much precious blood. No philosopher will now defend the opinions of the Realists. Abstract terms have no counterpart in nature. Stew. Phil. Mind. ch. iv. § 2, & 3.”

[160]. See Quest. XXXVIII.

[161]. These, which are styled, Passiones trihoriæ, ultimæ, are generally called, Pænæ satisfactoriæ; and all his sufferings before them, Pænæ convincentes.

[162]. It is an abominable strain of blasphemy, which some Popish writers make use of, when they say that not only the cross was the altar, but that it was sacred, and had a virtue to sanctify the gift offered thereon, which is the foundation of that idolatrous adoration which they give to it.

[163]. Λυτρωτην.

[164]. There are several propositions used, in the New Testament, in explaining this doctrine, namely, δια, περι, υπερ, and αντι; δια and αντι refer to the occasion and cause of Christ’s death, to wit, our sins: Thus it is said, in Rom. iv. 25. Who was delivered for our offences, Ος παρεδοθη δια τα παραπτωματα ημων; and, in 1 Pet. iii. 18. Christ also hath once suffered for sins, Περι αμαρτιων επαθε; and, in this case, his substitution in our room and stead is principally argued, from its being for our sins, for which death was due. As for υπερ, whenever it refers to Christ’s sufferings, it plainly signifies his being substituted in our room and stead; as in Rom. v. 6. Christ died υπερ ασεβων, for the ungodly; and, in Tit. ii. 14. Who gave himself for us, Ος εδωκεν εαυτον υπερ ημων. And this is not only used in the New Testament to signify the substitution of the person dying in the room of another, or, in other instances, acting in his stead; as in 2 Cor. v. 20. Phil. ver. 13. but it is taken in the same sense when used in other writers, Vid. Euripid in Alcest., μη θνησχ᾽ υπερ του δ᾽ ανδρος; and Demosth. in Coron. εγω τουθ᾽ υπερ σου ποιησω; and the Latin word, that answers to it, is sometimes used in the same sense. Vid. Ter. in Andr. Ego pro te molam. As for the preposition αντι, that is seldom or never used, but it signifies a substitution of one thing, or person, in the room of another: Thus when Christ is said to give his life a ransom, αντι πολλων for many, in Matt. xx. 28. Mark x. 46. this plainly imports his being substituted in their room, as appears by the frequent use thereof in other scriptures. See Matt. ii. 22. chap. v. 38. and chap. xvii. 27. Luke xi. 11. and in several other places, Vid. Grot. de Satisfact. Christ. cap. 9.

[165]. See the note immediately preceeding.

[166]. See Page [201]-203 ante.

[167]. “The judicious, whether Trinitarians, or Unitarians, have always acknowledged an intimate connexion between the doctrine of Christ’s true Godhead, and that of his satisfaction for sins; as both must be at once confessed, or denied. If he by his sufferings could satisfy the avenging justice of God for the sins of all believers; then he behoved to be more than any creature. If on the contrary, such a thing was not necessary, then no other end could be so important, that for it God should empty himself, and ‘assuming the form of a servant, become obedient to the death of the cross.’

But the truth of Christ’s satisfaction is confirmed in the word of God by so many testimonies, and these of the clearest kind, that those of another opinion, find themselves under a necessity to give every where to these passages an arbitrary sense; so feeble, improper, and far-fetched, that by such a strain of interpretation, people are in danger of turning from all the doctrines of the Bible and of pronouncing it the most uncertain of all doctrinal books, and the most ready to mislead. On this subject much has been written. We shall only observe the following things as suitable to our purpose.

In the course of Christ’s prophetic teaching upon earth, we find evident proofs, that he had appeared not only for that end, but chiefly for a very different purpose, namely, to suffer and to die; that being a saving work, and of the utmost necessity. He declared that he came to minister, and to give his life a ransom for many. More than once he informed his disciples, that by a bitter and a most humbling kind of suffering, which hung over his head, that which was written concerning him, behoved to be accomplished.

His circumstances and manner of acting were wholly directed to that end. The joyful solemnizing of his birth, by a retinue of spirits immortal and enthroned, was heard by good witnesses indeed, but of low degree, and few in number; and with some express testimonies on earth, during his quiet education in a remote and contemptible town, they were almost gone out of mind. His heavenly consecration was shown to John only; his glorification on the mount, only to three of his followers, of which he forbade them to speak till after his resurrection, or to make him known every where as Christ. Several times he commanded not to propagate the cures he had wrought. Often his preaching was involved and figurative, more adapted to inflame the great against him, than to unite the many in his favours. Yet his greatness could not be wholly unknown, and when men would have exalted him, he shunned it. By all these things, the judgment and the confidence of the people concerning him, was much more vague and unstable, than even concerning his austere forerunner.—In one word, his ministry was so conducted as might best serve, not to prevent, but to pave the way for his farther suffering and death, while the clearer and more extensive spread of his doctrine, and thereby at the same time, the publication of his death and his glory, behoved to be the work of the apostles in his name.

That Christ suffered and died for the good of his church, is without controversy; so also did the apostles. But was any of them crucified for us, as was Christ? To say this, would in Paul’s judgment be the utmost absurdity. What then hath the Saviour done, which no other did?—‘He was delivered for our offences.’ ‘He suffered for our sin, the just for the unjust; that he might bring us to God.’ He ‘died for our sins.’ ‘The blood of Jesus Christ cleanseth us from all sin.’—And so indeed, that he delivered us from sin, by taking it upon himself. For he who neither had nor knew sin, was of God made to be sin for us, that we might he the righteousness of God in him. He ‘bare our sins in his own body upon the tree.’ ‘Behold, said John, the Lamb of God, which taketh away the sin of the world.’ And how does he take it away? By his death. For to say a lamb takes away sin, is not sense, if there be not an allusion to the Paschal Lamb, or to other sacrificed lambs, which were to be slain according to the law. ‘Christ our passover is sacrificed for us.’ ‘Ye are redeemed by the precious blood of Christ, as of a lamb without blemish, and without spot.’—He put himself in our place, fulfilled for us the demands of God’s holy law, and for us satisfied his inflexible justice. Why, pray, of all men, of all the saints, of all the most excellent teachers, was Christ only free from all moral impurity? As a Prophet, this was not absolutely necessary for him; but necessary it was that he, being to fulfil the law for others, should have no need to satisfy for his own sin. ‘God sending his Son in the likeness of sinful flesh, and that for sin, condemned sin in the flesh; that the righteousness of the law might be fulfilled in us.’ ‘God sent forth his Son made under the law, to redeem them who were under the law.’—The apostle confirms this in the clearest manner, giving us at the same time, a notable sign of the remarkable curse in the death of Christ. It is written, ‘Cursed is every one, who continueth not in all things which are written in the book of the law to do them. Christ hath redeemed us from the curse of the law, being made a curse for us: for it is written, Cursed is every one who hangeth on a tree.’

This important doctrine is inculcated on us in many places, under the notions of a purchase, a ransom, a propitiation, and a testament; by which the virtue and the efficacy, of Christ’s death are elucidated. Let it not be objected, that these phrases are borrowed from other things, and therefore to be understood in an improper and figurative sense. A figurative sense is not however, no sense at all, or without sense; but serves to make profound subjects more comprehensible to a common understanding.

1. A Purchase. Believers in their soul and their body are God’s, ‘because they are bought with a price;’ they are the church of the Lord God, which he hath purchased with his own blood. The song unto the Lamb runs, ‘Thou wast slain, and hast redeemed us to God by thy blood;’ which strongly indicates, that their salvation is to be ascribed to the merits of his bloody death.

2. A Ransom. In the New Testament, the word deliverance is often used in translating one, which properly signifies a redemption, or ransom. Thus it is written, ‘ye were redeemed from your vain conversation, not by corruptible things, as silver or gold, but by the precious blood of Christ.’ This redemption is explained by the forgiveness of sins. It is, therefore, his blood and death, wherewith he made payment, in order to procure our discharge from the debt of sin. He came ‘to minister, and to give his life a ransom for many.’—λυτρον. Matt. xx. 28. and αντιλυτρον. 1 Tim. ii. 6.

3. A Propitiation. Sometimes this in the Greek is called αποκαταλλαγη, (conciliatio) that is, a reconciliation. Accordingly, believers are now reconciled to God by the death of his Son; by his cross; by the blood of his cross, and in the body of his flesh through death. ‘God was in Christ reconciling the world to himself:’ which is farther explained, ‘not imputing their trespasses to them.’—But it is also called a propitiation, in the translation of ἱλασμος, (expiatio) used concerning the victims which were anciently slain, as a typical propitiation in place of the guilty. So now Jesus Christ the righteous is the propitiation for our sins. For God ‘sent his Son to be a propitiation for our sins.’ God hath set him forth to be a propitiation through faith in his blood, for a demonstration of his righteousness, by (or rather because of) the forgiveness of sins. Therefore, ‘the Lamb of God hath so taken away the sins of the world,’ that he took them upon himself, that he bare them, that he died in the place of his people.

4. A Testament. According to his last institution, the assignation of the everlasting inheritance, is called ‘the New Testament in his blood, which was shed for many, for the remission of sins.’ This signifies to us, not only that Christ had a perfect right to the honour of settling the inheritance, not only that his death as a testator was necessary to put his people in possession of it; but, that that inheritance had its foundation precisely in the shedding of his blood, in his deepest humiliation, and his violent death; as thereby their sins, which otherwise stood in the way of salvation, could be forgiven. If, instead of the New Testament, we rather choose to translate it the New Covenant; the allusion will be somewhat different, but the matter the same.

This leads us to the epistle to the Hebrews, in which all these doctrines are ascertained to us at great length, and with invincible arguments. That epistle was intended to demonstrate indeed, the authority of Christ’s instruction above all the prophets, and even Moses himself: but also, under propositions borrowed from the ancient religion, and fitted to the Hebrews, to reconcile his priestly office with the intention of the Levitical sacrifices, and to exalt it infinitely above Aaron’s priesthood. Christ being a High Priest of unchangeable power, needed not to offer up sacrifices for his own sins, but having offered himself up once to God, he thereby made reconciliation for sin, made an end of it, opened a sure way to heaven, and ‘can save unto the uttermost all who come unto the Father by him.’ Read the 5th and the 10th chapters. Would you, on account of the doctrine so full of consolation, suspect this epistle, and erase it from the volume of holy scripture? In it, however, no doctrine occurs, which is not also mentioned elsewhere; and this apostolic epistle is surpassed by none of the rest, in sublimity of matter, in weight of evidence, in glorifying the grace of God in Christ, in strong consolation, in encouraging to the spiritual warfare, and in the most animating motives to holiness and perseverance.

Besides, in the Saviour’s satisfaction only lies the reason, why his suffering together with his resurrection, are every where represented to us as the sum and substance of the gospel. No other part of his history and ministration are so fully propounded, and that by all the Evangelists.—We have already seen, that the Apostles preached, not only the doctrine of evangelic morality, but chiefly Christ himself, that is, his person, work, and two-fold state. Paul would know nothing among the Corinthians, ‘but Jesus Christ and him crucified.’ The cross of Christ was that alone in which he gloried. He reduces the knowledge of Christ, for the excellency of which he counted all things but loss and dung, to the knowledge of the power of his resurrection, and of the fellowship of his sufferings.—In that most important conversation on the holy mount, between our Lord, and two of the celestial inhabitants, the two great teachers and reformers under the old dispensation, we find no more mentioned, but that it turned upon that decease which he should accomplish at Jerusalem.—In the cross, and the other humiliations and sufferings of the Saviour comprehended under it, the love of God towards men, in not sparing his own Son, as also his wisdom and power unto salvation are displayed in a peculiar and a most conspicuous manner. In the cross, is the abolishing of the power and the fear of death. Deliverance from the dominion of sin, as also the glory to come, are its pleasant fruits. The plain, but most consolatory symbols of the grace of Jesus, in Baptism, and the Holy Supper, point us in like manner to his atoning death, with a charge to shew it forth in particular.

The medium of our acceptance and justification before God, is every where in the gospel said to be faith in Christ: and that indeed in opposition to, and with warning against the law, or the seeking of our justification by the works of the law. Now if believing in Christ signify only, to receive and to obey his doctrine concerning the rational grounds and duties of religion; how then is the doctrine and the righteousness of faith quite another thing than the demand and righteousness of the law whether we consider the moral law naturally, or as written by Moses? Nay, Moses had also taught the capital doctrines of rational religion, God’s existence, unity, providence, the duties of man, &c. and that the love of God, and of our neighbour, is more than all sacrifices, was often inculcated under the old economy, and not unknown to the Jews.—Or does the prohibition of seeking righteousness by the law, only mean the omitting of the Mosaic rights? But in the places quoted, and in others, the law cannot possibly be understood in such a limited sense. Besides the righteousness of faith, in contradistinction to that of the law, had place even under the old dispensation. Further, these external solemnities could indeed be abolished; but they were instituted by God himself, and hence the observing of them did not so militate against a rational religion, that it in itself could make a man condemnable.—Paul constantly teaches, that the opposition between faith and the law, in respect of our seeking righteousness by them, consists in this, that God’s inflexible law condemns all sinners, Jews and Gentiles; that by the works of the law, no flesh shall be justified; that through sin, the law is become weak to give life: but that faith acknowledges and embraces Christ, as he who fulfilled the righteousness of the law, was made a curse for us, and set forth to be a propitiation, through faith, not only in his doctrine, but in his blood, for a demonstration of the righteousness of God.

And why else was ‘Christ crucified unto the Jews a stumbling-block, and to the Greeks foolishness?’ Surely, not so much on account of the capital truths of rational religion taught by him. The Jewish doctors, and the best philosophers among the Heathens, who had acknowledged them were honoured on that account. Nor was it because Christ, continuing a worthy and faithful, but an unsuccessful teacher of his doctrine, was unjustly accused, and shamefully put to death. The memory of a condemned Socrates was not held in contempt. The reason was purely this, that the Saviour’s suffering was proclaimed as the only ground and cause of our reconciliation and salvation: while the Jews and Heathens thought to be saved by the value of their own virtue: and to them it was exceeding strange, and most mortifying to their pride, that penitently acknowledging their guilt, they behoved to seek life in the deep abasement of a crucified Mediator, and in his justifying resurrection.

