Fall of Adam, and its consequences.

Nor have any of the posterity of Adam, it is said, reason to complain of such a procedure. Had he stood in his integrity, they would have been, by his standing, partakers of all his happiness; and therefore should not murmur at receiving evil through his fall. If this do not satisfy, let it be considered, that since God, in his infinite wisdom, thought proper that men should have a head and representative, in whose hands their good and happiness should be placed, none could be so fit for this high station as the common parent, made after the image of God, so wise, so holy, just, and good. Lastly, to silence all objections, let it be remembered, that what God gave to Adam as a federal head, relating to himself and his posterity, he gave as the Sovereign of the universe, to whom no created being has right to talk.

*See Gill's Body of Divinity.*

Such are the consequences of Adam's fall, and such the doctrine of original sin, as maintained by the more rigid followers of Calvin. That great reformer, however, was not the author of this doctrine. It had been taught, so early as in the beginning of the fifth century, by St Augustine, the celebrated bishop of Hippo (i.e., Augustine); and the authority of that father had made it more or less prevalent in both the Greek and Roman churches long before the Reformation. Calvin was indeed the most eminent modern divine by whom it has been held in all its rigour; and it constitutes one great part of that theological system which, from being taught by him, is now known by the name of Calvinism.

But if it was as sovereign of the universe that God gave to Adam what he received in paradise relating to himself and his posterity, Adam could in no sense of the words be a federal head; because, upon this supposition, there was no covenant. The Sovereign of the universe may unquestionably dispense his benefits, or withhold them, as seems expedient to his infinite wisdom; and none of his subjects or creatures can have a right to say to him, What doth thou? But the dispensing or withholding of benefits is a transaction very different from the entering into covenants; and a judgment is to be formed of it on very different principles. Every thing around us proclaims that the Sovereign of the universe is a being of perfect benevolence; but, say the disciples of the school now under consideration, the dispensation given to Adam in paradise was so far from being the offspring of benevolence, that, as it is understood by the followers of Calvin, it cannot possibly be reconciled with the eternal laws of equity. The self-existent and all-sufficient God might or might not have created such a being as man; and in either case there would have been no reason for the question "What doth thou?" But as soon as he determined to create him capable of happiness or misery, he would not have been either benevolent or just, if he had not placed him a state where, by his own exertions, he might, if he chose, have a greater share of happiness than of misery, and find his existence, upon the whole, a blesting. They readily acknowledge, that the existence of any created being may be of longer or shorter duration, according to the good pleasure of the Creator; and therefore they have no objection to the apostolic doctrine, that "in Adam all die," for immortality being not a debt, but a free gift, may be bestowed on any terms, and with perfect justice withdrawn when these terms are not complied with. Between death, however, as it implies a loss of consciousness, and the extreme misery of eternal life in torments, there is an immense difference. To death all mankind might justly be subjected through the offence of one; because they had originally no claim to be exempted from it, though that one and they too had remained for ever innocent: but eternal life in torments is a punishment which a God of justice and benevolence can never inflict but upon personal guilt of the deepest die. That we can personally have incurred guilt from a crime committed some thousands of years before we were born, is impossible. It is indeed a notion as contrary to Scripture as to reason and common sense: for the apostle expressly informs us, "that sin is the transgression of the law;" and the sin of Adam was the transgression of a law which it was never in our power either to observe or to break. Another apostle assures us, that Rom. iv. "where no law is, there is no transgression;" but there is now no law, nor has been any these 3000 years, forbidding mankind to eat of a particular fruit; for, according to the Calvinists themselves, Adam had no sooner committed his first sin, by which the covenant with him was broken, than he ceased to be a covenant head. This law given him was no more; the promise of life by it ceased; and its sanction, death, took place. But if this be so, how is it possible that his unborn posterity should be under a law which had no existence, or that they should be in a worse state in consequence of the covenant being broken, and its promise having ceased, than he himself was before the covenant was first made? He was originally a mortal being, and was promised the supernatural gift of immortality on the single condition of his abstaining from the fruit of the tree of knowledge of good and evil. From that fruit he did not abstain; but by eating it fell back into his natural state of mortality. Thus far it is admitted that his posterity fell with him: for they have no claim to a supernatural gift which he had forfeited by his transgression. But we cannot admit, i.e., the divines of this school, that they fell into his guilt; for to render it possible for a man to incur guilt by the transgression of a law, it is necessary not only that he have it in his power to keep the law, but also that he be capable of transgressing it by a voluntary deed. But surely no man could be capable of voluntarily eating the forbidden fruit 3000 years before he himself or his volitions existed. The followers of Calvin think it a sufficient objection to the doctrine of transubstantiation, that the same numerical body cannot be in different places at the same instant of time. But this ubiquity of body, say the remonstrants, is not more palpably absurd, than the supposition that a man could exert volitions before he or his will had any existence.

Nor will the introduction of the word imputation into this important question remove a single difficulty. For what is that we mean by saying that the sin of Adam is imputed to his posterity? Is the guilt of that sin transferred from him to them? So surely thought Dr Gill, when he said that it is made over to them. But this is the same absurdity as the making over of the fleshy qualities of bread and wine to the internal substance of our Saviour's body and blood! This imputation either found the posterity of Adam guilty of his sin, or it made them so. It could not find them guilty for for the reason already assigned; as well as because the apostle says expressly, that for the offence of one judge- ment came upon all men, which would not be true had all offended. It could not make them guilty; for this reason, that if there be in physics or metaphysics a single truth felt-evident, it is, that the numerical powers, actions, or qualities, of one being cannot possibly be transferred to another, and be made its powers, actions, or qualities. Different beings may in distant ages have qualities of the same kind; but as easily may 4 and 3 be made equal to 9, as two beings be made to have the same identical quality. In Scripture we nowhere read of the actions of one man being imputed to another.

"Abraham (we are told) believed in God, and it was counted to him for righteousness;" but it was his own faith, and not the faith of another man, that was so counted. "To him that worketh not, but believeth, his faith (not another's) is imputed for righteousness." And of our faith in him that raised Christ from the dead, it is said, that "it shall be imputed, not to our fathers or our children, but to us for righteousness."

When this phrase is used with a negative, not only is the man's own personal sin spoken of, but the non-imputation of that sin means nothing more but that it brings not upon the sinner condign punishment. Thus when Shimei "said unto David," Let not my lord impute iniquity unto me," it could not be his meaning that the king should not think that he had offended; for with the same breath he added, "Neither do thou remember that which thy servant did perversely, the day that my lord the king went of Jerusalem, that the king should take it to his heart. For thy servant doth know that I have sinned." Here he plainly confesses his sin, and declares, that by intreting the king not to impute it to him, he wished only that it should not be remembered as that the king should take it to heart, and punish him as his perverstness deserved. When therefore it is said *, that "God was in Christ reconciling the world to himself, not imputing to them their iniquities, the meaning is only that for Christ's sake he was pleased to exempt them from the punishment due to their sins. In like manner, when the prophet, foretelling the sufferings of the Messiah, says, that "the Lord laid on him the iniquity of us all," his meaning cannot be, that the Lord by imputation made his immaculate Son guilty of all the sins that men have ever committed; for in that case it would not be true that the "just suffered for the unjust," as the apostle expressly teaches †; but the sense of the verse must be, as Bishop Cordell translated it, "through him the Lord pardoneth all our sins." This interpretation is countenanced by the ancient version of the Seventy, ναυ Κυριος μακάρισεν αυτον την ἀπολογίαν αυτου; words which express a notion very different from that of imputed guilt. The Messiah was, without a breach of justice, delivered for sins of which he had voluntarily offered to pay the penalty; and St Paul might have been justly charged by Philemon with the debts of Onesimus, which he had desired might be placed to his account. Had the apostle, however, expressed no such desire, surely Philemon could by no deed of his have made him liable for debts contracted by another; far less could he by imputation, whatever that word may mean, have made him virtually concur in the contracting of those debts. He could not have been justly subjected to suffering without his own consent; and he could not possibly have been made guilty of the sins of those for whom he suffered.

The doctrine of imputed guilt therefore, as understood by the Calvinists, is, in the opinion of their opponents, without foundation in Scripture, and contrary to the nature of things. It is an impious absurdity (say they), to which the mind can never be reconciled by the hypothesis, that all men were in Adam both seminally and federally, and finned in him, as Levi paid tithes to Melchizedek in the loins of Abraham. The apostle, when he employs that argument to lessen in the minds of his countrymen the pride of birth and the lofty opinions entertained of their priesthood, plainly intimates, that he was using a bold figure, and that Levi's paying tithes is not to be understood in a strict and literal sense.

