Chapter 38

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 inGen. 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 wordκατακριμαis 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 alsoακατακριτος,as in Acts xvi. 37. andchap. xxii. 25.So that, according to the construction of the word, thoughκριμαsignifiesjudiciumin general, κατακριμα signifies judicium adversus aliquem,orcondemnatio.

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 histhoughts, but to hisimaginationיצר, the firstframeorformof the thoughts. They were not partially, butonly evil, and that not occasionally butcontinually. 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 thematerial goodnessof actions will not recommend them to God, but thatconscientiousnessin 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.

This scripture also shews us not only, that thematerial goodnessof actions will not recommend them to God, but thatconscientiousnessin 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 Page54-57, 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.

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.

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.

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.SeeVol. 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, isערבwhich 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. Jobxvii.3. 2 Kingsxviii.32. and elsewhere.

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

95.See Page168. ante.

96.We are not to suppose thatthey 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. andEph.iv. 11, 12, 13.) and in the obligation that it has laid uponChristian parentstobring 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. toprivateChristians, toexhort one another daily, &c. This passage therefore must be taken, either in acomparativesense, as such expressions often are: (SeeIsa.xliii. 18.Jer.xxiii. 18. andMat.ix. 13) Or else with reference tothat mannerof teaching which was used, and rested in under the obscurities of the Old Testament dispensation, and the corrupt interpretations of theJewishdoctors; 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 hisstrength, 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, andto fear him, andto do all his commandments always.The blindare admonishedto look, the deaf to hear, andthe 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 NOTspeak peaceably; and those who haveeyes full of adultery,CANNOTcease from sin. Hence also the following language—HowCANye, being evil, speak good things?—The natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God, neitherCANhe know them—The carnal mind is enmity against God; and is not subject to the law of God, neither indeedCANbe—They that are in the fleshCANNOTplease God—No manCANcome 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 thathe might receive his sight, and that of the unbelieving Jews, whoclosed 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 thosewho 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 notknowingly, or ofdesign, 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 wereunableto 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 ofinclination, 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 anatural 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 thewise men of the world, the philosophers of Greece and Rome, to whom the things of God werefoolishness. 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 toshut his eyesagainst 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 notall; but that they are bothnaturallyandmorallyunable to believe in Christ; and this they think agreeable to the scriptures, which represent them as bothunableandunwillingto 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 toshut his eyesagainst 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 yeCANNOThear my word. A total physical inability must of necessity supersede a moral one. To suppose, therefore, that the phrase,No manCANcome to me, is meant to describe the former; and,Ye will notcome 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 theirnatural depravity. Through the poverty of language, words are obliged to be used in different senses. When we speak of men asby naturedepraved, 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 termnaturalis used as opposed tomoral, 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 onlymoral, 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 theactual performanceof spiritual obedience, yet is not necessary to our being underobligationto perform it.”Fuller.

“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 notknowingly, or ofdesign, 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 wereunableto 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 ofinclination, 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 anatural 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 thewise men of the world, the philosophers of Greece and Rome, to whom the things of God werefoolishness. 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 toshut his eyesagainst 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 notall; but that they are bothnaturallyandmorallyunable to believe in Christ; and this they think agreeable to the scriptures, which represent them as bothunableandunwillingto 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 toshut his eyesagainst 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 yeCANNOThear my word. A total physical inability must of necessity supersede a moral one. To suppose, therefore, that the phrase,No manCANcome to me, is meant to describe the former; and,Ye will notcome 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 theirnatural depravity. Through the poverty of language, words are obliged to be used in different senses. When we speak of men asby naturedepraved, 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 termnaturalis used as opposed tomoral, 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 onlymoral, 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 theactual performanceof spiritual obedience, yet is not necessary to our being underobligationto 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,orminus vera.

112.For the proof of this, they often refer to that scripture inRom. 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 hadπαρεσιν αμαρτιων;the New Testament church, αφεσιν;and they all suppose, that they looked upon Christ asFide-jussor,and notExpromissor,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 Page112ante.

125.So the Hebrew word ought to be rendered, rather thantherefore;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 wordעלמהis truly rendereda 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 fromעלם 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 signifya virgin,but ayoung 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 arethreescore queens, and fourscore concubines, and virgins without number,it is plain, the wordvirginsis not opposed toyoung women,for such were many of them that are calledqueens 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.

Back to Index Next