All our reasoning thus far makes it evident, that we must not understand the sufferings of Christ for sin, merely as if God, being about to announce by the gospel, grace and life to the nations, would previously manifest his aversion to sin, by a striking example of his vengeance; and for that purpose, deliver up an ambassador vested with extraordinary privileges, to so much sorrow and shame. Surely all preceding ages had already exhibited awful instances of God’s fearful displeasure with the sins of individuals and communities, without deliverance from sin being ever ascribed to them. That a mean man among the people, that a teacher wandering about in poverty, should be shamefully put to death by a civil judge, was much less calculated to exhibit a signal and extraordinary example of divine wrath, than the immediate interposition of Providence, which had often, in former times inflicted, and still could inflict miraculous punishments on the most eminent persons, or on whole nations. At any rate, to manifest a righteous abhorrence of sin, vengeance behoved not to fall upon one perfectly innocent. This last would be quite absurd; unless the innocent person, (as holy scripture has already taught us) should with God’s approbation, as spontaneously, as generously, substitute himself in our place, by bearing our sin.—Accordingly, sacred scripture represents the sufferings of Christ, not only as a proof and confirmation, but as the cause of our reconciliation.

We by no means exclude other advantages ascribed by Socinus to the Saviour’s death. Beyond all doubt, he thereby confirmed his integrity and the truth of his mission. But, pray, was it ever heard, that a false prophet, in the founding of a new society, mentioned his own, his certain, his fast approaching, and most offensive punishment of death, as the intention of his ministry; and made it an article of his doctrine?—In confirmation of his doctrine and mission, Jesus generally appealed to his miracles; and yet, where are the forgiveness of our sins and a title to life ascribed to his miracles, as they often are to his bloody death?—For what doctrine was Jesus condemned? Not for the truths and prescriptions of natural reason; but because he declared himself to be higher far than any human prophet. (See Section IX.) If the celestial chorus at his birth, if the Father’s voice at his inauguration, if his glory on the mount, had been openly perceived by the Jewish council and all the people; if the lightnings darted forth in confirmation of Moses and Elias, had caused him to be honoured; especially if he had satisfied their prejudices concerning the Messias; if, with legions of his Father’s angels, he had destroyed the Roman government, broken that yoke, recovering and extending David’s mighty kingdom; their infidelity would have been conquered, and eagerly would they have confided in him. They would have been more easily drawn by giving bread, or causing manna to rain, than by promising them his flesh and blood.—A steady martyrdom was more necessary to the preaching of the apostles; because their doctrine in a great measure referred to and was built upon the truth of the all-important events of the Saviour’s death and exaltation. In relation to which, as they could not be deceived, so likewise their sincerity behoved to be put beyond suspicion. But the Lord Jesus Christ had abundance of glorious means to confirm his doctrine; and if nothing else had been to be effectuated by it, he behoved not to have undergone a cursed death upon the hill of infamy; and that under the pretence of a legal procedure, which caused the multitude to revolt from him, his friends to be offended at him, and plunged his best followers in deep distress.

We also respect the design of exhibiting in his sufferings, an example of love, submission to, and confidence in God. But such an extremity of shame was not necessary for that purpose; and his sufferings were accompanied with so much perturbation, vehement distress, cries and tears, that quite other ends were ever to be obtained by them; else he would not have exceeded many valiant martyrs. Besides, could any apostle, courageously foreseeing, and alluding to his own martyrdom in confirmation of the truth, and for an example to others, be able to say, as did Christ, ‘whoso eateth my flesh and drinketh my blood, hath eternal life; for my flesh is meat indeed, and my blood is drink indeed, &c.?’ 2 Tim. iv. 6. compared with John vi. 51-57.

Do men in spite of the divine testimony, find reasons and scruples against a vicarious satisfaction; if we are not much mistaken, they are easy to solve. But far stronger reasons combat the persuasion, that the Holy Supreme Being can show himself favourable, or indifferent, to the voluntary violation of those laws and moral duties from which he himself cannot absolve a rational creature; or to speak in a plain and familiar manner, that God can, and also will suffer sin to escape with impunity.

If then, (to conclude in the language of the apostle, when enlarging on the glory of Christ,) the Son of God, by himself purged our sins; how narrowly and how perversely would we limit his saving work to his preaching? How inconsistent is it with this, that men, according to the usual phrase among Christians, ascribe efficacious merits to Christ; but in an unusual sense understand them only of his doctrine and his excellent character? against which sentiment, too, much could be objected. How evidently then is that confirmed, which we asserted, that Christ himself in his person and performances, is the cause and ground of our salvation? If the suffering and death of Christ alone have merited salvation for the innumerable multitude of all them who ever believed in him, or shall believe; if his suffering, though short in duration, was the satisfactory ransom, to deliver all those sinners from the fear of death, and from the wrath to come; then the infinite worth of his person and work, must surpass all understanding; then from that most gracious deliverance we deduce an important proof of his more than human, his divine excellency.”

Dr. Wynpersse.

[168]. “In the consideration of this subject, which every Christian must deem most highly deserving the closet examination, our attention should be directed to two different classes of objectors: those who deny the necessity of any mediation whatever; and those who question the particular nature of that mediation, which has been appointed. Whilst the deist on the one hand ridicules the very notion of a Mediator: and the philosophizing Christian on the other, fashions it to his own hypothesis; we are called on to vindicate the word of truth from the injurious attacks of both; and carefully to secure it, not only against the open assaults of its avowed enemies, but against the more dangerous misrepresentations of its false or mistaken friends.

The objections which are peculiar to the former, are upon this subject, of the same description with those which they advance against every other part of revelation; bearing with equal force against the system of natural religion, which they support, as against the doctrines of revealed religion, which they oppose. And indeed, this single circumstance, if weighed with candour and reflection; that is, if the deist were truly the philosopher he pretends to be; might suffice to convince him of his error. For the closeness of the analogy between the works of nature, and the word of the gospel, being found to be such, that every blow which is aimed at the one, rebounds with undiminished force against the other: the conviction of their common origin must be the inference of unbiassed understanding.

Thus, when in the outset of his argument, the deist tells us, that as obedience must be the object of God’s approbation, and disobedience the ground of his displeasure, it must follow by natural consequence, that when men have transgressed the divine commands, repentance and amendment of life will place them in the same situation as if they had never offended:—he does not recollect, that actual experience of the course of nature directly contradicts the assertion; and that, in the common occurrences of life, the man who by intemperance and voluptuousness, has injured his character, his fortune, and his health, does not find himself instantly restored to the full enjoyment of these blessings on repenting of his past misconduct, and determining on future amendment. Now, if the attributes of the Deity demand, that the punishment should not outlive the crime, on what ground shall we justify this temporal dispensation? The difference in degree, cannot affect the question in the least. It matters not, whether the punishment be of long or short duration; whether in this world, or in the next. If the justice or the goodness of God, require that punishment should not be inflicted when repentance has taken place; it must be a violation of those attributes to permit any punishment whatever, the most slight, or the most transient. Nor will it avail to say, that the evils of this life attendant upon vice, are the effects of an established constitution, and follow in the way of natural consequence. Is not that established constitution itself, the effect of the divine decree? And are not its several operations as much the appointment of its Almighty framer, as if they had individually flowed from his immediate direction? But besides, what reason have we to suppose that God’s treatment of us in a future state, will not be of the same nature as we find it in this; according to established rules, and in the way of natural consequence? Many circumstances might be urged on the contrary, to evince the likelihood that it will. But this is not necessary to our present purpose. It is sufficient, that the deist cannot prove that it will not. Our experience of the present state of things evinces, that indemnity is not the consequence of repentance here: can he adduce a counter-experience to show, that it will hereafter? The justice and goodness of God are not then necessarily concerned, in virtue of the sinner’s repentance, to remove all evil consequences upon sin in the next life, or else the arrangement of events in this, has not been regulated by the dictates of justice and goodness. If the deist admits the latter, what becomes of his natural religion?

Now let us inquire, whether the conclusions of abstract reasoning will coincide with the deductions of experience. If obedience be at all times our duty, in what way can present repentance release us from the punishment of former transgressions? Can repentance annihilate what is past? Or can we do more by present obedience, than acquit ourselves of present obligation? Or, does the contrition we experience, added to the positive duties we discharge, constitute a surplusage of merit, which may be transferred to the reduction of our former demerit? And is the justification of the philosopher, who is too enlightened to be a Christian, to be built, after all, upon the absurdities of supererogation? ‘We may as well affirm,’ says a learned Divine, ‘that our former obedience atones for our present sins, as that our present obedience makes amends for antecedent transgressions.’ And it is surely with a peculiar ill grace, that this sufficiency of repentance is urged by those, who deny the possible efficacy of Christ’s mediation; since the ground on which they deny the latter, equally serves for the rejection of the former: the necessary connexion between the merits of one being, and the acquittal of another, not being less conceivable, than that which is conceived to subsist between obedience at one time, and the forgiveness of disobedience at another.

Since then, upon the whole, experience (as far as it extends) goes to prove the natural inefficacy of repentance to remove the effects of past transgressions; and the abstract reason of the thing, can furnish no link, whereby to connect present obedience with forgiveness of former sins: it follows, that however the contemplation of God’s infinite goodness and love, might excite some faint hope, that mercy would be extended to the sincerely penitent; the animating certainty of this momentous truth, without which the religious sense can have no place, can be derived from the express communication of the Deity alone.

But it is yet urged by those, who would measure the proceedings of divine wisdom by the standard of their own reason; that, admitting the necessity of a Revelation on this subject, it had been sufficient for the Deity to have made known to man his benevolent intention; and that the circuitous apparatus of the scheme of redemption must have been superfluous, for the purpose of rescuing the world from the terrors and dominion of sin; when this might have been effected in a way infinitely more simple and intelligible, and better calculated to excite our gratitude and love, merely by proclaiming to mankind a free pardon, and perfect indemnity, on condition of repentance and amendment.

To the disputer, who would thus prescribe to God the mode by which he may best conduct his creatures to happiness, we might as before reply, by the application of his own argument to the course of ordinary events: and we might demand of him to inform us, wherefore the Deity should have left the sustenance of life, depending on the tedious process of human labour and contrivance, in rearing from a small seed, and conducting to the perfection fitting it for the use of man, the necessary article of nourishment; when the end might have been at once accomplished by its instantaneous production. And will he contend that bread has not been ordained for the support of man; because that, instead of the present circuitous mode of its production, it might have been rained down from heaven, like the manna in the wilderness? On grounds such as these, the philosopher (as he wishes to be called) may be safely allowed to object to the notion of forgiveness by a Mediator.

With respect to every such objection as this, it may be well, once for all, to make this general observation. We find, from the whole course of nature, that God governs the world, not by independent acts, but by connected system. The instruments which he employs in the ordinary works of his Providence, are not physically necessary to his operations. He might have acted without them, if he pleased. ‘He might, for instance, have created all men, without the intervention of parents: but where then had been the beneficial connexion between parents and children; and the numerous advantages resulting to human society from such connexion?’ The difficulty lies here: the uses arising from the connexions of God’s acts may be various; and such are the pregnancies of his works, that a single act may answer a prodigious variety of purposes. Of the several purposes we are, for the most part, ignorant: and from this ignorance are derived most of our weak objections against the ways of his Providence; whilst we foolishly presume, that, like human agents, he has but one end in view.

This observation we shall find of material use in our examination of the remaining arguments adduced by the deist on the present subject. And there is none to which it more forcibly applies than to that by which he endeavours to prove the notion of a Mediator to be inconsistent with the divine immutability. It is either, he affirms, agreeable to the will of God to grant salvation on repentance, and then he will grant it without a Mediator: or it is not agreeable to his will, and then a Mediator can be of no avail, unless we admit the mutability of the divine decrees.

But the objector is not, perhaps, aware how far this reasoning will extend. Let us try it in the case of prayer. All such things as are agreeable to the will of God must be accomplished, whether we pray or not; and therefore our prayers are useless, unless they be supposed to have a power of altering his will. And indeed, with equal conclusiveness it might be proved that repentance itself must be unnecessary. For if it be fit that our sins should be forgiven, God will forgive us without repentance: and if it be unfit, repentance can be of no avail.

The error in all these conclusions is the same, it consists in mistaking a conditional for an absolute decree; and in supposing God to ordain an end unalterably, without any concern as to the intermediate steps, whereby that end is to be accomplished. Whereas the manner is sometimes as necessary as the act proposed: so that if not done in that particular way, it would not have been done at all. Of this observation, abundant illustration may be derived, as well from natural as from revealed religion. ‘Thus we know from natural religion, that it is agreeable to the will of God, that the distresses of mankind should be relieved: and yet we see the destitute, from a wise constitution of Providence, left to the precarious benevolence of their fellow-men; and if not relieved by them, they are not relieved at all. In like manner, in Revelation, in the case of Naaman the Syrian, we find that God was willing he should be healed of his leprosy; but yet he was not willing that it should be done, except in one particular manner. Abana and Pharpar were as famous as any of the rivers of Israel. Could he not wash in them, and be clean? Certainly he might, if the design of God had been no more than to heal him. Or it might have been done without any washing at all. But the healing was not the only design of God, nor the most important. The manner of the cure was of more consequence in the moral design of God, than the cure itself: the effect being produced, for the sake of manifesting to the whole kingdom of Syria, the great power of the God of Israel, by which the cure was performed.’ And in like manner, though God willed that the penitent sinner should receive forgiveness; we may see good reason why, agreeably to his usual proceeding, he might will it to be granted in one particular manner only, through the intervention of a Mediator.