"Now consider (says he) how great this man was, unto whom even the patriarch Abraham gave the tenth of the spoils. And, as I may so say, Levi also, who receiveth tithes, paid tithes in Abraham: for he was yet in the loins of his father when Melchizedek met him." This is a very good argument to prove that the Levitical priesthood was inferior in dignity to that of Melchizedek; and by the apostle it is employed for no other purpose. Levi could not be greater than Abraham, and yet Abraham was inferior to Melchizedek. This is the whole of St Paul's reasoning, which lends no support to the doctrine of original sin, unless it can be shown that Levi and all his descendants contracted from father to son this circumstance such a strong propensity to the payment of tithes, as made it a matter of extreme difficulty for them, in every subsequent generation, to comply with that part of the divine law which constituted them receivers of tithes. That all men were seminally in Adam, is granted; and it is likewise granted that they may have derived from him, by ordinary generation, diseased and enfeebled bodies: but it is as impossible to believe that moral guilt can be transmitted from father to son by the physical act of generation, as to conceive a scarlet colour to be a cube of marble, or the sound of a trumpet a cannon ball. That Adam was as fit a person as any other to be entrusted with the good and happiness of his posterity, may be true; but there is no fitness whatever, according to the Arminians, in making the everlasting happiness or misery of a whole race depend upon the conduct of any fallible individual. "That any man should so represent me (says Dr Taylor *), that when he is guilty, I am to be reputed guilty; when he transgresses, I shall be accountable and punishable for his transgression; and this before I am born, and consequently before I am in any capacity of knowing, helping, or hindering, what he doth: all this everyone who utters his understanding must clearly see to be false, unreasonable, and altogether inconsistent with the truth and goodness of God." And that no such appointment ever had place, he endeavours to prove, by showing that the texts of Scripture upon which is built the doctrine of the Calvinists respecting original sin, will each admit of a very different interpretation.

One of the strongest of these texts is Romans v. 19. The several which we have already quoted, and which our author thus explains. He observes, that the apostle was a Jew, and was familiarly acquainted with the Hebrew tongue; that he built up his epistle as well for the use of his own countrymen as for the benefit of the Gentile converts; and that though he made use of the Greek language,

Our translators seem to consider it as used absolutely without any antecedent; but this is inaccurate, as it may be questioned whether the relative was ever used in any language without an antecedent either expressed or understood. Accordingly, the Calvinist critics, and even many Remonstrants, consider ἐν τῇ ἀπογεννημένῳ in the beginning of the verse as the antecedent to ὁ in the end of it, and translate the clause under consideration thus: "And to death hath palled upon all men, in whom (viz. Adam) all have sinned." Θανάτος, however, stands much nearer to ὁ than ἀπογεννημένῳ; and being of the same gender, ought, we think, to be considered as its real antecedent: but if so, the clause under consideration should be thus translated: "and to death hath palled upon all men, unto which (ο) all have sinned, or, as the Arminians explain it, have suffered. If this criticism be admitted as just, ὁ ὁ μυστικόν as standing here under a particular emphasis, denoting the utmost length of the consequences of Adam's sin (p); as if the apostle had said, "so far have the consequences of Adam's sin extended, and spread their influence among mankind, introducing not only a curse upon the earth, and sorrow and toil upon its inhabitants, but even death, universal death, in every part, and in all ages of the world." His words (say the Remonstrants) will unquestionably bear this sense; and it is surely much more probable that it is their true sense, than that an inspired writer should have taught a doctrine subversive of all our notions of right and wrong, and which, if really embraced, must make us incapable of judging when we are innocent and when guilty.

When the apostle says that there is none righteous, no not one, he gives us plainly to understand that he is quoting from the 14th Psalm; and the question first to be answered is, In what sense were these words used by the Psalmist? That they were not meant to include all the men and women then living, far less all that have ever lived, is plain from the fifth verse of the same Psalm, where we are told that those wicked persons "were in great fear, because God was in the congregation of the righteous." There was then, it seems, a congregation of righteous persons, in opposition to those called the children of men, of whom alone it is said that there was none that did good, no not one. The truth is, that the persons of whom David generally complains in the book of Psalms, constituted a strong party disaffected to his person and government. That faction he describes as proud and oppressive, as devising mischief against him, as violent men continually getting together for war. He styles them his enemies; and sometimes characterizes them by the appellation which was given to the apostate descendants of Cain before the deluge. Thus in the 57th Psalm, which was composed when he fled from Saul to the cave in which he spared that tyrant's life, he complains, "I lie among them that are set on fire, even the sons of men, whose teeth are spears," &c.; and

(o) That σὺν, when construed with a dative case, often signifies to or unto, is known to every Greek scholar. Thus ἐν τῷ ἀπολογεῖν ἑαυτὸν, the way to fame, (Lucian.). Κακοῦχος ἐν τῷ ἀπολογεῖν, a criminal unto death, (Demotis.). Ἐν τῷ ἀπολογεῖν ἑαυτὸν, to carry to death or execution, (Hec.). Ἐν τῷ ἀπολογεῖν ἑαυτὸν, ye have been called to liberty, (Gal. v. 13.). Κακοῦχος ἐν τῷ ἀπολογεῖν ἑαυτὸν, created in Christ Jesus unto good works, (Ephes. ii. 10.). See also 1 Thess. iv. 7.; 2 Tim. ii. 14.; and many other places of the New Testament.

(p) ἐν ὁ ὁ has likewise this import, denoting the terminus ad quem in Phil. iii. 12. and iv. 10. and again, in the 58th Psalm, he says, "Do ye indeed speak righteousnes, O congregation? Do ye judge uprightly, O ye sons of men?" By comparing these texts with 1 Sam. xxvi. 19, it will appear evident that by the sons of men mentioned in them, he meant to characterize those enemies who exasperated Saul against him. Now it is well known, that there was a party adhering to the interests of the house of Saul, which continued its enmity to David during the 40 years of his reign, and joined with Absalom in rebellion against him only eight years before his death. But it is the opinion of the most judicious commentators, that the 14th Psalm was composed during the rebellion of Absalom; and therefore it is surely much more probable, that by the children of men, of whom it is said there is "none that doth good, no not one," the inspired poet meant to characterize the rebels, than that he should have directly contradicted himself in the compass of two sentences succeeding each other. Had he indeed known that all the children of men, as descending from Adam, "are utterly indisposed, disabled, and made opposite to all that is spiritually good, and wholly and continually inclined to all evil," he could not, with the least degree of consistency, have represented the Lord as looking down from heaven upon them, to see if there were any that did understand and seek after God; but if by the children of men was meant only the rebel faction, this scenerical representation is perfectly consistent, as it was natural to suppose that there might be in that faction some men of good principles misled by the arts of the rebel chiefs.

Having thus ascertained the sense of the words as originally used by the Psalmist, the Arminian proceeds to inquire for what purpose they were quoted by the apostle; and in this inquiry he seems to find nothing difficult. The aversion of the Jews from the admission of the Gentiles to the privileges of the gospel, the high opinion which they entertained of their own worth and superiority to all other nations, and the strong persuasion which they had that a strict obedience to their own law was sufficient to justify them before God, are facts universally known; but it was the purpose of the apostle to prove that all men stood in need of a Redeemer, that Jews as well as Gentiles had been under the dominion of sin, and that the one could not in that respect claim any superiority over the other. He begins his epistle, therefore, with showing the extreme depravity of the Heathen world; and having made good that point, he proceeds to prove, by quotations from the book of Psalms, Proverbs, and Isaiah, that the Jews were in no wise better than they, that every mouth might be stopped, and all the world become guilty, or insufficient for their own justification before God.