Although in the present stage of the subject, in which we are concerned with the objections of the DEIST, the argument should be confined to the deductions of natural reason; yet I have added this instance from Revelation, because, strange to say, some who assume the name of Christians, and profess not altogether to discard the written word of Revelation, adept the very principle which we have just examined. For what are the doctrines of that description of Christians, in the sister kingdom,[^[169]] who glory in having brought down the high things of God to the level of man’s understanding? That Christ was a person sent into the world to promulgate the will of God: to communicate new lights on the subject of religious duties: by his life to set an example of perfect obedience: by his death to manifest his sincerity: and by his resurrection to convince us of the great truth which he had been commissioned to teach, our rising again to future life. This, say they, is the sum and substance of Christianity. It furnishes a purer morality, and a more operative enforcement: its morality more pure, as built on juster notions of the divine nature: and its enforcement more operative, as founded on a certainty of a state of retribution. And is then Christianity nothing but a new and more formal promulgation of the religion of nature? Is the death of Christ but an attestation of his truth? And are we, after all, left to our own merit for acceptance: and obliged to trust for our salvation to the perfection of our obedience? Then indeed, has the great Author of our religion in vain submitted to the agonies of the cross; if after having given to mankind a law, which leaves them less excusable in their transgressions, he has left them to be judged by the rigour of that law, and to stand or fall by their own personal deserts.

It is said, indeed, that as by this new dispensation, the certainty of pardon on repentance has been made known, mankind has been informed of all that is essential in the doctrine of mediation. But granting that no more was intended to be conveyed, than the sufficiency of repentance; yet it remains to be considered in what way that repentance was likely to be brought about. Was the bare declaration that God would forgive the repentant sinner, sufficient to ensure his amendment? Or was it not rather calculated to render him easy under guilt, from the facility of reconciliation? What was there to alarm, to rouse the sinner from the apathy of habitual transgression? What was there to make that impression which the nature of God’s moral government demands? Shall we say that the grateful sense of divine mercy would be sufficient; and that the generous feelings of our nature, awakened by the supreme goodness, would have secured our obedience? that is, shall we say, that the love of virtue and of right would have maintained man in his allegiance? And have we not then had abundant experience of what man can do, when left to his own exertions, to be cured of such vain and idle fancies? What is the history of man, from the creation to the time of Christ, but a continued trial of his natural strength? And what has been the moral of that history, but that man is strong, only as he feels himself weak? strong, only as he feels that his nature is corrupt, and from a consciousness of that corruption, is led to place his whole reliance upon God? What is the description which the apostle of the Gentiles has left us, of the state of the world, at the coming of our Saviour?—being filled with all unrighteousness, fornication, wickedness, covetousness, maliciousness; full of envy, murder, debate, deceit, malignity; whisperers, backbiters, haters of God, despiteful, proud, boasters, inventors of evil things, disobedient to parents, without understanding, covenant breakers, without natural affection, implacable, unmerciful—who, knowing the judgment of God, that they which commit such things are worthy of death, not only do the same, but have pleasure in them that do them.

Here were the fruits of that natural goodness of the human heart, which is the favorite theme and fundamental principle with that class of Christians, with whom we are at present concerned. And have we not then had full experiment of our natural powers? And shall we yet have the madness to fly back to our own sufficiency, and our own merits, and to turn away from that gracious support, which is offered to us through the mediation of Christ? No: lost as men were, at the time Christ appeared, to all sense of true religion: lost as they must be to it, at all times, when left to a proud confidence in their own sufficiency: nothing short of a strong and salutary terror could awaken them to virtue. Without some striking expression of God’s abhorrence of sin, which might work powerfully on the imagination and the heart, what could prove a sufficient counteraction to the violent impulse of natural passions? what, to the entailed depravation, which the history of man, no less than the voice of Revelation, pronounces to have infected the whole human race? Besides, without a full and adequate sense of guilt, the very notion of forgiveness, as it relates to us, is unintelligible. We can have no idea of forgiveness, unless conscious of something to be forgiven. Ignorant of our forgiveness, we remain ignorant of that goodness which confers it. And thus, without some proof of God’s hatred for sin, we remain unacquainted with the greatness of his love.

The simple promulgation then, of forgiveness on repentance, could not answer the purpose. Merely to know the condition, could avail nothing. An inducement of sufficient force to ensure its fulfilment was essential. The system of sufficiency had been fully tried, to satisfy mankind of its folly. It was now time to introduce a new system, the system of humility. And for this purpose, what expedient could have been devised more suitable than that which has been adopted?—the sacrifice of the Son of God for the sins of men: proclaiming to the world, by the greatness of the ransom, the immensity of the guilt: and thence, at the same time evincing, in the most fearful manner, God’s utter abhorrence of sin, in requiring such expiation; and the infinity of his love, in appointing it.

To this expedient for man’s salvation, though it be the clear and express language of Scripture, I have as yet sought no support from the authority of Scripture itself. Having hitherto had to contend with the deist, who denies all Revelation; and the pretended Christian, who rationalizing away its substance, finds it a mere moral system, and can discover in it no trace of a Redeemer: to urge the declarations of Scripture, as to the particular nature of redemption, would be to no purpose. Its authority disclaimed by the one, and evaded by the other, each becomes unassailable on any ground, but that which he has chosen for himself, the ground of general reason.

But, we come now to consider the objections of a class of Christians who, as they profess to derive their arguments from the language and meaning of Scripture, will enable us to try the subject of our discussion by the only true standard, the word of Revelation. And indeed, it were most sincerely to be wished, that the doctrines of Scripture were at all times collected purely from the Scripture itself: and that preconceived notions and arbitrary theories were not first to be formed, and then the Scripture pressed into the service of each fanciful, dogma. If God has vouchsafed a Revelation, has he not thereby imposed a duty of submitting our understandings to its perfect wisdom? Shall weak, shortsighted man presume to say, ‘If I find the discoveries of Revelation correspond to my notions of what is right and fit, I will admit them: but if they do not, I am sure they cannot be the genuine sense of Scripture: and I am sure of it, on this principle, that the wisdom of God cannot disagree with itself?’ That is, to express it truly, that the wisdom of God cannot but agree with what this judge of the actions of the Almighty deems it wise for him to do. The language of Scripture must then, by every possible refinement, be made to surrender its fair and natural meaning, to this predetermination of its necessary import. But the word of revelation being thus pared down to the puny dimensions of human reason, how differs the Christian from the deist? The only difference is this: that whilst the one denies that God hath given us a Revelation; the other, compelled by evidence to receive it, endeavours to render it of no effect. But in both there is the same self-sufficiency, the same pride of understanding that would erect itself on the ground of human reason, and that disdains to accept the divine favour on any conditions but its own. In both, in short, the very characteristic of a Christian spirit is wanting—Humility. For in what consists the entire of Christianity, but in this; that feeling an utter incapacity to work out our own salvation, we submit our whole-selves, our hearts, and our understandings, to the divine disposal; and relying on God’s gracious assistance, ensured to our honest endeavours to obtain it, through the Mediation of Christ Jesus, we look up to him, and to him alone, for safety? Nay, what is the very notion of religion, but this humble reliance upon God? Take this away, and we become a race of independent beings, claiming as a debt the reward of our good works; a sort of contracting party with the Almighty, contributing nought to his glory, but anxious to maintain our own independence, and our own rights. And is it not to subdue this rebellious spirit, which is necessarily at war with virtue and with God, that Christianity has been introduced? Does not every page of revelation, peremptorily pronounce this; and yet shall we exercise this spirit, even upon Christianity itself? Assuredly if we do; if, on the contrary, our pride of understanding, and self-sufficiency of reason, are not made to prostrate themselves before the awfully mysterious truths of revelation; if we do not bring down the rebellious spirit of our nature, to confess that the wisdom of man is but foolishness with God; we may bear the name of Christians, but we want the essence of Christianity.

These observations, though they apply in their full extent, only to those who reduce Christianity to a system purely rational; yet are, in a certain degree applicable to the description of Christians, whose notion of redemption we now come to consider. For what but a preconceived theory, to which Scripture had been compelled to yield its obvious and genuine signification, could ever have led to the opinion, that in the death of Christ there was no expiation for sin; that the word sacrifice has been used by the writers of the New Testament merely in a figurative sense; and that the whole doctrine of the redemption amounts but to this, ‘that God, willing to pardon repentant sinners, and at the same time willing to do it, only in that way, which would best promote the cause of virtue, appointed that Jesus Christ should come into the world; and that he, having taught the pure doctrines of the gospel; having passed a life of exemplary virtue; having endured many sufferings, and finally death itself, to prove his truth, and perfect his obedience; and having risen again, to manifest the certainty of a future state; has not only, by his example proposed to mankind a pattern for imitation; but has, by the merits of his obedience, obtained, through his intercession, as a reward, a kingdom or government over the world, whereby he is enabled to bestow pardon and final happiness, upon all who will accept them on the terms of sincere repentance.’ That is, in other words, we receive salvation through a Mediator: the mediation conducted through intercession: and that intercession successful in recompense of the meritorious obedience of our Redeemer.

Here, indeed, we find the notion of redemption admitted: but in setting up, for this purpose, the doctrine of pure intercession, in opposition to that of atonement, we shall perhaps discover, when properly examined, some small tincture of that mode of reasoning, which, as we have seen, has led the modern Socinian to contend against the idea of redemption at large; and the deist, against that of revelation itself.

For the present, let us confine our attention to the objections which the patrons of this new system bring against the principle of atonement, as set forth in the doctrines of that church to which we more immediately belong. As for those which are founded in views of general reason, a little reflection will convince us, that there is not any, which can be alleged against the latter, that may not be urged with equal force, against the former: not a single difficulty with which it is attempted to encumber the one, that does not equally embarrass the other. This having been evinced, we shall then see how little reason there was for relinquishing the plain and natural meaning of scripture; and for opening the door to a latitude of interpretation, in which, it is but too much the fashion to indulge at the present day, and which if persevered in, must render the word of God a nullity.

The first, and most important of the objections we have now to consider, is that which represents the doctrine of atonement, as founded on the divine implacability—inasmuch as it supposes, that to appease the rigid justice of God, it was requisite that punishment should be inflicted; and that consequently the sinner could not by any means have been released, had not Christ suffered in his stead. Were this a faithful statement of the doctrine of atonement, there had indeed been just ground for the objection. But that this is not the fair representation of candid truth, let the objector feel, by the application of the same mode of reasoning, to the system which he upholds. If it was necessary to the forgiveness of man, that Christ should suffer; and through the merits of his obedience, and as the fruit of his intercession, obtain the power of granting that forgiveness; does it not follow, that had not Christ thus suffered and interceded, we could not have been forgiven? And has he not then, as it were, taken us out of the hands of a severe and strict judge; and is it not to him alone that we owe our pardon? Here the argument is exactly parallel, and the objection of implacability equally applies. Now what is the answer? ‘That although it is through the merits and intercession of Christ that we are forgiven; yet these were not the procuring cause, but the means, by which God originally disposed to forgive, thought it right to bestow his pardon.’ Let then the word intercession be changed for sacrifice, and see whether the answer be not equally conclusive.

The sacrifice of Christ was never deemed by any who did not wish to calumniate the doctrine of atonement, to have made God placable, but merely viewed as the means appointed by divine wisdom, by which to bestow forgiveness. And agreeably to this, do we not find this sacrifice every where spoken of, as ordained by God himself?—God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life—and herein is love, not that we loved God, but that he loved us, and sent his Son to be the propitiation for our sins—and again we are told, that we are redeemed with the precious blood of Christ, as of a lamb without blemish, and without spot—-who verily was foreordained before the foundation of the world—and again, that Christ is the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world. Since then, the notion of the efficiency of the sacrifice of Christ, contained in the doctrine of atonement, stands precisely on the same foundation with that of pure intercession—merely as the means whereby God has thought fit to grant his favour and gracious aid to repentant sinners, and to fulfil that merciful intention, which he had at all times entertained towards his fallen creatures: and since by the same sort of representation, the charge of implacability in the Divine Being, is as applicable to the one scheme as to the other; that is, since it is a calumny most foully cast upon both: we may estimate with what candour this has been made by those who hold the one doctrine the fundamental ground of their objections against the other. For, on the ground of the expression of God’s unbounded love to his creatures every where through Scripture, and of his several declarations that he forgave them freely, it is, that they principally contend, that the notion of expiation by the sacrifice of Christ cannot be the genuine doctrine of the New Testament.

But still it is demanded, ‘in what way can the death of Christ, considered as a sacrifice of expiation, be conceived to operate to the remission of sins, unless by the appeasing a Being, who otherwise would not have forgiven us?’—To this the answer of the Christian is, ‘I know not, nor does it concern me to know in what manner the sacrifice of Christ is connected with the forgiveness of sins; it is enough, that this is declared by God to be the medium through which my salvation is effected. I pretend not to dive into the counsels of the Almighty. I submit to his wisdom: and I will not reject his grace, because his mode of vouchsafing it is not within my comprehension.’ But now let us try the doctrine of pure intercession by this same objection. It has been asked, how can the sufferings of one Being be conceived to have any connexion with the forgiveness of another. Let us likewise inquire, how the meritorious obedience of one Being, can be conceived to have any connexion with the pardon of the transgressions of another: or whether the prayers of a righteous Being in behalf of a wicked person, can be imagined to have more weight in obtaining forgiveness for the transgressor, than the same supplication, seconded by the offering up of life itself, to procure that forgiveness? The fact is, the want of discoverable connexion has nothing to do with either. Neither the sacrifice nor the intercession has, as far as we can comprehend, any efficacy whatever. All that we know, or can know of the one or of the other is, that it has been appointed as the means, by which God has determined to act with respect to man. So that to object to the one, because the mode of operation is unknown, is not only giving up the other, but the very notion of a Mediator; and if followed on, cannot fail to lead to pure deism, and perhaps may not stop even there.

Thus we have seen, to what the general objections against the doctrine of atonement amount. The charges of divine implacability, and of inefficacious means, we have found to bear with as little force against this, as against the doctrine which is attempted to be substituted in its room.

We come now to the objections which are drawn from the immediate language of scripture, in those passages in which the nature of our redemption is described. And first, it is asserted, that it is no where said in scripture, that God is reconciled to us by Christ’s death, but that we are every where said to be reconciled to God. Now in this objection, which clearly lays the whole stress upon our obedience, we discover the secret spring of this entire system, which is set up in opposition to the scheme of atonement: we see that reluctance to part with the proud feeling of merit, with which the principle of redemption by the sacrifice of Christ is openly at war: and consequently we see the essential difference there is between the two doctrines at present under consideration; and the necessity there exists for separating them by the clearest marks of distinction. But to return to the objection that has been made, it very fortunately happens, that we have the meaning of the words in their scripture use, defined by no less an authority than that of our Saviour himself—If thou bring thy gift to the altar, and there rememberest that thy brother hath aught against thee, leave there thy gift before the altar, and go thy way—first be reconciled to thy brother, and then come and offer thy gift. Now, from this plain instance, in which the person offending is expressly described, as the party to be reconciled to him who had been offended, by agreeing to his terms of accommodation, and thereby making his peace with him; it manifestly appears, in what sense this expression is to be understood in the language of the New Testament. The very words then produced for the purpose of showing that there was no displeasure on the part of God, which it was necessary by some means to avert, prove the direct contrary: and our being reconciled to God, evidently does not mean, our giving up our sins, and thereby laying aside our enmity to God, (in which sense the objection supposes it to be taken) but the turning away his displeasure, whereby we are enabled to regain his favour. And indeed it were strange, had it not meant this. What! are we to suppose the God of the Christian, like the deity of the Epicurean, to look on with indifference upon the actions of this life, and not to be offended at the sinner? The displeasure of God, it is to be remembered, is not like man’s displeasure, a resentment or passion, but a judicial disapprobation: which if we abstract from our notion of God, we must cease to view him as the moral governor of the world. And it is from the want of this distinction, which is so highly necessary; and the consequent fear of degrading the Deity, by attributing to him what might appear to be the weakness of passion; that they, who trust to reason more than to scripture, have been withheld from admitting any principle that implied displeasure on the part of God. Had they attended but a little to the plain language of scripture, they might have rectified their mistake. They would there have found the wrath of God against the disobedient, spoken of in almost every page. They would have found also a case which is exactly in point to the main argument before us; in which there is described, not only the wrath of God, but the turning away of his displeasure by the mode of sacrifice. The case is that of the three friends of Job,—in which God expressly says, that his wrath is kindled against the friends of Job, because they had not spoken of him the thing that was right; and at the same time directs them to offer up a sacrifice, as the way of averting his anger.

But then it is urged, that God is every where spoken of as a being of infinite love. True; and the whole difficulty arises from building on partial texts. When men perpetually talk of God’s justice, as being necessarily modified by his goodness, they seem to forget that it is no less the language of scripture, and of reason, that his goodness should be modified by his justice. Our error on this subject proceeds from our own narrow views, which compel us to consider the attributes of the Supreme Being, as so many distinct qualities, when we should conceive of them as inseparably blended together; and his whole nature as one great impulse to what is best.

As to God’s displeasure against sinners, there can be then upon the whole no reasonable ground of doubt. And against the doctrine of atonement, no difficulty can arise from the scripture phrase of men being reconciled to God: since, as we have seen, that directly implies the turning away the displeasure of God, so as to be again restored to his favour and protection.

But, though all this must be admitted by those who will not shut their eyes against reason and scripture; yet still it is contended, that the death of Christ cannot be considered as a propitiatory sacrifice. Now, when we find him described as the Lamb of God which taketh away the sins of the world; when we are told, that Christ hath given himself for us, an offering and a sacrifice to God; and that he needed not, like the high-priests under the law, to offer up sacrifice daily, first for his own sins, and then for the people’s; for that this he did once, when he offered up himself; when he is expressly asserted to be the propitiation for our sins; and God is said to have loved us, and to have sent his Son to be the propitiation for our sins; when Isaiah describes his soul as made an offering for sin; when it is said that God spared not his own Son, but delivered him up for us all; and that by him we have received the atonement; when these, and many other such passages are to be found; when every expression referring to the death of Christ, evidently indicates the notion of a sacrifice of atonement and propitiation; when this sacrifice is particularly represented, as of the nature of a sin-offering; which was a species of sacrifice ‘prescribed to be offered upon the commission of an offence, after which the offending person was considered as if he had never sinned;’ it may well appear surprising on what ground it can be questioned, that the death of Christ is pronounced in scripture to have been a sacrifice of atonement and expiation for the sins of men.

It is asserted, that the several passages which seem to speak this language, contain nothing more than figurative allusions: that all that is intended is, that Christ laid down his life for, that is, on account of mankind: and that there being circumstances of resemblance between this event and the sacrifices of the law, terms were borrowed from the latter, to express the former in a manner more lively and impressive. And as a proof that the application of these terms is but figurative, it is contended, 1st. That the death of Christ did not correspond literally and exactly, to the ceremonies of the Mosaic sacrifice: 2dly. That being in different places compared to different kinds of sacrifices, to all of which it could not possibly correspond, it cannot be considered as exactly of the nature of any: and lastly, that there was no such thing as a sacrifice of propitiation or expiation of sin under the Mosaic dispensation at all; this notion having been entirely of Heathen origin.

As to the two first arguments, they deserve but little consideration. The want of an exact similitude to the precise form of the Mosaic sacrifice, is but a slender objection. It might as well be said, that because Christ was not of the species of animal, which had usually been offered up; or because he was not slain in the same manner; or because he was not offered by the high-priest, there could have been no sacrifice. But this is manifest trifling. If the formal notion of a sacrifice for sin, that is, a life offered up in expiation be adhered to, nothing more can be required to constitute it a sacrifice, except by those who mean to cavil, not to discover truth.

Again, as to the second argument, which from the comparison of Christ’s death, to the different kinds of sacrifices, would infer that it was not of the nature of any, it may be replied, that it will more reasonably follow, that it was of the nature of all. Resembling that of the Passover, inasmuch as by it we were delivered from an evil yet greater than that of Egyptian bondage; partaking the nature of the sin offering, as being accepted in expiation of transgression; and similar to the institution of the scape-goat, as bearing the accumulated sins of all: may we not reasonably suppose that this one great sacrifice contained the full import and completion of the whole sacrificial system? And that so far from being spoken of in figure, as bearing some resemblance to the sacrifices of the law, they were on the contrary, as the apostle expressly tells us, but figures, or faint and partial representations of this stupendous sacrifice which had been ordained from the beginning? And besides, it is to be remarked in general, with respect to the figurative application of the sacrificial terms to the death of Christ; that the striking resemblance between that and the sacrifices of the law, which is assigned as the reason of such application, would have produced just the contrary effect upon the sacred writers; since they must have been aware that the constant use of such expressions, aided by the strength of the resemblance, must have laid a foundation for error, in that which constitutes the main doctrine of the Christian faith. Being addressed to a people whose religion was entirely sacrificial, in what but the obvious and literal sense, could the sacrificial representation of the death of Christ have been understood?

We come now to the third and principal objection, which is built upon the assertion, that no sacrifices of atonement (in the sense in which we apply this term to the death of Christ) had existence under the Mosaic law: such as were called by that name having had an entirely different import. Now that certain offerings under this denomination, related to things, and were employed for the purpose of purification, so as to render them fit instruments of the ceremonial worship, must undoubtedly be admitted. That others were again appointed to relieve persons from ceremonial incapacities, so as to restore them to the privilege of joining in the services of the temple, is equally true. But that there were others of a nature strictly propitiatory, and ordained to avert the displeasure of God from the transgressor, not only of the ceremonial, but, in some cases, even of the moral law, will appear manifest upon a very slight examination. Thus we find it decreed, that if a soul sin and commit a trespass against the Lord, and lie unto his neighbour in that which was delivered to him to keep—or have found that which was lost, and lieth concerning it, and SWEARETH FALSELY, then, because he hath sinned in this, he shall not only make restitution to his neighbour—but he shall bring his trespass-offering unto the Lord, a ram without blemish out of the flock; and the priest shall make an ATONEMENT for him before the Lord, and it shall be FORGIVEN HIM. And again in a case of criminal connexion with a bond-maid who was betrothed, the offender is ordered to bring his trespass-offering, and the priest is to make ATONEMENT for him with the trespass-offering, for the sin which he hath done; and the sin which he hath done shall be FORGIVEN him. And in the case of all offences which fell not under the description of presumptuous, it is manifest from the slightest inspection of the book of Leviticus, that the atonement prescribed, was appointed as the means whereby God might be propitiated, or reconciled to the offender.

Again, as to the vicarious import of the Mosaic sacrifice; or, in other words, its expressing an acknowledgment of what the sinner had deserved; this not only seems directly set forth in the account of the first offering in Leviticus, where it is said of the person who brought a free-will offering, he shall lay his hand upon the head of the burnt-offering, and it shall be ACCEPTED FOR him to make atonement for him: but the ceremony of the scape-goat on the day of expiation, appears to place this matter beyond doubt. On this head, however, as not being necessary to my argument, I shall not at present enlarge.

That expiatory sacrifice (in the strict and proper sense of the word) was a part of the Mosaic institution, there remains then, I trust, no sufficient reason to deny. That it existed in like manner amongst the Arabians, in the time of Job, we have already seen. And that its universal prevalence in the Heathen world, though corrupted and disfigured by idolatrous practices, was the result of an original divine appointment, every candid inquirer will find little reason to doubt. But be this as it may, it must be admitted, that propitiatory sacrifices not only existed through the whole Gentile world, but had place under the law of Moses. The argument then, which from the non-existence of such sacrifices amongst the Jews, would deny the term when applied to the death of Christ, to indicate such sacrifice, necessarily falls to the ground.

But, in fact, they who deny the sacrifice of Christ to be a real and proper sacrifice for sin, must, if they are consistent, deny that any such sacrifice ever did exist, by divine appointment. For on what principle do they deny the former, but this?—that the sufferings and death of Christ, for the sins and salvation of men, can make no change in God: cannot render him more ready to forgive, more benevolent than he is in his own nature; and consequently can have no power to avert from the offender the punishment of his transgression. Now, on the same principle, every sacrifice for the expiation of sin, must be impossible. And this explains the true cause why these persons will not admit the language of the New Testament, clear and express as it is, to signify a real and proper sacrifice for sin: and why they feel it necessary to explain away the equally clear and express description of that species of sacrifice in the old. Setting out with a preconceived erroneous notion of its nature, and one which involves a manifest contradiction; they hold themselves justified in rejecting every acceptation of scripture which supports it. But, had they more accurately examined the true import of the term in scripture use, they would have perceived no such contradiction, nor would they have found themselves compelled to refine away by strained and unnatural interpretations, the clear and obvious meaning of the sacred text. They would have seen, that a sacrifice for sin, in scripture language, implies solely this, ‘a sacrifice wisely and graciously appointed by God, the moral governor of the world, to expiate the guilt of sin in such a manner as to avert the punishment of it from the offender.’ To ask why God should have appointed this particular mode, or in what way it can avert the punishment of sin, is to take us back to the general point at issue with the deist, which has been already discussed. With the Christian, who admits redemption under any modification, such matters cannot be subjects of inquiry.

But even to our imperfect apprehension, some circumstances of natural connexion and fitness may be pointed out. The whole may be considered as a sensible and striking representation of a punishment, which the sinner was conscious he deserved from God’s justice: and then, on the part of God, it becomes a public declaration of his holy displeasure against sin, and of his merciful compassion for the sinner; and on the part of the offender, when offered by or for him, it implies a sincere confession of guilt, and a hearty desire of obtaining pardon: and upon the due performance of this service, the sinner is pardoned, and escapes the penalty of his transgression.

This we shall find agreeable to the nature of a sacrifice for sin, as laid down in the Old Testament. Now is there any thing in this degrading to the honour of God; or in the smallest degree inconsistent with the dictates of natural reason? And in this view, what is there in the death of Christ, as a sacrifice for the sins of mankind, that may not in a certain degree, be embraced by our natural notions? For according to the explanation just given, is it not a declaration to the whole world, of the greatness of their sins; and of the proportionate mercy and compassion of God, who had ordained this method, whereby, in a manner consistent with his attributes, his fallen creatures might be again taken into his favour, on their making themselves parties in this great sacrifice: that is, on their complying with those conditions, which, on the received notion of sacrifice, would render them parties in this; namely, an adequate conviction of guilt, a proportionate sense of God’s love, and a firm determination, with an humble faith in the sufficiency of this sacrifice, to endeavour after a life of amendment and obedience? Thus much falls within the reach of our comprehension on this mysterious subject. Whether in the expanded range of God’s moral government, some other end may not be held in view, in the death of his only begotten Son, it is not for us to enquire; nor does it in any degree concern us: what God has been pleased to reveal, it is alone our duty to believe.

One remarkable circumstance indeed there is, in which the sacrifice of Christ differs from all those sacrifices which were offered under the law. Our blessed Lord was not only the Subject of the offering, but the Priest who offered it. Therefore he has become not only a sacrifice, but an intercessor; his intercession being founded upon this voluntary act of benevolence, by which he offered himself without spot to God. We are not only then in virtue of the sacrifice, forgiven; but in virtue of the intercession admitted to favour and grace. And thus the scripture notion of the sacrifice of Christ, includes every advantage, which the advocates for the pure intercession, seek from their scheme of redemption. But it also contains others, which they necessarily lose by the rejection of that notion. It contains the great advantage of impressing mankind with a due sense of their guilt, by compelling a comparison with the immensity of the sacrifice made to redeem them from its effects. It contains that, in short, which is the soul and substance of all Christian virtue—Humility. And the fact is plainly this, that in every attempt to get rid of the scripture doctrine of atonement, we find feelings of a description opposite to this evangelic quality, more or less to prevail: we find a fondness for the opinion of man’s own sufficiency, and an unwillingness to submit with devout and implicit reverence, to the sacred word of revelation.