The next proof brought by the Calvinists in support of their opinion, that all men derive guilt from Adam by ordinary generation, is that text in which St Paul says that the Ephesians "were by nature children of wrath even as others." To this their opponents reply, that the doctrine of original sin is in this verse, as in the last quoted, countenanced only by our translation, and not by the original Greek as understood by the ancient fathers of the Christian church, who were greater masters of that language than we. The words are καὶ ἐκ τοῦ γενέσθαι ὑπὸ ῥατής, where it is impossible that ὑπὸ ῥατής can signify natural, otherwise the apostle will be made to say, not that we are by nature derived from Adam liable to wrath, but that we were naturally begotten by wrath in the abstract! For taking the word ὑπὸ ῥατής in the sense of really or truly, both the ancient and modern Greeks appear indeed to have the authority of St Paul himself; who, writing to Timothy, calls him ἀγαθὸς ἀνὴρ, "his true or genuine son;" not to signify that he was the child of the apostle by natural generation, but that he was closely related to him in the faith to which St Paul had converted him. That the words ἐκ τοῦ γενέσθαι ὑπὸ ῥατής can signify nothing but truly or reality relations to wrath, is still farther evident from the ground assigned of that relation. It is not the sin of Adam, or the impurity of natural generation, "but the trespasses and sins in which the Ephesians in time past walked, according to the course of the world, according to the prince of the power of the air," the spirit that at the time of the apostle's writing "worked in the children of disobedience." Surely no man can suppose that the Ephesians at any past time walked in Adam's trespass and sin, or that the prince of the power of the air tempted them to eat the forbidden fruit.

Having thus commented on the principal texts which are cited from the New Testament to prove the doctrine of original sin, the Arminians treat those which are quoted from the Old Testament, in support of the same doctrine, with much less ceremony. Thus, when Job says, "who can bring a clean thing out of an unclean? Not one," he is speaking, say they, not of the pravity of our nature, but of its frailty and weaknesses, of the shortness and misery of human life. The sentence is proverbial; and as it is used only to signify, that nothing can be more perfect than its original, it must, whenever it occurs, be understood according to the subject to which it is applied. That in the place under consideration, tion it refers to our mortality; they think plain from the context; and Dr Taylor adds *, with some plausibility, that if the words refer to the guilt which we are supposed to derive from Adam, they will prove too much to serve the common scheme of original sin. They will prove that our natural and inherent pravity, so far from rendering us fit subjects of wrath, may be urged as a reason why God should not even bring us into judgment; for the patriarch's whole expostulation runs thus, "Dost thou open thine eyes upon such a one, and bringest me into judgment with thee? Who can bring a clean thing out of an unclean?"

The other text, quoted from the same book, they think still less to the purpose; for Eliphaz is evidently contrasting the creature with the Creator; in comparison with whom, he might well say, without alluding to original guilt, "what is man that he should be clean? and he who is born of a woman that he should be righteous?" Behold he putteth no trust in his saints; yea the heavens are not clean in his sight. How much more abominable and filthy is man, who drinketh iniquity like water?" He does not say, who derives by birth an iniquitous nature; for he knew well, that as we are born, we are the pure workmanship of God, "whose hands have fashioned and formed every one of us;" but "who drinketh iniquity like water," who maketh himself iniquitous by running headlong into every vicious practice.

Of the text quoted from the fifty-first psalm in support of the doctrine of original sin, Dr Taylor labours †, by a long and ingenious criticism, to prove that our translators have mistaken the sense. The word which they have rendered *shapen*, he shows to be used once by Isaiah, and twice in the book of Proverbs, to signify brought forth; and that which is rendered conceived me, is never, he says, employed in scripture to denote human conception. In this last remark, however, he is contradicted by a great authority, no less indeed than that of Mr Parkhurst ‡, who says, that the LXX constantly render it by νεων or νεογεννημενος, and the Vulgate generally by concipio. Without taking upon us to decide between these two eminent Hebrew scholars, we shall only observe, that upon one occasion || it certainly denotes ideas much grofter than those which the Psalmist must have had of his mother's conception; and that there, at least, Dr Taylor properly translates it, incafecebant, adding, "de hoc vero incafeceendi generi loqui Davidem nemo famus extimare potest. Matrem enim incafeceisse, aut ipsum caleficiisse eo modo quo incafece-rent Jacobi pecudes Regem dicere, profris indecorum et absurdum." He contends, however, that the original force of the word is to be hot, and that it is applied to conception, to repentment, to warmth by which the body is nourished, to idolaters in love with idols, and to the heat of metals. The heat of idolaters, of repentment, and of metals, are evidently foreign to the Psalmist's purpose; and the idea conveyed by the word incafeceire being set aside for the reasons already assigned, there remains only the warmth by which the body is nourished, and of that warmth our author is confident that David spoke.

If this criticism be admitted, the whole verse will then run thus: "Behold I was born in iniquity, and in sin did my mother nurse me;" which hath no reference to the original formation of his constitution, but is a periphrasis of his being a sinner from the womb, and means nothing more than that he was a great sinner, or had contracted early habits of sin. He no more designed to signify in this verse, that by ordinary generation he had a nature conveyed to him which was utterly indispensible, disabled, and opposite to all that is spiritually good, and wholly and continually inclined to evil, than he meant in another * to signify strictly and properly that "the wicked are estranged from the womb, and tell lies as soon as they are born;" or that Job meant to signify †, that from the moment he came from his mother's womb he had been a guide to the widow and a succour to the fatherless. All these are hyperbolical forms of expression; which, though they appear strained, and perhaps extravagant, to the phlegmatic inhabitants of Europe, are perfectly suited to the warm imaginations of the orientals, and to the genius of eastern languages. They mean not that Job was born with habits of virtue, that the wicked actually walked, and spoke, and spoke lies from the instant of their birth, or that the Psalmist was really shapen in sin and conceived in iniquity. This last sentence, if interpreted literally, would indeed be grossly impious: it would make the inspired penman throw the whole load of his iniquity and sin from off himself upon him who shaped, and upon her who conceived him; even upon that God "whose hands had made him and fashioned him, and whom he declares that he will praise for having made him fearfully and wonderfully," and upon that parent who conceived him with sorrow, and brought him forth with pain, and to whom the divine law commanded him to render honour and gratitude. "But if, after all (says Dr Taylor ‡), you will adhere to the literal sense of the text for the common doctrine of original sin, show me any good reason why you ought not part ii. to admit the literal sense of the text, this is my body, for transubstantiation? If you say, it is absurd to suppose that Christ speaks of his real natural body; I say, it is likewise absurd to suppose that the Psalmist speaks of his being really and properly shapen in iniquity, and conceived in sin. If you say, that the sense of the words this is my body may be clearly explained by other texts of scripture where the like forms of speech are used; I say, and have shown, that the Psalmist's sense may as clearly and evidently be made out by parallel texts, where you have the like kind of expression. If you say that transubstantiation is attended with consequences hurtful to piety, I say that the common doctrine of original sin is attended with consequences equally hurtful; for it is a principle apparently leading to all manner of iniquity to believe that sin is natural to us; that it is interwoven and ingrafted into our very constitution from our conception and formation in the womb."

The Arminians having thus, as they think, proved that the posterity of Adam are not in any sense rendered eaten guilty by his sin, contend, that the death threatened against his eating of the forbidden fruit, and which, in consequence of his transgression, came upon all men, according to can mean nothing more than the loss of that vital principle which he received when God breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and he became a living soul. Every thing beyond this is pure conjecture, which has no foundation in the scriptures of truth, and is directly contrary to all the notions of right and wrong which we we have been able to acquire from the study of those very scriptures. It is not conceivable from anything in the history, that Adam could understand it of the loss of any other life than that which he had lately received, for no other life is spoken of to which the threatened death can be opposed; and in such circumstances it was strange indeed, if by the word death he understood either eternal life in misery, or a necessity of continuing in sin. The sense therefore of the threatening, say they, is this: "I have formed thee of the dust of the ground, and breathed into thy nostrils the breath of life; and thus thou art become a living soul. But if thou eatest of the fruit of the tree of knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt cease to be a living soul; for I will take from thee the breath of life, and thou shalt return to the dust of which thou wast formed."

Thus far the Arminians of the present day are agreed in opposing the doctrine of the rigid Calvinists, and in stating their own notions of the consequences of Adam's fall; but from that event their adversaries deduce one consequence, which some of them admit and others deny. It is said, that though we cannot possibly be partakers in Adam's guilt, we yet derive from him a moral taint and infection, by which we have a natural propensity to sin; that having lost the image of God, in which he was created, Adam begat sons in his own image; and in one word, that the sensual appetites of human nature were inflamed, and its moral and intellectual powers greatly weakened by the eating of the forbidden fruit. The heathens themselves acknowledged and lamented this depravity; though they were ignorant of the source from which it sprung. The scriptures assert it, affirming that no man can be born pure and clean; that whatever is born of the flesh, or comes into the world by ordinary generation, is flesh, carnal and corrupt; that the imagination of the thoughts of man's heart is only evil continually; that the heart is deceitful above all things and desperately wicked; and that out of it proceeds all that is vile and sinful.