In the mode of inquiry which has been usually adopted on this subject, one prevailing error deserves to be noticed. The nature of sacrifice, as generally practised and understood, antecedent to the time of Christ, has been first examined; and from that, as a ground of explanation, the notion of Christ’s sacrifice has been derived: whereas, in fact by this, all former sacrifices are to be interpreted; and in reference to it only, can they be understood. From an error so fundamental, it is not wonderful that the greatest perplexities should have arisen concerning the nature of sacrifice in general; and that they should ultimately fall with cumulative confusion on the nature of that particular sacrifice, to the investigation of which fanciful and mistaken theories had been assumed as guides. Thus, whilst some have presumptuously attributed the early and universal practice of sacrifice, to an irrational and superstitious fear of an imagined sanguinary divinity; and have been led in defiance of the express language of revelation, to reject and ridicule the notion of sacrifice, as originating only in the grossness of superstition: others, not equally destitute of reverence for the sacred word, and consequently not treating this solemn rite with equal disrespect, have yet ascribed its origin to human invention; and have thereby been compelled to account for the divine institution of the Jewish sacrifices as a mere accommodation to prevailing practice; and consequently to admit, even the sacrifice of Christ itself to have grown out of, and been adapted to, this creature of human excogitation.

Of this latter class, the theories, as might be expected, are various. In one, sacrifices are represented in the light of gifts, intended to sooth and appease the Supreme Being, in like manner as they are found to conciliate the favour of men: in another, they are considered as federal rites, a kind of eating and drinking with God, as it were at his table, and thereby implying the being restored to a state of friendship with him, by repentance and confession of sins: in a third, they are described as but symbolical actions, or a more expressive language, denoting the gratitude of the offerer, in such as are eucharistical; and in those that are expiatory, the acknowledgment of, and contrition for sin strongly expressed by the death of the animal, representing that death which the offerer confessed to be his own desert.

To these different hypotheses, which in the order of their enumeration, claim respectively the names of Spencer, Sykes, and Warburton, it may generally be replied, that the fact of Abel’s sacrifice seems inconsistent with them all: with the first, inasmuch as it must have been antecedent to those distinctions of property, on which alone experience of the effects of gifts upon men could have been founded: with the second, inasmuch as it took place several ages prior to that period, at which both the words of scripture, and the opinions of the wisest commentators have fixed the permission of animal food to man: with the third, inasmuch as the language, which scripture expressly states to have been derived to our first parents from divine instruction, cannot be supposed so defective in those terms that related to the worship of God, as to have rendered it necessary for Abel to call in the aid of actions, to express the sentiment of gratitude or sorrow; and still less likely is it that he would have resorted to that species of action, which in the eye of reason, must have appeared displeasing to God, the slaughter of an unoffending animal.

To urge these topics of objection in their full force, against the several theories I have mentioned, would lead to a discussion far exceeding the due limits of a discourse from this place. I therefore dismiss them for the present. Nor shall I, in refutation of the general idea of the human invention of sacrifice, enlarge upon the universality of the practice; the sameness of the notion of its efficacy, pervading nations and ages the most remote; and the unreasonableness of supposing any natural connexion between the slaying of an animal, and the receiving pardon for the violation of God’s laws,—all of which appear decisive against that idea. But, as both the general idea and the particular theories which have endeavoured to reconcile to it the nature and origin of sacrifice, have been caused by a departure from the true and only source of knowledge; let us return to that sacred fountain, and whilst we endeavour to establish the genuine scripture notion of sacrifice, at the same time provide the best refutation of every other.

It requires but little acquaintance with scripture to know that the lesson which it every where inculcates, is, that man by disobedience had fallen under the displeasure of his Maker; that to be reconciled to his favour, and restored to the means of acceptable obedience, a Redeemer was appointed, and that this Redeemer laid down his life to procure for repentant sinners forgiveness and acceptance. This surrender of life has been called by the sacred writers a sacrifice; and the end attained by it, expiation or atonement. With such as have been desirous to reduce Christianity to a mere moral system, it has been a favourite object to represent this sacrifice as entirely figurative founded only in allusion and similitude to the sacrifices of the law; whereas, that this is spoken of by the sacred writers, as a real and proper sacrifice, to which those under the law bore respect but as types or shadows, is evident from various passages of holy writ, but more particularly from the epistle to the Hebrews; in which it is expressly said, that the law having a shadow of good things to come, can never with those sacrifices which they offered year by year continually, make the comers thereunto perfect;—but this man, after he had offered one sacrifice for sins, for ever sat down on the right hand of God. And again, when the writer of this epistle speaks of the high-priest entering into the holy of holies with the blood of the sacrifice, he asserts, that this was a figure for the time then present, in which were offered both gifts and sacrifices, that could not make him that did the service perfect; but Christ being come, an high priest of good things to come; not by the blood of goats and calves, but by his own blood, he entered once into the holy place, having obtained eternal redemption for us; for, he adds, if the blood of bulls and of goats sanctifieth to the purifying of the flesh, how much more shall the blood of Christ, who through the eternal Spirit, offered himself without spot to God, purge your conscience from dead works to serve the living God? It must be unnecessary to detail more of the numerous passages which go to prove that the sacrifice of Christ was a true and effective sacrifice, whilst those of the law were but faint representations, and inadequate copies, intended for its introduction.

Now, if the sacrifices of the Law appear to have been but preparations for this one great sacrifice, we are naturally led to consider whether the same may not be asserted of sacrifice from the beginning: and whether we are not warranted by scripture, in pronouncing the entire rite to have been ordained by God, as a type of that ONE SACRIFICE, in which all others were to have their consummation.

That the institution was of divine ordinance, may, in the first instance, be reasonably inferred from the strong and sensible attestation of the divine acceptance of sacrifice in the case of Abel, again in that of Noah, afterwards in that of Abraham, and also from the systematic establishment of it by the same divine authority, in the dispensation of Moses. And whether we consider the book of Job as the production of Moses; or of that pious worshipper of the true God, among the descendants of Abraham, whose name it bears; or of some other person who lived a short time after, and composed it from the materials left by Job himself: the representation there made of God, as prescribing sacrifices to the friends of Job, in every supposition exhibits a strong authority, and of high antiquity, upon this question.

These few facts, which I have stated, unaided by any comment, and abstracting altogether from the arguments which embarrass the contrary hypothesis, and to which I have already alluded, might perhaps be sufficient to satisfy an inquiring and candid mind, that sacrifice must have had its origin in DIVINE INSTITUTION. But if in addition, this rite, as practised in the earliest ages, shall be found connected with the sacrifice of Christ, confessedly of divine appointment: little doubt can reasonably remain on this head. Let us then examine more particularly the circumstance of the first sacrifice offered up by Abel.

It is clear from the words of scripture, that both Cain and Abel made oblations to the Lord. It is clear also, notwithstanding the well known fanciful interpretation of an eminent commentator, that Abel’s was an animal sacrifice. It is no less clear, that Abel’s was accepted, whilst that of Cain was rejected. Now what could have occasioned the distinction? The acknowledgment of the Supreme Being and of his universal dominion, was no less strong in the offering of the fruits of the earth by Cain, than in that of the firstlings of the flock by Abel: the intrinsic efficacy of the gift must have been the same in each, each giving of the best that he possessed; the expression of gratitude, equally significant and forcible in both. How then is the difference to be explained? If we look to the writer to the Hebrews, he informs us, that the ground on which Abel’s oblation was preferred to that of Cain, was, that Abel offered his in faith; and the criterion of this faith also appears to have been, in the opinion of this writer, the animal sacrifice. The words are remarkable—By faith Abel offered unto God a more excellent sacrifice than Cain, by which he obtained witness that he was righteous, God testifying of his gifts. The words here translated, a more excellent sacrifice, are in an early version rendered a much more sacrifice, which phrase, though uncouth in form, adequately conveys the original. The meaning then is, that by faith Abel offered that which was much more of the true nature of sacrifice than what had been offered by Cain. Abel consequently was directed by faith, and this faith was manifested in the nature of his offering. What then are we to infer?—Without some revelation granted, some assurance held out as the object of faith, Abel could not have exercised this virtue: and without some peculiar mode of sacrifice enjoined, he could not have exemplified his faith by an appropriate offering. The offering made, we have already seen, was that of an animal. Let us consider whether this could have a connexion with any divine assurance communicated at that early day.

It is obvious that the promise made to our first parents, conveyed an intimation of some future deliverer, who should overcome the tempter that had drawn man from his innocence, and remove those evils which had been occasioned by the fall. This assurance, without which, or some other ground of hope, it seems difficult to conceive how the principle of religion could have had place among men, became to our first parents the grand object of faith. To perpetuate this fundamental article of religious belief among the descendants of Adam, some striking memorial of the fall of man, and of the promised deliverance, would naturally be appointed. And if we admit that the scheme of redemption by the death of the only begotten Son of God, was determined from the beginning; that is, if we admit that when God had ordained the deliverance of man, he had ordained the means: if we admit that Christ was the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world; what memorial could be devised more apposite than that of animal sacrifice?—exemplifying, by the slaying of the victim, the death which had been denounced against man’s disobedience:—thus exhibiting the awful lesson of that death which was the wages of sin, and at the same time representing that death which was actually to be undergone by the Redeemer of mankind:—and hereby connecting in one view, the two great cardinal events in the history of man, the FALL, and the RECOVERY: the death denounced against sin, and the death appointed for that Holy One who was to lay down his life to deliver man from the consequences of sin. The institution of animal sacrifice seems then to have been peculiarly significant, as containing all the elements of religious knowledge: and the adoption of this rite, with sincere and pious feelings, would at the same time imply an humble sense of the unworthiness of the offerer; a confession that death which was inflicted on the victim, was the desert of those sins which had arisen from man’s transgression; and a full reliance upon the promises of deliverance, joined to an acquiescence in the means appointed for its accomplishment.

If this view of the matter be just, there is nothing improbable even in the supposition that that part of the signification of the rite which related to the sacrifice of Christ, might have been in some degree made known from the beginning. But not to contend for this, (scripture having furnished no express foundation for the assumption,) room for the exercise of faith is equally preserved, on the idea that animal sacrifice was enjoined in the general as the religious sign of faith in the promise of redemption, without any intimation of the way in which it became a sign. Agreeably to these principles, we shall find but little difficulty in determining on what ground it was that Abel’s offering was accepted, whilst that of Cain was rejected. Abel, in firm reliance on the promise of God, and in obedience to his command, offered that sacrifice which had been enjoined as the religious expression of his faith; whilst Cain, disregarding the gracious assurances that had been vouchsafed, or at least disdaining to adopt the prescribed mode of manifesting his belief, possibly as not appearing to his reason to possess any efficacy or natural fitness, thought he had sufficiently acquitted himself of his duty in acknowledging the general superintendance of God, and expressing his gratitude to the Supreme Benefactor, by presenting some of those good things which he thereby confessed to have been derived from his bounty. In short, Cain, the first-born of the fall, exhibits the first fruits of his parents’ disobedience, in the arrogance and self-sufficiency of reason, rejecting the aids of revelation, because they fell not within its apprehension of right. He takes the first place in the annals of deism, and displays, in his proud rejection of the ordinance of sacrifice, the same spirit, which, in later days, has actuated his enlightened followers, in rejecting the sacrifice of Christ.

This view of the subject receives strength, from the terms of expostulation in which God addresses Cain, on his expressing resentment at the rejection of his offering, and the acceptance of Abel’s. The words in the present version are, if thou doest well, shalt thou not be accepted?—and if thou doest not well, sin lieth at the door—which words, as they stand connected in the context, supply no very satisfactory meaning, and have long served to exercise the ingenuity of commentators to but little purpose. But if the word, which is here translated SIN, be rendered, as we find it in a great variety of passages in the Old Testament, a SIN OFFERING, the reading of the passage then becomes, if thou doest well, shalt thou not be accepted? and if thou doest not well, a sin offering lieth even at the door. The connexion is thus rendered evident. God rebukes Cain for not conforming to that species of sacrifice which had been offered by Abel. He refers to it as a matter of known injunction; and hereby points out the ground of distinction in his treatment of him, and his brother: and thus, in direct terms, enforces the observance of animal sacrifice.

As that part of my general position, which pronounces sacrifice to have been of divine institution, receives support from the passage just recited; so to that part of it which maintains that this rite bore an aspect to the sacrifice of Christ, additional evidence may be derived from the language of the writer to the Hebrews, inasmuch as he places the blood of Abel’s sacrifice in direct comparison with the blood of Christ, which he styles pre-eminently the blood of sprinkling: and represents both as speaking good things, in different degrees. What then is the result of the foregoing reflections?—The sacrifice of Abel was an animal sacrifice. This sacrifice was accepted. The ground of this acceptance was the faith in which it was offered. Scripture assigns no other object of this faith but the promise of a Redeemer: and of this faith, the offering of an animal in sacrifice, appears to have been the legitimate, and consequently the instituted, expression. The institution of animal sacrifice then, was coeval with the fall, and had a reference to the sacrifice of our redemption. But as it had also an immediate and most apposite application to that important event in the condition of man, which, as being the occasion of, was essentially connected with the work of redemption, that likewise we have reason to think was included in its signification. And thus, upon the whole, SACRIFICE appears to have been ordained as a standing memorial of the death introduced by sin, and of that death which was to be suffered by the Redeemer.

We accordingly find this institution of animal sacrifice continue until the giving of the law. No other offering than that of an animal being recorded in scripture down to this period, except in the case of Cain, and that we have seen was rejected. The sacrifices of Noah and of Abraham are stated to have been burnt-offerings. Of the same kind also were the sin-offerings presented by Job, he being said to have offered burnt-offerings according to the number of his sons, lest some of them might have sinned in their hearts. But when we come to the promulgation of the law, we find the connexion between animal sacrifice and atonement, or reconciliation with God, clearly and distinctly announced. It is here declared that sacrifices for sin should, on conforming to certain prescribed modes of oblation, be accepted as the means of deliverance from the penal consequences of transgression. And with respect to the peculiar efficacy of animal sacrifice, we find this remarkable declaration,—the life of the flesh is in the blood, and I have given it to you upon the altar, to make atonement for the soul: in reference to which words, the sacred writer formally pronounces, that without shedding of blood there is no remission. Now in what conceivable light can we view this institution, but in relation to that great sacrifice which was to make atonement for sins: to that blood of sprinkling, which was to speak better things than that of Abel, or that of the law. The law itself is said to have had respect solely unto him. To what else can the principal institution of the law refer?—an institution too, which unless so referred appears utterly unmeaning. The offering up an animal cannot be imagined to have had any intrinsic efficacy in procuring pardon for the transgression of the offerer. The blood of bulls and of goats could have possessed no virtue, whereby to cleanse him from his offences. Still less intelligible is the application of the blood of the victim to the purifying of the parts of the tabernacle, and the apparatus of the ceremonial worship. All this can clearly have had no other than an instituted meaning; and can be understood only as in reference to some blood-shedding, which in an eminent degree possessed the power of purifying from pollution. In short, admit the sacrifice of Christ to be held in view in the institutions of the law, and every part is plain and intelligible; reject that notion, and every theory devised by the ingenuity of man, to explain the nature of the ceremonial worship, becomes trifling and inconsistent.

Granting then the case of the Mosaic sacrifice and that of Abel’s to be the same; neither of them in itself efficacious; both instituted by God; and both instituted in reference to that true and efficient sacrifice, which was one day to be offered: the rite, as practised before the time of Christ, may justly be considered as a SACRAMENTAL MEMORIAL, showing forth the Lord’s death until he came; and when accompanied with a due faith in the promises made to the early believers, may reasonable be judged to have been equally acceptable with that sacramental memorial, which has been enjoined by our Lord himself to his followers, for the showing forth his death until his coming again. And it deserves to be noticed that this very analogy seems to be intimated by our Lord, in the language used by him at the institution of that solemn Christian rite. For in speaking of his own blood, he calls it, in direct reference to the blood wherewith Moses established and sanctified the first covenant, the blood of the NEW covenant, which was shed for the remission of sins: thus plainly marking out the similitude in the nature and objects of the two covenants, at the moment that he was prescribing the great sacramental commemoration of his own sacrifice.

From this view of the subject, the history of scripture sacrifice becomes consistent throughout. The sacrifice of Abel, and the patriarchal sacrifices down to the giving of the law, record and exemplify those momentous events in the history of man,—the death incurred by sin, and that inflicted on our Redeemer. When length of time, and mistaken notions of religion leading to idolatry and every perversion of the religious principle, had so far clouded and obscured this expressive act, of primeval worship, that it had ceased to be considered by the nations of the world in that reference in which its true value consisted: when the mere rite remained, without any remembrance of the promises, and consequently unaccompanied by that faith in their fulfilment, which was to render it an acceptable service: when the nations, deifying every passion of the human heart, and erecting altars to every vice, poured forth the blood of the victim, but to deprecate the wrath, or satiate the vengeance of each offended deity: when with the recollection of the true God, all knowledge of the true worship was effaced from the minds of men: and when joined to the absurdity of the sacrificial rites, their cruelty, devoting to the malignity of innumerable sanguinary gods endless multitudes of human victims, demanded the divine interference; then we see a people peculiarly selected, to whom, by express revelation, the knowledge of the one God is restored, and the species of worship ordained by him from the beginning, particularly enjoined. The principal part of the Jewish service, we accordingly find to consist of sacrifice; to which the virtue of expiation and atonement is expressly annexed: and in the manner of it, the particulars appear so minutely set forth, that when the object of the whole law should be brought to light, no doubt could remain as to its intended application. The Jewish sacrifices therefore seem to have been designed, as those from the beginning had been, to prefigure that one, which was to make atonement for all mankind. And as in this all were to receive their consummation, so with this they all conclude: and the institution closes with the completion of its object. But, as the gross perversions, which had pervaded the Gentile world, had reached likewise to the chosen people; and as the temptations to idolatry, which surrounded them on all sides, were so powerful as perpetually to endanger their adherence to the God of their fathers, we find the ceremonial service adapted to their carnal habits. And since the law itself, with its accompanying sanctions, seems to have been principally temporal; so the worship it enjoins is found to have been for the most part, rather a public and solemn declaration of allegiance to the true God in opposition to the Gentile idolatries, than a pure and spiritual obedience in moral and religious matters, which was reserved for that more perfect system, appointed to succeed in due time, when the state of mankind would permit.

That the sacrifices of the law should therefore have chiefly operated to the cleansing from external impurities, and to the rendering persons or things fit to approach God in the exercises of the ceremonial worship; whilst at the same time they were designed to prefigure the sacrifice of Christ, which was purely spiritual, and possessed the transcendant virtue of atoning for all moral pollution, involves in it no inconsistency whatever, since in this the true proportion of the entire dispensations is preserved. And to this point, it is particularly necessary that our attention should be directed, in the examination of the present subject; as upon the apparent disproportion in the objects and effects of sacrifice in the Mosaic and Christian schemes, the principal objections against their intended correspondence have been founded.

The sacrifices of the law then being preparatory to that of Christ; the law itself being but a schoolmaster to bring us to Christ; the sacred writers in the New Testament, naturally adopt the sacrificial terms of the ceremonial service, and by their reference to the use of them as employed under the law, clearly point out the sense in which they are to be understood in their application under the gospel. In examining, then, the meaning of such terms, when they occur in the New Testament, we are clearly directed to the explanation that is circumstantially given of them in the Old. Thus, when we find the virtue of atonement attributed to the sacrifice of Christ, in like manner as it had been to those under the law; by attending to the representation so minutely given of it in the latter, we are enabled to comprehend its true import in the former.

Of the several sacrifices under the law, that one which seems most exactly to illustrate the sacrifice of Christ, and which is expressly compared with it by the writer to the Hebrews, is that which was offered for the whole assembly on the solemn anniversary of expiation. The circumstances of this ceremony, whereby atonement was to be made for the sins of the whole Jewish people, seem so strikingly significant, that they deserve a particular detail. On the day appointed for this general expiation, the priest is commanded to offer a bullock and a goat as sin-offerings, the one for himself, and the other for the people: and having sprinkled the blood of these in due form before the mercy-seat, to lead forth a second goat, denominated the scape-goat; and after laying both his hands upon the head of the scape-goat, and confessing over him all the iniquities of the people, to put them upon the head of the goat, and to send the animal, thus bearing the sins of the people, away into the wilderness: in this manner expressing by an action, which cannot be misunderstood, that the atonement, which it is directly affirmed was to be effected by the sacrifice of the sin-offering, consisted in removing from the people their iniquities by this symbolical translation to the animal. For it is to be remarked, that the ceremony of the scape-goat is not a distinct one: it is a continuation of the process, and is evidently the concluding part and symbolical consummation of the sin-offering. So that the transfer of the iniquities of the people upon the head of the scape-goat, and the bearing them away to the wilderness, manifestly imply that the atonement effected by the sacrifice of the sin-offering, consisted in the transfer and consequent removal of those iniquities. What then are we taught to infer from this ceremony?—That as the atonement under the law, or expiation of the legal transgressions, was represented as a translation of those transgressions, in the act of sacrifice in which the animal was slain, and the people thereby cleansed from their legal impurities, and released from the penalties which had been incurred; so the great atonement for the sins of mankind was to be effected by the sacrifice of Christ, undergoing for the restoration of men to the favour of God, that death which had been denounced against sin; and which he suffered in like manner as if the sins of men had been actually transferred to him, as those of the congregation had been symbolically transferred to the sin-offering of the people.

That this is the true meaning of the atonement effected by Christ’s sacrifice, receives the fullest confirmation from every part of both the Old and the New Testament: and that thus far the death of Christ is vicarious, cannot be denied without a total desregard of the sacred writings.

It has indeed been asserted, by those who oppose the doctrine of atonement as thus explained, that nothing vicarious appears in the Mosaic sacrifices. With what justice this assertion has been made, may be judged from the instance of the sin-offering that has been adduced. The transfer to the animal of the iniquities of the people, (which must necessarily mean the transfer of their penal effects, or the subjecting the animal to suffer on account of those iniquities)—this accompanied with the death of the victim; and the consequence of the whole being the removal of the punishment of those iniquities from the offerers, and the ablution of all legal offensiveness in the sight of God:—thus much of the nature of vicarious, the language of the Old Testament justifies us in attaching to the notion of atonement. Less than this we are clearly not at liberty to attach to it. And what the law thus sets forth as its express meaning, directly determines that which we must attribute to the great atonement of which the Mosaic ceremony was but a type: always remembering carefully to distinguish between the figure and the substance; duly adjusting their relative value and extent; estimating the efficacy of the one as real, intrinsic, and universal; whilst that of the other is to be viewed as limited, derived, and emblematic.

It must be confessed, that to the principles on which the doctrine of the Christian atonement has been explained in this, representation of it, several objections, in addition to those already noticed, have been advanced. These, however, cannot now be examined in this place. The most important have been discussed; and as for such as remain, I trust that to a candid mind, the general view of the subject which has been given, will prove sufficient for their refutation.”

Dr. Magee.

[169]. England.

[170]. See Whitby’s discourse, &c. page 110-112.

[171]. See Quest. LV.

[172]. See Page [178], [179], ante.

[173]. See Page [169], [170], ante.

[174]. See Page [190], ante.

[175]. See Vol. I. Page 477, 480.

[176]. Tabula post naufragium.

[177]. See this insisted on, and farther explained, in answer to an objection to the same purpose, against the doctrine of particular election, in Vol. I. page 508, 509.

[178]. Passiones tribuuntur Deo quoad effectum.

[179]. See Whitby’s Discourse, page 145, 146.

[180]. See Page [195], [197], ante.

[181]. See Whitby’s Discourse, &c. page 113.

[182]. Vid. Eras. in loc.

[183]. Συνεκλεισε γαρ ο Θεος τους παντας εις απειθειαν, ἱνα τους παντας ελεηση.

[184]. εν τω πονηρω.

[185]. It may be observed, that as in the scriptures before mentioned, the same word απεθανον is used in the same tense, namely, the second aorist, which our translators think fit to render in the present tense; and therefore it may as well be rendered here in the present tense, and so the meaning is, You all for whom Christ died are dead.

[186]. Το απολωλος.

[187]. See Page 501. Vol. I.

[188]. See Quest. LXXIX.

[189]. “That the atonement is infinitely full or sufficient for all mankind, is evident from the infinite dignity and excellence of the Saviour, and from the nature of the atonement. The Saviour, as has been already observed, was in his divine nature God over all, one with the Father, and equal with him in all divine perfection. And being thus a person of infinite dignity and worth, it gave an infinite value or efficacy to his obedience, sufferings and death, and thus rendered his atonement infinitely full.——

It appears from express declarations of scripture, that Christ has died for all mankind, or has made an atonement sufficient for all. Thus it is declared, ‘That he by the grace of God should taste death for every man, and that he is the Saviour of all men, especially of those that believe.’ These passages clearly teach, that the Saviour has died, or made atonement for all mankind, and it seems, that the last of them cannot rationally be understood in any other sense. For it expressly declares, that he is the Saviour, not of those who believe only, but of all men in distinction from these. Therefore his atonement must have had respect to all the human race. Accordingly Christ is called ‘The Lamb of God which taketh away the sin of the world; and the Saviour of the world.’ The apostle John, addressing Christians, says, ‘He is the propitiation for our sins, and not for ours only, but also for the sins of the whole world.’ Here also Jesus Christ is declared to be the propitiation for the sins of the whole world, in distinction from those of believers. These, and other similar passages teach in the clearest manner, that Christ has made an atonement for all mankind, or for the whole world. It seems hardly possible for words to express this sentiment more clearly than it is expressed in these passages; and some of them will not admit of any other sense, without a very forced, unnatural construction.

Should it be said, that such expressions as all men, the world, &c. must sometimes be understood in a limited or restricted sense; it may be answered, that it is an established, invariable rule, that all phrases, or passages of scripture are to be understood in their most plain, easy, and literal import, unless the connexion, the general analogy of faith, or some other necessary considerations require a different sense. But in the present case it does not appear, that any of these considerations require, that these passages should be understood in any other than their plain, natural meaning.—

That the atonement is sufficient for all mankind, is evident from the consideration, that the calls, invitations and offers of the gospel are addressed to all, without exception, in the most extensive language. It is said, ‘Look unto me, and be ye saved, all the ends of the earth. Whosoever will, let him take the water of life freely. Ho, every one that thirsteth, come ye to the waters, and he that hath no money: come ye, buy and eat, yea, come, buy wine and milk without money, and without price. Go, and preach the gospel to every creature.’ The preachers of the gospel are directed to tell their hearers, that all things are ready—that all may come, who will, and are to invite and urge all, to come to the gospel feast and freely partake of the blessings of salvation. But how could the offer of salvation be consistently thus made to all without any limitation; if the atonement was sufficient but for a part or for the elect only? On this supposition it could not with truth and propriety be said to all, that all things are ready, plentiful provisions are made for all, and whosoever will, may come. Were a feast, sufficient but for fifty provided: could we consistently send invitations to a thousand, and tell them that a plentiful feast was prepared, and that all things were ready for their entertainment, if they would but come? Would not such an invitation appear like a deception? If so, then the offer and invitation of the gospel could not have been made to all without discrimination, as they are; if there was no atonement, but for a part. As therefore the invitations of the gospel are thus addressed to all, it is a proof that Christ has made an atonement for all mankind.

Again, the scripture represents, that there is no difficulty in the way of the salvation of the impenitent, but what arises from their own opposition of heart or will. Thus the Lord Jesus says to the unbelieving Jews, ‘Ye will not come unto, me, that ye may have life. O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, how often would I have gathered thy children—and ye would not.’ In the parable of the marriage supper, it is represented, that there was no difficulty in the way to prevent those who were invited, from partaking of the feast, but their own unwillingness to come. But if there was no atonement made but for those only who are saved; then there would be an insurmountable difficulty in the way of the salvation of all others, aside from the one arising from their own opposition of heart. As therefore the scripture teaches, that there is no difficulty in the way of the salvation of any under the gospel, but what arises from their own unwillingness, or wicked opposition of heart, it is manifest, that there is an atonement for all.

The word of God teaches, that it is the duty of all, who are acquainted with the gospel, to believe in the Lord Jesus, and trust in him as their Redeemer, and that they are very criminal for neglecting to do this. It is therefore declared in the sacred scriptures, that it is the command of God, ‘that we should believe on the name of his Son Jesus Christ, and that those, who believe not, are condemned already, because they have not believed on the name of the only begotten Son of God.’