This depravity of human nature, thus clearly deducible from scripture, and confirmed by the testimony of ages, an ingenious writer of the moderate Arminian school undertakes to illustrate upon the principles of natural knowledge. "We know (says he f), that there are several fruits in several parts of the world of sonoxious a nature as to destroy the best human constitution on earth. We also know that there are some fruits in the world which inflame the blood into fevers and frenzies; and we are told that the Indians are acquainted with a certain juice, which immediately turns the person who drinks it into an idiot, leaving him at the same time in the enjoyment of his health and all the powers of his body. Now I ask Whether it be not possible, nay whether it be not rational, to believe, that the same fruit, which, in the present infirmity of nature, would utterly destroy the human constitution, might, in its highest perfection, at least disturb, impair, and displace it? and whether the same fruit, which would now inflame any man living into a fever or frenzy, might not inflame Adam into a turbulence and irregularity of passion and appetite? and whether the same fluids, which inflame the blood into irregularity of passion and appetite, may not naturally produce infection and impair the constitution? That the forbidden fruit had the effect to produce irregularity of appetite, appears as from other proofs,

*Job xiv. 4.* John iii. 6. Rom. iii. 5. Jer. xvii. 9. Mat. xv. 19.

†Gill's Bo- dy of Divi- nity, book 11. and 13.

‡Scripture Doctrine, &c.

Vol. XX. Part I. regularity of passions and appetites equal at least to what Adam displayed in the garden of Eden. When the three young men mentioned in the book of Daniel submitted to be burnt alive in a fiery furnace rather than worship Nebuchadnezzar's golden image; when Daniel himself resolved, rather than conceal the worship of God for one month only of his life, to be torn in pieces by hungry lions; and, to come nearer to our own times, when numbers of men and women, during the reign of Mary queen of England, chose rather to be burnt at a stake than renounce the reformed religion and embrace the errors of popery—surely all these persons exhibited a virtue, a faith in God, and a steady adherence to what they believed to be the truth, far superior to what Adam displayed, when his wife gave him of the forbidden fruit, and he did eat." If it be said that these persons were supported under their trials by the grace of God strengthening them, the same will be said of Adam. He was undoubtedly supplied with every aid from the spirit of grace which was necessary to enable him to fulfill his duty; for being designed for more than mere animal life, even for the refined enjoyments of heaven, there is every reason to believe, as we have already observed, that he was put under the guidance of the Holy Ghost, to train him for that supernatural state of felicity. These communications of the Spirit would of course be withdrawn when he forfeited his right to those privileges, on account of which they were originally vouchsafed to him; but that any positive malignity or taint was infused into his nature, that his more rational powers were weakened, or his appetites inflamed by the forbidden fruit, there is no evidence to be found in scripture, or in the known constitution of things. The attributing of this supposed hereditary taint to the noxious qualities of the forbidden fruit, is a whimsical hypothesis, which receives no countenance from any well authenticated fact in natural history. After the numberless falsehoods that have been told of the poison tree of Java, something more would be requisite than the common evidence of a lying voyager to give credit to the qualities of the Indian tree, of which the fruit instantly turns the wisest man into an idiot; and yet for this singular story our ingenious author vouches not even that evidence, slight as it generally is. The inference drawn from the covering used by our first parents is contradicted by every thing that we know of human nature; for surely no man, inflamed to the utmost with the fire of animal love, ever turned his eyes from a naked beauty ready and eager to receive him to her embrace. Yet this, it seems, was the behaviour of Adam and Eve in such a state! According to our author, the juice of the forbidden fruit had rendered their carnal appetites violent and independent of reason; according to the scripture, they were both naked; and as they were husband and wife, there was no law prohibiting them from gratifying their inflamed appetites. In such circumstances, how did they conduct themselves? One would naturally imagine that they immediately retired to some shady grove, and pleased themselves in all the soft dalliances of wedded love. Their conduct, however, was very different. We are told, that "they sewed fig-leaves together, and made themselves aprons to cover their nakedness." And this transaction is brought as a proof of the impetuosity of their carnal appetites. The truth is, that the carnal appetite appears not to be naturally more violent than is necessary to answer the end for which it was implanted in the human constitution. Among savages the desires of animal love are generally very moderate; and even in society they have not often, unless inflamed by the luxurious arts of civil life, greater strength than is requisite to make mankind attend to the continuation of their species. In the decline of empires highly polished, where the difference of rank and opulence is great, and where every man is ambitious of emulating the expense of his immediate superiors, early marriages are prevented by the inability of most people to provide for a family in a way suitable to what each is pleased to consider as his proper station; and in that state of things the violence of animal love will indeed frequently produce great irregularities. But for that state of things, as it was not intended by the Author of nature, it is perhaps unreasonable to suppose that provision should be made; and yet we believe it will be found, upon due consideration, that if the desires of animal love were less violent than they are, the general consequences would be more pernicious to society than all the irregularities and vices which these desires now accidentally produce; for there would then be no intercourse between the sexes whatever except in the very highest stations of life. That our constitution is attended with many sensual appetites and passions, is true; and that there is a great danger of their becoming excessive and irregular in a world so full of temptation as ours is, is also true; but there is no evidence that all this is the consequence of Adam's fall, and far less that it amounts to a natural propensity to sin. For I presume (says Dr Taylor), that by a natural propensity is meant a necessary inclination to sinning that we or that we are necessarily sinful from the original bent and bias of our natural powers. But this must be false; for then we should not be sinful at all, because that which sin is necessary, or which we cannot help, is not sin. That we are weak and liable to temptation, is the will of God holy and good, and for glorious purposes to ourselves; but if we are wicked, it must be through our own fault, and cannot proceed from any constraint, or necessity, or taint in our constitution."

Thus have we given as full and comprehensive a view as our limits will permit of the different opinions of the Calvinists and Arminians respecting the consequences of Adam's fall. If we have dwelt longer upon the scheme of the latter than of the former, it is because every Arminian argument is built upon criticism, and appeals to the original text; whilst the Calvinists rest their faith upon the plain words of scripture as read in our translation. If we might hazard our own opinion, we should say that the truth lies between them, and that it has been found by the moderate men of both parties, who, while they make use of different language, seem to us to have the same sentiments. That all mankind really and Arm-inned in Adam, and are on that account liable to mortal nian's grievous torments in soul and body, without intermission, and, in hell fire for ever, is a doctrine which cannot be reconciled to our natural notions of God. On the other hand, if human nature was not somehow debauched by the fall of our first parents, it is not easy to account for the numberless phrases in scripture which certainly seem to speak that language, or for the very general opinion of the Pagan philosophers and poets reflecting the golden age and the degeneracy of man. Cicero, in a quotation preferred... Theology preserved by St Augustine from a work that is now lost, has these remarkable words, "Homo non ut a matre fed ut a noverca natura editus est in vitam, corpore nudo et fragili, et infirmo; animo autem anxio ad molestias, humilitate timores, mollis ad labores, prono ad libidines; in quo tamen inflat tanquam obrutus quidam divinis ignis ingenitum et mentis." Nor do we readily perceive what should induce the more zealous Arminians to oppose so vehemently this general opinion of the corruption of human nature. Their desire to vindicate the justice and goodness of God does them honour; but the doctrine of inherent corruption militates not against these attributes; for what we have lost in the first Adam has been amply supplied to us in the second; and we know from the highest authority that the duties required of us are in proportion to our ability, since we are told, that "unto whomsoever much is given, of him shall much be required."

Sect. IV. View of Theology from the fall of Adam to the coming of Christ.

We have dwelt long on the original state of man, his introduction into the terrestrial paradise, the privileges to which he was there admitted, his forfeiture of those privileges, and the state to which he was reduced by transgressing the law of his Maker; but the importance of these events renders them worthy of all the attention that we have paid to them. They paved the way for the coming of Christ and the preaching of the gospel; and unless we thoroughly understand the origin of the gospel, we cannot have an adequate conception of its design. By contrasting the first with the second Adam, St Paul gives us clearly to understand, that one purpose for which Christ came into the world and suffered death on the cross, was to restore to mankind that life which they had lost by the fall of their original progenitor. The preaching of the gospel therefore commenced with the first hint of such a restoration; and the promise given to Adam and Eve, that "the seed of the woman should bruise the head of the serpent," was as truly evangelical as these words of the apostle, by which we are taught, that "this is a faithful saying and worthy of all acceptation, that Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners."

Christianity may be said to have commenced with the fall.