It is manifest from the various reasons which have been suggested, that the atonement of Jesus Christ is infinitely full, or sufficient for the salvation of all mankind, if they would but cordially receive it, and that the want of such an atonement, is not the reason, why all are not saved.——

It will no more follow, that all will be saved, because the atonement is sufficient for all, than it would, that all would eat of the marriage supper in the parable, because it was sufficient for all, and all were invited. This parable was designed to represent the gospel and its invitations.—As those, who neglected the invitation, never tasted of the supper, although the provisions were plentiful for all; so the scriptures teach, that many will not comply with the terms and invitations of the gospel, and partake of its blessings, although the atonement is abundantly sufficient for all. For the Saviour declares, that “many are called, but few are chosen, and strait is the gate and narrow is the way which leadeth unto life, and few there be that find it.”

Connecticut Evang. Mag.

Such interpretation of Scripture does not require the admission that the atonement was absolutely indefinite. Christ might know his sheep and die for them, and yet, by the same covenant or purpose procure terms for others which he knew they would reject.

[190]. See Quest. LV.

[191]. See Quest. LXII, LXIII.

[192]. See Quest. LXXVIII.

[193]. See Page [257].

[194]. Vid. Burnet. Tellur. Theor. Lib. iv.

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

[196]. Vid. Aug. de Civ. Dei. Lib. XX. cap. 7.

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

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

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

[200]. Moriar ut videam.

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

[202]. Vid. Aug. de civ. Dei, Lib. xx. cap. 7.

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

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

[205]. Vid. Aug. de Civ. Dei. Lib. XX. cap. 7.

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

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

[208]. Εαυτον εκενωσε.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[218]. Vid. Sozom. Hist. Eccl. Lib. I. cap. 8.

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

[220]. See Lowth in loc.

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

[222]. Vid. Institut. Lib. II. cap. 16. § 10.

[223]. Vid. Pearson on the Creed, Artic. 5.

[224]. Vid. History of the apostles Creed.

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

[226]. This they call Limbus Patrum.

[227]. See Vol. I. page 54, 55, and page 209, ante.

[228]. 1 Peter iii. 18. describes the sufferings, death, and resurrection of Christ, as encouragement for the suffering saints. There are no prepositions before σαρκς, and πνευματι (flesh and spirit:) our translators have taken the former as the dative of the part affected, the latter as the dative of the cause; and have expressed the former by in, the latter by by. Some preposition, or prepositions must be inserted in the translation. It is said, to preserve the antithesis, the same should be repeated, and so it will be; “Was quickened in the Spirit,” which will refer to his human soul. But his human soul was not dead, and could not be quickened. And it is absurd to substitute the adjective quick, (as Dr. Horseley has done) for this is to make, not translate scripture. Nor could his human soul quicken his body; it was the power of God, whether we understand by Spirit his divine nature, the person of the Father, or of the Holy Spirit. Now as the word Spirit here cannot mean his human soul, this passage will not prove that it went to any place, or prison, whatever.

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

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

[229]. שאול and Αδης.

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

[231]. This they call νυχθημερον.

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

[233]. See Quest. IX, XI.

[234]. See the notes on Rom. iv. 25.

[235]. See Quest. LXX, LXXII.

[236]. See Page 182, ante.

[237]. See Quest. LXXXVII.

[238]. See Vol. I. page 347.

[239]. See Page [393].

[240]. See Quest. lxii, lxiii.

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

[242]. See Page [235].

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

[244]. Κελευσμα.

[245]. See Quest. LXXXVIII.-XC.

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

[247]. See Vol. I. page 291, 292.

[248]. See page [185], [187], [322], [324].

[249]. See Quest. lxxii.

[250]. See Quest. LXXXIX.

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

[252]. υπεριδων.

[253]. το γνωστον του Θεου.

[254]. See page [266]-268.

[255]. See I. Vol. 458, 459.

[256]. Vid. Bez. in loc.

[257]. εκκλησια.

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

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

[260]. Κατ οικον.

[261]. See page [432], & seq.

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

[263]. ערה.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

MC’LEOD’S CATECHISM.

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

[266]. Vid. Cypr. de Laps. cap. 1. § 13.

[267]. See his Works, Vol. I. page 924, 925.

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

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

[270]. Προσευχαι, Proseuchæ. Ευκτηρια, προσευκτηρια, Oratoria.

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

[272]. See Vol. I. page 608.

[273]. Εν τη προσυεχη του Θεου, in proseucha Dei.

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

[275]. See Quest. CLXX. CLXXIV.

[276]. Imperium in imperio.

[277]. Αυτοκατακριτος.

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

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

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

[281]. Vid. Tert. Apol. cap. 39. Summum futuri judicii præjudicium.

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

[283]. Vid. Cave’s Prim. Christ. Part. III. cap. 5.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

M’Leod’s Eccl. Cat.

[286]. See Quest. clviii. clix.

[287]. συμπρεσβυτερας.

[288]. επισκοπουντες.

[289]. Legatus.

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

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

[292]. See Primitive Episcopacy, Page 189-197.

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

[294]. See Stillingfleet Iren. Page 276.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Christian’s Magazine.

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

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

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

[299]. Vid. Blondel. Apol. pro Sent. Hieron.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

M’Leod’s Eccl. Cat.

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

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

[307]. Vid. Greg. Naz. Epist. 42. ad Procop.

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

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

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

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

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

[313]. Christ has not lodged church-power in the hands of diocesan bishops, that bear rule over preaching presbyters. (1.) The scriptures expressly forbid all lordly dominion in the church, 3 John 9. 1 Pet. v. 3. Luke xxii. 25, 26. Matt. xx. 25, 26. Not tyrannical, but lordly dominion, however mild, is here prohibited. The Greek word expressing it is used by the SEVENTY in Gen. i. 28. Psalm lxxii. 8. cx. 2. to express dominion, which none dare pretend to be tyrannical.—How absurd to imagine, that the mother of James and John asked a tyrannical power for her sons from Christ! Or that he, who acknowledged Cæsar’s authority, Matt. xxii. 21. would represent all heathen rulers as tyrants! (2.) Bishops and Presbyters are represented as the very same officers in scripture. Several bishops or overseers were at Ephesus, all of whom are called elders or presbyters, Acts xx. 17, 28. Several bishops governed the church in Philippi, no great city, having no inferior officers but deacons, Phil. i. 1. 1 Tim. iii. 3. The reason why elders or presbyters must be of good report is, that bishops must be blameless; which marks them the same, Tit. i. 5, 6. Elders must feed God’s flock EPISCOPOUNTES, acting the part of bishops over them, 1 Pet. v. 2, 3. Judas had a bishopric, Acts i. 20. Peter and John, not inferior apostles, were presbyters, 1 Pet. v. 1. 2 John i. (3.) The power of ordaining pastors, which diocesans claim for their distinguishing prerogative, is, by the scripture, placed in no standing church-officer, but in the presbytery, or meeting of elders. Nay, where elders were ordained, even the apostles did not by themselves ordain pastors, but concurred as members of the presbytery, 2 Tim. i. 6. 1 Tim. iv. 14.

To anticipate objections, it must be observed, (1.) That the TWELVE and the SEVENTY disciples whom Christ, before his death, appointed to preach the gospel, had all of them equal power and authority, and but a temporary commission, Matt. x. Luke x. 1-21. (2.) The apostleship for life bestowed on several after his resurrection, was an extraordinary office, in which they had no successors. (3.) That neither Timothy nor Titus were fixed diocesans, but itinerant evangelists, who either travelled with the apostles, or were sent by them to supply their place, 1 Thess. i. 1. 2 Thess. i. 1. Rom. xvi. 21. Heb. xiii. 23. Col. i. 1. Phil. ii. 19. 2 Cor. i. 1. 1 Cor. iv. 17. xvi. 10. 2 Cor. i. 19. iii. 2. 1 Tim. i. 3. 2 Tim. iv. 9, 10. 12. Gal. ii. 3. 2 Cor. ii. 13. vii. 6, 7. viii. 16, 23. xii. 18. Tit. iii. 12. (4.) That the angels of the Asian churches were not diocesan bishops, but their pastors in general: and hence one angel is sometimes addressed as several persons, Rev. ii. 10, 24. (5.) That for the first three hundred years of the Christian church, such as moderated in their courts, or were more aged, or had more noted congregations, were often called bishops: and, in the last case, had other ordained preachers to assist them, and to officiate in case of their imprisonment or death. But we have no decisive proof of any diocesan lords. Nor do any, except the principal pastors of Rome, seem to have struggled hard for such a pre-eminence. (6.) That no Protestant church, except in England and Ireland, is governed by diocesan bishops, properly so called, though indeed the almost nominal ones of Sweden and Denmark would gladly be such. (7.) That almost all the noted primitive doctors of the Christian church grant that diocesan Episcopacy has no foundation in scripture. (8.) Scarcely one argument hath ever been produced for the support of diocesan Episcopacy, but hath been effectually overturned by some other learned prelatist; nor indeed can they combat the Popish government without destroying their own. (9.) Diocesan bishops, as such, have never been any honour to the church, or centre of unity: but have often been introducers and supporters of Popish abominations.

If Christ has not lodged church-power in the community of the faithful, or in magistrates, or in diocesan bishops, he must have placed it in officers of his own appointment, Matt. xvi. 19. xviii. 18-20. 2 Cor. x. 8. Heb. xiii. 7, 17. 1 Tim. v. 17. 1 Thess. v. 12.—Some of these were EXTRAORDINARY, appointed for the first erection of the gospel-church. (1.) Apostles, who had an immediate commission from Christ equally extended to all nations, as occasions offered,—were privileged with an infallibility in their doctrine;—had a constant power of working miracles as directed by God, and of speaking languages which they had never learned;—had power to confer the miraculous influences of the Holy Ghost on others, and of sending forth evangelists, or by themselves ordaining presbyters and deacons, Mark xvi. 15-20. Acts i.-xxi. (2.) Evangelists, who assisted the apostles in planting or watering churches, and, by their direction, ordained presbyters and deacons, and erected judicatories in infant churches. (3.) Prophets, who explained dark passages of scripture, and sometimes foretold future events, 1 Cor. xiv. 29-32. Acts xi. 28. xxi. 10, 11.

Others of these officers were ORDINARY, which are divided into Bishops, Overseers or Elders, and Deacons. Bishops or elders are subdivided into pastors, or elders that labour in word and doctrine, and elders that only rule well. Their name Bishop or Overseer marks their authority over and inspection of others. Presbyter or Elder denotes their gravity, prudence, and experience, and their being but subordinate rulers under Christ to declare and execute his laws. Thus we have three distinct kinds of church-officers, Pastors, Ruling Elders, and Deacons. The office of the first includes the power of the two latter; and that of the second the power of the last, but not the distinguishing power of the first; and the office of deacons includes no power peculiar to either of the two preceding offices.

I. The pastoral office is a spiritual relation to the Christian church, empowering men to preach the gospel, dispense the sacraments, and concur in acts of governing church-members. Its divine institution is evident. (1.) God furnishes and appoints pastors, teachers, bishops or overseers, in the church, 1 Cor. xii. 28. Eph. iv. 11. Acts xx. 28. Rom. xii. 6-8. (2.) The qualifications of such officers are divinely prescribed, 1 Tim. iii. 1-8. v. 21, 22. Tit. i. 5-9. (3.) Such characters are, by the Holy Ghost, ascribed to them, as import authority and call to their word, as pastors, teachers, rulers, stewards, preachers, heralds, ambassadors, bishops, Eph. iv. 11. 1 Cor. xii. 28. 1 Tim. v. 17. 1 Cor. iv. 1, 2. Luke xii. 42. Rom. x. 15. 2 Cor. v. 19, 20. Acts xx. 28. 1 Pet. v. 2, 3. Rev. i. 20. 1 Thess. v. 12. Col. i. 7. Eph. vi. 21. Matt. ix. 38. (4.) The manner of their entrance on their office, by the call of the church and ordination of the presbytery, is divinely prescribed, Acts i. 15-26. xiv. 23. 1 Tim. iv. 14. (5.) The work which belongs to this office is divinely prescribed, 1 Pet. v. 2, 3. 1 Tim. iv. 14-16. Acts vi. 2, 4. 2 Tim. iv. 2. ii. 25, 26. 2 Cor. xii. 15. 1 Cor. 9, 16, 17. Ezek. xxxiv. 2, 4. Heb. xiii. 17. Acts xxvi. 17, 18. Matt. xxviii. 19, 20. 1 Cor. xi. 23-26. 2 Tim. ii. 2. Cor. v. 4, 13. Tit. iii. 10. 2 Cor. ii. 6, 7. (6.) People’s behaviour towards ministers is prescribed by God, 1 Thess. v. 12, 13. 1 Tim. v. 17. Heb. xiii. 7, 17. Gal. vi. 6. 1 Cor. ix. 7-19. 2 Thess. iii. 1. (7.) God has promised them encouragement in, and a reward of their work, 2 Cor. iii. 3, 5. 6. Rev. ii. 1. Matt. xxviii. 20. xvi. 19. John xx. 23. Matt. x. 40-42. Luke x. 16. John xiii. 20. 2 Tim. iv. 7, 8.

The office of the gospel-ministry is PERPETUAL, continuing till the end of the world. (1.) God has provided nothing to supply its place: Nor can any bestowal of the Holy Ghost exclude it, any more than it did, in the apostolic age, Acts i.-xxi; xxvi. 17, 18. Heb. xi. 40. (2.) The necessity of it is perpetual. Men are in every age ignorant and corrupt; Satan active; heresy and error raging, or ready to spring up; gospel-mysteries much unknown; the conversion of sinners, edification of saints, and silencing of gainsayers, still necessary, 1 Tim. iv. 1-3. 2 Tim. iii. 1-7. 2 Thess. ii. 3-12. Acts xxvi. 17, 18. Eph. iv. 12-15. Tit. i. 11. (3.) The removal of the gospel-ministry is represented as a heavy judgment, which it could not be, any more than the abolishing the Jewish ceremonies, unless the perpetual continuance of it were necessary, Rev. ii. 5. (4.) God has wonderfully preserved a gospel-ministry amidst all the destructive rage and persecution of heathens and antichristians, Rev. vi; xi; xii; xiv. (5.) The divine ordinances, which are connected with a gospel-ministry, are appointed to continue till the end of the world, Eph. iv. 11-13. Matt. xxviii. 19, 20. 1 Cor. xi. 26. 1 Tim. vi. 14.

It is requisite to a man’s being a minister of the gospel, that he be divinely qualified with, (1.) Proper abilities rendering him apt to teach; which includes rational and experimental knowledge of divine truths, and being able to explain and inculcate them in a manner calculated to enlighten the minds, impress the consciences, and excite the affections of his hearers, Eph. iv. 7-11. 1 Cor. ix. 7. iii. 8. vi. 19, 20. 1 Tim. iii. 2. 1 Cor. xii. 8. Col. iv. 3, 4. 1 Cor. iv. 19. ii. 2, 4, 6, 7, 13. 2 Cor. ii. 14. v. 11. iv. 2, 5. 2 Tim. ii. 15. Isa. l. 4. xlix. 1, 2. lviii. 1. Mic. iii. 8. 1 Cor. xiv. 24, 25. Acts xxiv. 25. (2.) A blameless, holy, and edifying conversation, 1 Tim. iii. 1-8. 2 Tim. ii. 2, 21, 22. Tit. i. 5-9. (3.) Distinguished zeal for advancing the glory of God in Christ, and tender compassion to the souls of men, Rev. iii. 19. Psalm lxix. 9. cxix. 139. Gal. iv. 18, 19. 2 Cor. xii. 14, 15. 1 Thess. ii. 8. 1 Pet. v. 2. Jude 22.

All heads of families, teachers of youth, and even neighbours, ought, in a private manner, to instruct those under their charge in the truths of the gospel; but none, without being regularly called to it, however well qualified, ought to exercise any part of the ministerial office. (1.) The scripture plainly distinguishes between gifts for, and a mission to that office, John xx. 21, 23. Isa. vi. 6, 7, 9. (2.) It most expressly declares a call absolutely necessary to render one a public teacher, Rom. x. 15. Heb. v. 4, 6. Jer. xxiii. 21, 32. (3.) The character of preachers, heralds, ambassadors, stewards, watchmen, angels, messengers, &c. necessarily import a divine call, 1 Cor. ix. 17. 2 Cor. v. 20. 1 Cor. iv. 1, 2. Heb. xiii. 17. Rev. i. 20. (4.) Rules prescribed for the qualifications, election, and ordination of gospel-ministers are declared binding until the second coming of Christ, 1 Tim. iii. 1-8. v. 21, 22. vi. 13. (5.) God severely punished Korah, Saul, Uzza, Uzziah, and the sons of Sceva, for their intermedling with the work of the sacred office, Num. xvi. 5-11, 32-38, 40. 1 Sam. xiii. 8-14. 1 Chron. xiii. 9, 10. 2 Chron. xxvi. 16-18. Acts xix. 13-16. (6.) To rush into the ministerial office, without a proper call, is inconsistent with a proper impression of the awful nature of the work, 2 Cor. iii. 5, 6. ii. 16. Ezek. iii. 17-21. xxxiii. 1-20. Rom. i. 1. Gal. i. 15, 16. John iii. 27, 28. Heb. xiii. 17. v. 4, 5. and introduces wild disorder and error, Gal. ii. 5. (7.) Christ’s manifold connexion with this office,—in his being the author of it, Eph. iv. 11, 12. his suspending much of the order and edification of his church on it, Acts xx. 28. 1 Pet. v. 1-3. his including such power and authority in it, Matt. xvi. 19. xviii. 18. his committing such an important trust to ministers, Col. iv. 17. 1 Tim. vi. 20. his enjoining his people to honour and obey them, 1 Tim v. 17. Heb. xiii. 7, 17. and his promising present assistance in, and future gracious rewards to their faithful discharge of their work,—manifest the necessity of a divine and regular call to it, Matt. xxviii. 20. 1 Pet. v. 4.

The call of an ordinary pastor to his work ought to be two-fold. (1.) A divine call, which consists in God’s inwardly inclining his heart to it in an humble manner, and by regular means; and which is often attended by a train of providences shutting him up to it, exclusive of any other. (2.) An ecclesiastical call, which consists in the election of the Christian people to whom he is to minister, and the ordination of the presbytery. That adult Christians have a right from Christ to choose their own pastors, is evident: (1.) The church being a voluntary society, none imposed upon her members by men, can be related to them as their pastor. (2.) None can so well judge what gifts are best suited to their spiritual edification as Christians themselves. (3.) If men may choose their servants or physicians, why hinder Christians from choosing the servants and subordinate physicians of their souls? (4.) The scripture allows the election of pastors in ordinary cases to adult Christians, and to none else, Acts i. 15-26. vi. 1-6. xiv. 23. (5.) Christ requires his people to try the spirits, which supposes their ability to do so, and their power to choose such only as they find most proper to edify their souls, and to refuse others, 1 John iv. 1. (6.) The introduction of ministers into their office by Patronage, of whatever form, has its origin from Popery; tends to establish a tyranny over men’s consciences, whom Christ has made free;—to fill pulpits with naughty, impious, and indolent clergymen;—encourages simony, sacrilege, and perjury;—and effectually gives Christ the lie, modelling his kingdom after the form of those of this world, Ezek. xxxiv. 2-4. Isa. lvi. 9-12. John xviii. 36.—The ordination of candidates chosen for the ministerial office is not the work of the people, but of the presbytery, 1 Tim. i. 14. 2 Tim. i. 6. ii. 2. Acts xiii. 1-3. xiv. 23. 1 Tim. v. 21, 22.

The work of pastors, when ordained, is, (1.) With much inward compassion and zeal for the welfare of their hearers’ souls, to feed them with the truths of Christ, according to their different necessities, both publicly and privately, whether in the form of sermons, lectures, catechising, or exhortation, when sick, &c. 1 Pet. v. 3. 2 Cor. v. 11. 1 Cor. ix. 16. Phil. i. 17, 24, 25. 1 Tim. vi. 20. iii. 15. iv. 15, 16. 2 Tim. iv. 2. Gal. vi. 6. Heb. v. 11, 13. 1 Cor. iii. 1. Acts xx. 20, 21, 27, 28, 31, 35. xxvi. 17, 18. Ezek. xxxiv. 1-16. iii. 17-21. xxxiii. 1-20. Col. i. 28, 29. Isa. xl. 11. l. 4. 1 Thess. ii. 2-12. v. 12. James v. 14. 2 Cor. xi. 28, 29. (2.) To administer the sacraments, in a proper manner, to proper persons, Matt. xxviii. 19, 20. vii. 6. 1 Cor. xi. 23-29. (3.) To rule over their people with impartiality, zeal, meekness, and prudence, censuring offenders, and absolving penitents, Heb. xiii. 17. 1 Tim. v. 20, 21. i. 20. Tit. iii. 10, 11. Rev. ii. 2, 14, 20. 1 Cor. v. 4, 5. 2 Cor. ii. 6, 7. (4.) To care and provide for the poor, Gal. ii. 9, 10. 1 Tim. vi. 17, 18. 2 Cor. viii; ix. (5.) To give themselves habitually to effectual fervent prayer for the church of Christ in general, and especially for those of their particular charge, Acts vi. 2, 4. Eph. iii. 14-19. i. 15-20. Gal. iv. 19. Col. iv. 12. (6.) To exemplify their doctrines and exhortations, in an eminently meek, humble, holy, and edifying conversation, 1 Thess. i. 10. 1 Tim. iv. 7, 8, 12, 16. vi. 11, 12. 2 Tim. ii. 1, 15, 16, 21, 22, 23. iii. 14. Tit. i. 7-9. ii. 7, 8. Matt. v. 16-48.

II. It is plain from scripture-declarations, that Christ has appointed rulers in his church that are not appointed to preach the gospel, Rom. xii. 7, 8. Heb. xiii. 7, 17. Different gifts qualify men for teaching and for ruling, Eph. iv. 7. Such rulers are necessary for the assistance of pastors, Gal. ii. 9, 10. Acts vi. 2-4. Exod. xviii. 17-23.—The complete form of every Christian congregation requires several elders, Acts xx. 17-38. xiv. 23. Christian churches have courts similar to those Jewish ones, which had the power of excommunication; and which consisted of elders ruling as representatives of the congregation, Matt. xviii. 15-17. Num. xxxv. 24. Deut. xix. 12. Josh. xx. 4, 6. Exod. xii. 3, 21. by comparing of which texts we find that congregation denotes rulers of it. The SEVENTY use the very word ECCLESIA which is translated church in Matt. xviii. 17.—But the divine appointment of ruling elders is still more evident, (1.) From Rom. xii. 5-8. where we find in the one body of the gospel-church PROPHESYING, which includes teaching and exhortation, which may correspond with teachers and pastors, Eph. iv. 11. and MINISTRY, answerable to the deacon that gives out the church’s charity, and shews mercy in visiting the sick and imprisoned,—and to the elder that rules with diligence. Here different gifts, given to profit withal, infer different offices, Eph. iv. 7-11. 1 Cor. xii. 7, 8. Here is one that rules, characterized by different gifts and different work. (2.) From 1 Cor. xii. 28. where we find GOVERNMENTS, that is, governors, even as MIRACLES denote workers of miracles,—set by God in the Christian church. While they are represented as different from HELPS or deacons, Acts vi. 1-6. their designation of governments marks that their office is chiefly, if not solely, executed in ruling. It much more properly denotes them rulers of church-members, than mere managers of church-money.—It is further observable, that God has set SOME, not ALL, governments or governors in the church. (3.) From a Tim. v. 17. where some elders are represented as worthy of double honour, though they do no more than rule well, while others are represented as more worthy of double honour, because they not only rule well, but also labour in word and doctrine.—All which elders belong to the church, Comp. chap. i. 19. iv. 14. iii. 15.—Kopiontes, labouring, doth not denote uncommon diligence, but the common duty of all gospel-ministers, 1 Cor. iii. 8. 1 Thess. v. 12. John iv. 38.—Malista, especially,—always in the New Testament distinguishes persons or things of the same general class, one from another, Acts xx. 38. xxiii. 26. xxvi. 3. Gal. vi. 10. Phil. iv. 22. 1 Tim. iv. 10. v. 8. 2 Tim. iv. 13. Tit. i. 10. Philem. 16. 2 Pet. ii. 10. Not only do most of the chief Fathers in the Christian church declare for ruling elders; but even Papists and Episcopalians, who inveigh against them, have a shadow of them, in their chancellors, officials, commissaries, wardens: and bishops having no care of souls, are lay elders, properly so called.—Independents also manage most of their congregational affairs by a few of their number.

The necessary qualifications of ruling elders are, (1.) True piety, 1 Tim. iv. 12. 2 Tim. ii. 21, 22. (2.) Capacity for judging causes, 1 Chron. xii. 32. Deut. i. 13. 1 Kings iii. 5-15. Isa. xi. 2-5. Numb. xi. 16, 17. (3.) Wisdom, prudence, and uprightness of conduct, connected with a good report from others, 1 Tim. iii. 1-8. Psalm ci. 2-8.—Their ordination ought to be transacted in much the same manner as that of teaching elders or pastors.—Their duty in general is to rule well; particularly, (1.) In judging the agreeableness of doctrines to the word of God,—judicially declaring what seems good to the Holy Ghost and to them, in controverted points of principle or practice, Acts xv. 28, 29. xvi. 4. Rev. ii. 2. Acts xx. 17-31. (2.) In admitting persons to church-fellowship on proper qualifications, Matt. xvi. 19. (3.) in directing or encouraging church-members to observe Christ’s laws, for the honour of God and their own mutual edification, Heb. xiii. 7, 17. (4.) In taking care, that all the ordinances of the gospel be duly preserved in their purity and perfection, Song i. 7, 8. (5.) In carefully watching over the moral behaviour of church-members,—instructing, admonishing, exhorting, comforting, or rebuking them, as they find cause, Heb. xiii. 17. (6.) In visiting the sick in body, or distressed in mind, Jam. v. 14. (7.) In making provision for the poor, or other expences necessary for promoting the spiritual welfare of the congregation, Acts xi. 27-30. (8.) In judging the case of offenders and penitents, in order to censure the former, and absolve the latter, Matt. xviii. 15-18. xvi. 19. (9.) In regulating diets of fasting, thanksgiving, the Lord’s supper, &c. 1 Cor. xiv 26, 40.

III. The divine appointment of Deacons in the Christian church, is beyond dispute, Acts vi. 1-6. 1 Tim. iii. 8-11. Rom. xii. 8. 1 Cor. xii. 38. Phil. i. 1.—They ought to be men of honest report, full of the Holy Ghost, and of wisdom, 1 Tim. iii. 8-10. Acts vi. 3.—Their election and ordination ought not, in its manner, to differ from that of elders, Acts vi. 1-6.—Their work is to manage the temporal affairs of the congregation relative to the table of the poor, the table of ministers, and the table of the Lord, Acts vi. 2. 1 Cor. xii. 28. No other work is annexed to their office in scripture. Hence though some of the first seven deacons, becoming evangelists, might preach and administer sacraments, yet none, as deacons, have any right to do so.

There is no hint in scripture, that the offices of RULING ELDER and DEACON were designed to be temporary. Both of them were appointed on moral grounds and necessities respecting every church and period. The rules concerning them both are to be observed till the end of the world, 1 Tim. vi. 13, 14. No congregation can therefore answer to Jesus Christ, for dropping of deacons, any more than for the dropping of ruling elders.

Brown’s system.

• Transcriber’s Notes:
  • Missing or obscured punctuation was silently corrected.
  • The author’s archaic punctuation and spellings have been retained.
  • Inconsistent spelling and hyphenation were made consistent only when a predominant form was found in this book.
  • Footnotes have been collected at the end of the text, and are linked for ease of reference.