Christianity therefore is indeed very near as old as the creation; but its principles were at first obscurely revealed, and afterwards gradually developed under different forms as mankind became able to receive them, (see Prophecy, No. 5, &c.). All that appears to have been at first revealed to Adam and Eve was, that by some means or other one of their posterity should in time redeem the whole race from the curse of the fall; or if they had a distant view of the means by which that redemption was to be wrought, it was probably communicated to them at the institution of sacrifices, (see Sacrifice). This promise of a future deliverance served to comfort them under their heavy sentence; and the institution of sacrifices, whilst it impressed upon their minds lively ideas of the punishment due to their transgression, was admirably calculated to prepare both them and their posterity for the great atonement which, in due time, was to take away the sins of the world.

Our first parents, after their fall, were so far from being left to fabricate a mode of worship for themselves by those innate powers of the human mind on which we daily hear so much, and feel so little, that God was graciously pleased to manifest himself to their senses, and visibly to conduct them by the angel of his presence in all the rites and duties of religion. This is evident from ages of the different discourses which he held with Cain, as well as from the complaint of that murderer of being hid from his face, and from its being said, that "he went out from the presence of the Lord and dwelt on the east of Eden." Nor does it appear that God wholly withdrew his visible presence, and left mankind to their own inventions, till their wickedness became so very great that his spirit could no longer strive with them. The infant state of the world stood in constant need of his supernatural guidance and protection. The early inhabitants of this globe cannot be supposed to have been able, with Moses*, to look up to him who is invisible, and perform a worship purely rational and spiritual. They were all tillers of the ground, or keepers of cattle; employed in cultivating and replenishing this new world; and, through the curse brought upon it by their forefather, forced, with him, to eat their bread "in the sweat of their brow." Man in such circumstances could have little leisure for speculation; nor has mere speculation, unless furnished with principles from another source, ever generated in the human mind adequate notions of God's nature or providence, or of the means by which he can be acceptably worshipped. Frequent manifestations, therefore, of his presence would be necessary to keep a tolerable sense of religion among them, and secure obedience to the divine institutions; and that the Almighty did not exhibit such manifestations, cannot be inferred from the silence of that very short history which we have of those early ages. Adam himself continued 930 years a living monument of the justice and mercy of God; of his extreme hatred and abhorrence of sin, as well as of his love and long suffering towards the sinner. He was very sensible how sin had entered into the world, and he could not but apprize his children of its author. He would at the same time inform them of the unity of God, and his dominion over the evil one; of the means by which he had appointed himself to be worshipped; and of his promise of future deliverance from the curse of the fall. Such information would produce a tolerable idea of the Divine Being, and afford sufficient motives to obey his will. The effects of it accordingly were apparent in the righteous family of Seth, who soon distinguished themselves from the posterity of Cain, and for their eminent piety were honoured with the appellation of the sons of God. Of this family sprang a person so remarkable for virtue and devotion, as to be exempted from Adam's sentence and the common lot of his sons; for after he had walked with God 300 years, and prophesied to his brethren, he was translated that he should not see death. Of this miraculous event there can be no doubt but that his contemporaries had some visible demonstration; and as the fate of Abel was an argument to their reason, so the translation of Enoch was a proof to their senses of another state of life after the present. To Adam himself, if he was then alive (s), it must have been a lively and affecting instance of what he might have enjoyed, had he kept his innocence; it must have been a comfortable earnest of the promised victory over the evil one; and have confirmed his hope, that when the head of the serpent should be completely bruised, he and his posterity would be restored to the favour of their Maker, and behold his presence in bliss and immortality.

Notwithstanding this watchful care of God over his fallen creature man, vice, and probably idolatry, spread through the world with a rapid pace. The family of Seth married into that of Cain, and adopted the manners of their new relations. Rape and violence, unbounded lust and impurity of every kind, prevailed universally; and when those giants in wickedness had filled the earth with tyranny, injustice, and oppression; when the whole race was become entirely carnal—God, after raising up another prophet to give them frequent warnings of their fate for the space of 120 years, was at length obliged, in mercy to themselves as well as to the succeeding generations of men, to cut them off by a general deluge. See Deluge.

Thus did God, by the spirit of prophecy, by frequent manifestations of his own presence; and by uninterrupted tradition—make ample provision for the instruction and improvement of the world for the first 1600 years. After the deluge he was pleased to converse again with Noah, and make in his person a new and extensive covenant with mankind, (see Prophecy, No. 11). Of his power, justice, and goodness; of his supreme dominion over the earth and the heavens; of his abhorrence of sin, and his determination not to let it go unpunished—that patriarch and his family had been most awfully convinced; nor could they or their children, for some time, want any other argument to enforce obedience, fear, and worship. The sons of Noah were an hundred years old when the deluge overwhelmed the earth. They had long conversed with their ancestors of the old world, had frequented the religious assemblies, observed every Sabbath day, and been instructed by those who had been Adam. It is therefore impossible that they could be ignorant of the creation of the world, of the fall of man, or of the promise of future deliverance from the consequences of that fall; or that they could offer their sacrifices, and perform the other rites of the instituted worship, without looking forward with the eye of faith to that deliverance seen, perhaps obscurely, through their typical oblations.

In this state of things religion might for some time be safely propagated by tradition. But when by degrees mankind corrupted that tradition in its most essential parts; when, instead of the one Supreme God, they set up several orders of inferior deities, and worshipped all the host of heaven; when, at the same time they were uniting under one head, and forming a universal empire under the patronage of the Sun their chief divinity (see Babel)—God saw it necessary to disperse them into distinct colonies, by causing such discord among them as rendered it impossible for any one species of idolatry to be at once universally established.

After this dispersion, there is reason to believe that particular revelations were vouchsafed wherever men were disposed to regard them. Peleg had his name prophetically given him from the dispersion which was to happen in his days; and not only his father Eber, but all the heads of families mentioned from Noah to Abraham, are with much plausibility supposed to have had the spirit of prophecy on many occasions. Noah was undoubtedly both priest and prophet; and living till within two years of the birth of Abraham, or, according to others, till that patriarch was near 60 years old, he would surely be able to keep up a tolerable sense of true religion among such of his descendants as sojourned within the influence of his doctrine and example. His religious son Shem, who lived till after the birth of Isaac, could not but preserve in tolerable purity the faith and worship of the true God among such of his own descendants as lived in his neighbourhood.

But though the remains of true religion were thus preserved among a few righteous men, idolatry had in a short time prevailed so far among the sons of Noah, that God, saw it expedient not only to shorten the lives of men, but also to withdraw his presence from the generality, who had thus rendered themselves unworthy of such communications; and to select a particular family, in which his worship might be preserved pure amidst the various corruptions that were spreading over the world. With this view Abraham was called, and, after many remarkable trials of his faith and constancy, admitted to a particular intimacy and friendship with his Maker. God was entered into a peculiar covenant with him, engaging to be his present guide, protector, and defender; to bestow all temporal blessings upon him and his seed; and to make some of those seed the instruments of conveying blessings of a higher kind to all the nations of the earth.

It was doubtless for his singular piety that Abraham was fixed upon to be the parent of that people, who should preserve the knowledge of the unity of God in the midst of an idolatrous and polytheistic world; but we are not to imagine that it was for his sake only that all this was done, or that his less worthy descendants were by the equal Lord of all treated with partial fondness for the virtues of their ancestor; it was for the benefit of mankind in general that he was called from his country, and from his father's house, that he might preserve the doctrine of the divine unity in his own family, and be an instrument in the hand of Providence (and a fit one he was) to convey the same faith to the nations around him. Accordingly, we find him distinguished among the neighbouring princes, and kings reproved for his sake; who being made acquainted with his prophetic character, desired his intercession with God. History tells us of his conversing on the subject of religion with the most learned Egyptians, who appear to have derived from him or some of his descendants the rite of circumcision, and to have been for a while stopt in their progress towards the last stage of that degrading idolatry which afterwards rendered their national worship the opprobrium of the whole earth, (see Polytheism, No. 28).

We are informed that his name was held in the greatest veneration all over the East; that the Magians, Sabians, Persians,

(s) According to the Samaritan chronology, he was alive; according to the Hebrew, he had been dead 57 years. Persians, and Indians, all glory in him as the greatest reformer of their respective religions; and to us it appears extremely probable, that not only the Brahmins, but likewise the Hindoo god Brahma*, derive their names from the father of the faithful. As he was let into the various counsels of the Almighty, and taught to reason and reflect upon them; as he was fully apprified of the overthrow of Sodom and Gomorrah, with the particular circumstances of that miraculous event; and as he had frequent revelations of the promised Redeemer, whose day he longed earnestly to see, and seeing it was glad—there can be no doubt but that he and his family took care to propagate these important doctrines in every nation which they visited; for the only reason which we can conceive for his being made to wander from place to place was, that different people might be induced to inquire after his profession, his religion, and his hopes.

But though the Supreme Being was pleased to manifest himself in a more frequent and familiar manner to Abraham, he by no means left the rest of the world without sufficient light. Lot professed the true religion in the midst of Sodom. In Canaan we meet with Melchizedek, king and priest of the most high God, who blessed Abraham, and to whom that patriarch himself did homage. Abimelech king of Gerar receiving an admonition from the Lord, immediately paid a due regard to it; and the same sense of religion and virtue descended to his son. Laban and Bethuel acknowledged the Lord, and the former of them was even favoured with a vision. In Arabia, we find Job and his three friends, all men of high rank, entering into the deepest disquisitions in theology; agreeing about the unity, omnipotence, and spirituality of God; the justice of his providence, with other fundamental articles of true religion; and mentioning divine inspiration or revelation as a thing not uncommon in their age and country* (v).

Balaam appears to have been a true prophet; and as he was unquestionably a man of bad morals, the natural inference is, that the gift of prophecy was then, as afterwards bestowed on individuals, not for their own sakes, but for the sake of the public; and that, as in “every nation, he who feareth God and worketh righteousness is accepted of him,” so in those early ages of the world, when mankind were but children in religious knowledge, they were blessed with the light of divine revelation wherever they were disposed to make a proper use of it.

Very few, however, appear to have had this disposition; and therefore God was pleased to adopt Abraham and part of his posterity as the race from which the great Redeemer was to spring, to train them up by degrees in suitable notions of their Creator, and gradually to open up to them, as they were able to receive it, the nature of that dispensation under which “all the nations of the earth were to be blessed in the patriarch’s seed,” (see Prophecy, No. 13). For this purpose, he held frequent correspondence with them; and to strengthen and confirm their faith, to fix and preserve their dependence on the one God of heaven and earth, he daily gave them new promises, each more magnificent than that which preceded it. He blessed Isaac, miraculously increased his substance, and soon made him the envy of the neighbouring princes. He foretold the condition of his two sons, renewed the promise made to Abraham, and blessed the adopted son Jacob, with whom he condescended to converse as he had conversed with Abraham and Isaac; renewing to him the great promise; bestowing upon him all kinds of riches; and impressing such terror upon all the cities which were round about him as prevented them from hurting either him or his family.

All this was indeed little enough to keep alive even in the mind of Jacob a tolerable sense of duty and dependence on his Creator. After the first vision he is surprised, and hesitates, seemingly inclined to make a kind of stipulation with his Maker. “If (says he) God will be with me, and will keep me in this way that I go, and will give me bread to eat, and raiment to put on, so that I come again to my father’s house in peace, then shall the Lord be my God.” It appears not to have been till after many such revelations, blessings, and deliverances, and being reminded of the vow which on this occasion he had vowed, that he set himself in good earnest to perform the religion of his own family, and to drive out from it all strange gods*. So little able, in that age, were the boasted powers of the human mind to preserve in the world just notions of the unity of the Godhead, that we see there was a necessity for very frequent revelations, to prevent even the best men from running headlong into polytheism and idolatry.

Thus was God obliged to treat even with the patriarchs themselves, by way of positive covenant and express compact; to promise to be their God if they would be his people; to give them a portion of temporal blessings as introductory to future and spiritual ones; and to engage them in his service by immediate rewards, till they could be led on to higher views, and prepared by the bringing in of a better hope to worship him in spirit and in truth. With regard to what may be called the theory of religion, mankind were yet scarcely got out of their childhood. Some extraordinary persons indeed occasionally appeared in different countries, such as Enoch, Noah, Abraham, and Job, with many others, who had a more enlarged prospect of things, and entertained more worthy sentiments of the divine dispensations and of the ultimate end of man; but these were far superior to the times in which they lived, and appear to have been providentially raised up to prevent the savage state and savage idolatry from becoming universal among men.

The worship which was practised by those holy men appears to have consisted principally of the three kinds archaic worship of sacrifice mentioned elsewhere (see Sacrifice); to ship of sacrifice which were doubtless added prayers and praises, with the ages performed in faith.

(u) There are great disputes among the learned respecting the antiquity and the author of the book of Job, and whether it be a history of events, or a poem which has its foundation in history. All sober men, however, are agreed, that there really was such a person as Job, eminent for patience under uncommon sufferings; and that he was of very remote antiquity. The LXX. give us the names of his father and mother, and say that he was the fifth from Abraham. the more valuable oblation of pure hands and devout hearts. Such of them as looked forward to a future redemption, and had any tolerable notion of the means by which it was to be effected, as Abraham certainly had, must have been sensible that the blood of bulls and of goats could never take away sin, and that their sacrifices were therefore valuable only when they were offered in faith of that great promise, "which they, having seen it afar off, were persuaded of, and embraced; and confessed that they were strangers and pilgrims upon earth."

That such persons looked for "a better country, even a heavenly one," in a future state cannot be questioned; for they knew well how sin and death had entered into the world, and they must have underlaid the promise made to their original progenitor, and repeatedly renewed to themselves, to include in it a deliverance at some period from every consequence of the first transgression. They were to all intents and purposes Christians as well as we. They indeed placed their confidence in a Redeemer, who in the fulness of time was to appear upon earth, while we place ours in a Redeemer that has been already manifested; they expressed that confidence by one mode of worship, we express it by another; but the patriarchal worship had the same end in view with the Christian—the attainment of everlasting life in heaven.

The generality of men, however, appear not, in the early age of which we now write, to have extended their views beyond the present life. From the confused remains of ancient tradition, they acknowledged indeed some superior power or powers, to whom they frequently applied for direction in their affairs; but in all probability it was only for direction in temporal affairs, such as the cultivation of the ground, or their transactions with each other. In the then state of things, when no part of the world was overstocked with inhabitants, and when luxury with its consequences were everywhere unknown, virtue and vice must have produced their natural effects; and the good man being happy here, and the wicked man miserable, reason had no data from which to infer the reality of a future state of rewards and punishments. Those who were blest with the light of revelation undoubtedly looked forward to that state with a holy joy; but the rest worshipped superior powers from worldly motives. How many of those powers there might be, or how far their influence might reach, they knew not. Uncertain whether there be one Supreme Governor of the whole world, or many co-ordinate powers presiding each over a particular country, climate, or place—gods of the hills and of the valleys, as they were afterwards distinguished—they thought that the more of these they could engage in their interest the better. Like the Samaritans therefore, in after times, they fought, wherever they came, the "manners of the god of the land," and served him, together with their own gods.

Thus was the world ready to lose all knowledge of the true God and his worship, had not he been graciously pleased to interpose, and take effectual care to preserve that knowledge in one nation, from which it might be conveyed to the rest of mankind at different times, and in greater or lesser degrees, as they should be capable of receiving it. To this purpose he made way for the removal of Jacob and his family to one of the most improved and polished countries of the world; and introduced them into it in a manner so advantageous, as to give them an opportunity of imparting much religious knowledge to the natives. The natives, however, were gross idolaters; and that his chosen people might be as far as possible from the contagion of their example, he placed them upon the borders of Egypt, where, though they multiplied exceedingly, they were by their very occupation still kept a separate people, and must have been rendered, by a long and severe oppression, in a great degree adverse to the manners and religion of their neighbours. This aversion, however, seems to have gradually become less and less; and before they were miraculously redeemed from their house of bondage, they had certainly lost all correct notions of the unity of God, and the nature of his worship, and had adopted the greater part of the superstitions of their task-masters. Of this we need no other proof than what is implied in the words of Moses, when he said unto God, "Behold, when I come unto the children of Israel, and say unto them, the God of your fathers hath sent me unto you; and they shall say unto me, What is his name? and I say unto them, What shall I say unto them?" Had not the defined lawgiver of the Hebrews been aware that his countrymen had adopted a plurality of gods, this difficulty could not have occurred to him; for names are never thought of but to distinguish from each other beings of the same kind; and he must have remembered, that in Egypt, where the multitude of gods was marshalled into various classes, the knowledge of their names was deemed of great importance. This we learn likewise from Herodotus, who informs us, that the Pelasgi, Lib. ii., after settling in Greece, thought it necessary to consult cap. 52, the oracle of Dodona, whether it would be proper to give to their own gods the names of the Egyptian divinities; and that the oracle, as might have been supposed, assured them that it would. Indeed the Hebrews during their residence in Egypt had acquired such an attachment to the idolatrous worship of the country, that it appears never to have left them entirely till many ages afterwards, when they were carried captive into Babylon, and severely punished for their repeated apostacies; and so completely were they infatuated by these superstitions at the era of their exodus, that, as the prophet Ezekiel informs us, they rebelled against God, ch. xxvii, and would not cast away their abominations, or forsake the idols of Egypt, even in the very day that the hand of Omnipotence was lifted up to bring them forth out of that land in which they had been so long and so cruelly oppressed. In such a state of things, to have suffered them to remain longer in Egypt, could have served no good purpose; and therefore to fulfill the promise which he had given to Abraham, God determined to deliver them out of the hand of the Egyptians by means which should convince both them and their offspring of his own supremacy over heaven and earth.

As Moses was the person appointed to deliver God's message to Pharaoh, and to demand of him leave for the Israelites to go three days journey into the wilderness to serve the God of their fathers, it was necessary that he should be endowed with the power of working miracles to evince the reality of his divine mission. Without a conviction that his claims were well founded, neither Pharaoh nor his own countrymen could reasonably have been expected to listen to the proposals of a man who, though blest in his youth with a princely education, had come directly on his embassy from the humble employment. Theology from the fall of Adam to the coming of Christ.

The ployment of a shepherd, which he had for many years exercised in the country of Midian. To prove that he was really sent by God, any visible and undoubted control of the laws of nature would have been abundantly sufficient; but he was to prove not only this truth, but also the unity of the Divine nature; and the miracles which he was directed to work were executions of judgments against the very gods of Egypt.

When Pharaoh first turned a deaf ear to his request, though enforced by the conversion of a rod into a serpent, at the command of Jehovah he smote with the same rod upon the waters in the river, which were instantly converted into blood, and occasioned the death of all the fishes that swam in them. To any people this miracle would have been a proof of Divine agency; but it was in a particular manner calculated to open the eyes of the blind and infatuated Egyptians, who considered the Nile as one of their greatest gods, and all the fishes that it contained as subordinate divinities. They called that noble river sometimes Sirius, sometimes Ophir, sometimes Canopus (see Canopus), and not unfrequently Ωκεανος (x); and adored it as the parent of all their deities. What then must the people have thought when they found their most revered god, at the command of a servant of Jehovah, converted into blood, and all his sacred offspring into stinking carcasses? To conceive their consternation, if it can be conceived, the reader must remember, that the Egyptian priests held blood in the utmost abhorrence, as a thing of which the very touch would deeply pollute them, and require immediate and solemn expiation. The same sacred river was a second time polluted, when it sent forth frogs, which covered all the land of Egypt, and died in the housetops, in the villages, and in the fields; thus rendering it impossible for the people to avoid the touch of dead bodies, though from every such contact they believed themselves to contract an impurity, which, in the case before us, must have been the more grievous, that in the whole country there was not left a pool of uninfected water to wash away the stain.

The third plague inflicted on the Egyptians was, the converting of the dust of the land into lice, upon man and upon beast, throughout the whole kingdom. To see the propriety of this miracle as a judgement upon their idolatry, we must recollect their utter abhorrence of all kinds of vermin, and their extreme attention to external purity above every other people perhaps that has hitherto existed on the face of the earth. On this head they were more particularly solicitous when about to enter the temples of their gods; for Herodotus informs us, that their priests wore linen raiment only, and shaved off every hair from their heads and bodies, that there might be no lause or other detestable object upon them when performing their duty to the gods. This plague therefore, while it lasted, made it impossible for them to perform their idolatrous worship, without giving such offence to their deities as they imagined could never be forgiven. Hence we find, that on the production of the lice, the priests and magicians perceived immediately from what hand the miracle had come, and exclaimed, "This is the finger of God!" The fourth plague seems to have been likewise acknowledged to be the finger of God, if not by the magicians, at least by Pharaoh; for in a fit of terror he agreed that the Israelites should go and serve the Lord. That he was terrified at the swarm of flies which infested the whole country, except the land of Goshen, will excite no wonder, when it is known that the worship of the fly originated in Egypt; whence it was carried by the Caphtorim to Palestine; by the Phoenicians to Sidon, Tyre, and Babylon; and from these regions to other parts of the world. The denunciation of this plague was delivered to Pharaoh early in the morning, when he was on the banks of the Nile, probably paying his accustomed devotion to his greatest god; and when he found himself and his people tormented by a swarm of subordinate divinities, who executed the judgement of Jehovah in defiance of the power of the supreme numen of Egypt, he must have been convinced, had any candour remained in his mind, that the whole system of his superstition was a mas of absurdities, and that his gods were only humble instruments at the disposal of a Superior Power. He was not, however, convinced; he was only alarmed, and quickly relapsed into his wonted obduracy. The fifth plague therefore, the murrain among the cattle, brought death and destruction on his most revered gods themselves. Neither Osiris, nor Isis, nor Ammon, nor Pan, had power to save his brute representatives. The sacred bull, and heifer, and ram, and goat, were carried off by the same malady which swept away all the other herds of deities, these dii feroces, who lived on grass and hay. The impression of this punishment must have been awful on the minds of the Egyptians, but perhaps not equal to that which succeeded it.

In Egypt there were several altars on which human sacrifices were offered; and from the description of the persons qualified to be victims, it appears that those unhappy beings must have been foreigners, as they were required to have bright hair and a particular complexion. The hair of the Israelites was much brighter than that of the Egyptians, and their complexions fairer; and therefore there can be little doubt but that, during their residence in Egypt, they were made to furnish the victims demanded by the bloody gods. These victims being burnt alive on a high altar, and thus sacrificed for the good of the nation, their ashes were gathered together by the priests, and scattered upwards in the air, that a blessing might be entailed on every place to which an atom of this dust should be wafted. Moses too, by the direction of the true God, took ashes of the furnace, probably of one of those very furnaces in which some of his countrymen had been burnt, and sprinkling them towards heaven in the sight of Pharaoh, brought boils and blains upon all the people, of so malignant a nature, that the magicians and the other ministers of the medical gods, with which Egypt abounded beyond all other countries, could not themselves escape the infection.

The powers of darkness were thus foiled; but the heart of the monarch was still hardened. Destruction was therefore next brought on him and his country by the elements, which were among the earliest idol deities not

(x) Whence came the Greek word Ωκεανος, the ocean. not only of the Egyptians, but of every other polytheistic nation. "The Lord rained hail on the land of Egypt; so that there was hail, and fire mingled with the hail, such as there was none like it in all the land Egypt since it became a nation. And the hail smote throughout all the land of Egypt all that was in the field, both man and beast; and the hail smote every herb of the field, and broke every tree of the field." This was a dreadful calamity in itself; and the horror which it excited in the minds of the people must have been greatly aggravated by the well-known fact, that Egypt is blessed with a sky uncommonly serene; that in the greatest part of it rain has never been seen at any other time since the creation of the world; and that a flight and transient shower is the utmost that in the ordinary course of nature falls anywhere throughout the country. The small quantity of vegetables which was left undestroyed by the fire and the hail was afterwards devoured by locusts, which by a strong east wind were brought in such numbers from Arabia, where they abounded at all times, that they covered the whole face of the earth, and did eat every herb of the land, and all the fruit of the trees, so that there remained not any green thing in the trees or in the herbs of the field through all the land of Egypt.

The ninth plague which the obstinacy of Pharaoh brought upon his country, whilst it severely punished the Egyptians for their cruelty to the Hebrews, struck at the very foundation of all idolatry. We have elsewhere shown, that the first objects of idolatrous worship were the contending powers of light and darkness (see Polytheism); and that the benevolent principle, or the power of light, was everywhere believed to maintain a constant superiority over the power of darkness. Such was the faith of the ancient Persians; and such, as a very learned writer has lately proved, was likewise the faith of the earlier Egyptians. It was therefore with wisdom truly divine, that God, to show the vanity of their imaginations, brought upon those votaries of light, who fancied themselves the offspring of the sun, a preternatural darkness, which, for three days, all the powers of their supreme deity, and his subordinate agents, could not dispel.

The tenth and last plague brought on this idolatrous people was more universally and severely felt than any which had preceded it. It was likewise, in some sense, an instance of the lex talionis, which requires an eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth, &c. Moses was commanded, at his first interview with Pharaoh, to say, "Thus saith the Lord, Israel is my son, even my first-born. Let my son go that he may serve me; and if thou refuse to let him go, behold, I will slay thy son, even thy first-born." Before this threat was put in execution, every attempt was made to soften the hardened heart of the obdurate tyrant. The waters of his sacred river were turned into blood, and all the fishes that it contained slain; frogs were brought over all the land to pollute the people; the ministers of religion were rendered so impure by vermin, that they could not discharge their wonted offices; the animals most revered as gods, or emblems of gods, were cut off by a murrain; the elements, that were everywhere worshipped as divinities, carried through the land a devastation, which was completed by swarms of locusts; the ashes from the sacred furnace, which were thought to convey blessings whithersoever they were wafted, were made to communicate incurable diseases; a thick and preternatural darkness was spread over the kingdom, in defiance of the power of the great Osiris; and when the hearts of the people and their sovereign continued still obdurate, the eldest son in each family was slain, because they refused to let go Israel, God's first-born. From this universal petition the Israelites were preferred by sprinkling the door-pots of their houses with the blood of one of the animals adored in Egypt; a fact which, as it could not be unknown to Pharaoh or his subjects, ought to have convinced that people of the extreme absurdity of their impious superstitions. This effect it seems not to have had; but the death of the first-born produced the deliverance of the Hebrews; for when it was found that there was not a house where there was not one dead, "Pharaoh called for Moses and Aaron by night, and said, Rise up, and get you forth from among my people, both you and the children of Israel; and blest me also. And the Egyptians were urgent upon the people, that they might send them out of the land in haste; for they said, We be all dead men (Y)." The wonted obstinacy of the monarch indeed very soon returned; and his subjects, forgetting the loss of their children, joined with him in a vain attempt to bring back to bondage the very people whom they had been thus urgent to send out of the land; but their attempt was defeated by Jehovah, and all who engaged in it drowned in the Red sea.

The God of Israel having thus magnified himself over the Egyptians and their gods, and rescued his people from bondage by such means as must not only have struck terror and astonishment into the whole land, but also have spread his name through all the countries which had any communication with that far-famed nation, proceeded to instruct and exercise the Hebrews for many years in the wilderness. He inculcated upon them Reason of the unity of the Godhead; gave them statutes and retaining judgements more righteous than those of any other nation; and by every method consistent with the freedom in the will of moral agency guarded them against the contagion of heresies, idolatry and polytheism. He sent his angel before them to keep them in the way, took upon himself the office of their supreme civil governor, and by his presence directed them in all their undertakings. He led them with repeated signs and wonders through the neighbouring nations, continued to try and discipline them.

(y) For this account of the plagues of Egypt, we are indebted to the very valuable Observations on the subject published by Mr Bryant. We have not quoted the authorities by which the learned and pious author supports his opinions; because it is to be hoped, that for a fuller account of these important transactions the reader will have recourse to his work, of which we have given only a very brief abstract. For much of the preceding parts of this section, we acknowledge our obligations to Bishop Law's admirable discourse on the Several Dispensations of Revealed Religion. them till they were tolerably attached to his government and established in his worship, and introduced them into the Promised Land when its inhabitants were ripe for destruction. At their entrance into it, he gave them a summary repetition of their former laws, with more such ordinances, both of a ceremonial and moral kind, as were both suited to their temper and circumstances, as well as to prefigure, and by degrees to prepare them for, a more perfect dispensation under the Messiah.

The Jewish law had two great objects in view; of which the first was to preserve among them the knowledge of the true God, a rational worship springing from that knowledge, and the regular practice of moral virtue: and the second was to fit them for receiving the accomplishment of the great promise made to their ancestors, by means analogous to those which a schoolmaster employs to fit his pupils for discharging the duties of mature years. Every thing in that law peculiar to itself, its various ceremonies, modes of sacrificing, the sanctions by which it was enforced, and the theocratic government by which it was administered, had a direct tendency to promote one or other of these ends; and keeping these ends in view, even the minutest laws, at which impious ignorance has affected to make itself merry, will be discovered by those who shall study the whole system, and are at the same time acquainted with the genius of ancient polytheism, to have been enacted with the most consummate wisdom.

It is not easy for us, who have been long blest with the light of revelation, to conceive the propensity of all nations, in that early age of the world, to the worship of false gods, of which they were daily adding to the number. It is indeed probable, from many passages of Scripture, as well as from profane authors of the greatest antiquity, that one supreme numen was everywhere acknowledged: but he was considered as an extraordinary being, too highly exalted to concern himself with the affairs of this world, the government of which, it was believed, he had delegated to various orders of subordinate deities. Of these deities, some were supposed to have the charge of one nation and some of another. Hence it is, that we read of the gods of Egypt, the gods of the Ammonites, and the gods of the different nations around Palestine. None of these nations denied the existence of their neighbour's gods; but all agreed that while the Egyptians were the peculiar care of Osiris and Isis, the Amorites might be the favourites of Moloch, the Phoenicians of Cronus, and the Philistines of Dagon; and they had no objection occasionally to join with each other in the worship of their respective tutelary deities. Nay, it was thought impiety in foreigners, while they sojourned in a strange country, not to sacrifice to the gods of the place. Thus Sophocles makes Antigone say to her father, that a stranger should both venerate and abhor those things which are venerated and abhorred in the city where he resides; and another author*, who, though comparatively late, drew much of his information from ancient writings, which are now lost, affirms us, that this complaisance proceeded from the belief that the several parts of the world were from the beginning distributed to several powers, of which each had his peculiar allotment and residence."

From this notion of local divinities, whose power or partial fondness was confined to one people, the Israelites, on their departure from Egypt, appear not to have been free (z). Hence it is, that when the true God first tells them, by their leader Moses†, that if they would obey his voice indeed and keep his covenant, then they should be a peculiar treasure to him above all people: to prevent them from supposing that he shared the earth with the idols of the heathen, and had from partial fondness chosen them for his portion, he immediately adds, for all the earth is mine. By this purpose of separation he gave them plainly to understand that they were chosen to be his peculiar treasure for some purpose other than general importance; and the very first article of the covenant which they were to keep was, that they should have no other gods but him. So inveterate, however, was the principle which led to an intercommunity of the objects of worship, that they could not have kept this article of the covenant but in a state of separation from the rest of mankind‡; and that separation could neither have been effected nor continued without the visible providence of the Almighty watching over them as his peculiar treasure. This we learn from Moses himself, who, when interceding for the people after their idolatrous worship of the golden calf, and intreating that the presence of God would still accompany them, adds these words §: "For wherein shall it be known here that I and thy people have found grace in thy sight? Is it not in that thou goest with us? So shall we be separated, I and thy people, from all the people that are on the face of the earth." On this separation every thing depended; and therefore to render it the more secure, Jehovah was graciously pleased to become likewise their supreme Magistrate, making them a "kingdom of priests and a holy nation," and delivering to them a digest as well of their civil as of their religious laws.

The Almighty thus becoming their King, the government of their Israelites was properly a theocracy, in which the two societies, civil and religious, were of course incorporated. They had indeed after their settlement in the Promised Land, at first, temporary judges occasionally raised up; and afterwards permanent magistrates called kings, to lead their armies in war, and to give vigour to the administration of justice in peace: but neither these judges nor these kings could abrogate a single law of the original code, or make the smallest addition to it but by the spirit of prophecy. They cannot

(z) It is not indeed evident that they had got entirely quit of this absurd opinion at a much later period. Jephtha, one of their judges, who, though half organized (as Warburton observes) by a bad education, had probably as correct notions of religion as an ordinary Israelite, certainly talked to the king of Ammon as if he had believed the different nations of the earth to be under the immediate protection of different deities: "Wilt not thou (says he) possess that which Chemosh thy god giveth thee to possess! So whosoever the Lord our God shall drive out from before us, them will we possess." (Judges xi. 24.) not therefore be considered as supreme magistrates, by whatever title they may have been known; for they were to go out and come in at the word of the priests, who were to ask counsel for them of the Lord, and with whom they were even associated in all judicial proceedings, as well of a civil as of a spiritual nature*. Under any other than a theocratic government the Hebrews could not have been kept separate from the nations around them; or if they could, that separation would not have answered the great purpose for which it was established. "The people, on their leaving Egypt, were sunk into the lowest practices of idolatry. To recover them by the discipline of a separation, it was necessary that the idea of God and his attributes should be impressed upon them in the most sensible manner. But this could not be commodiously done under his character of God of the universe: under his character of King of Israel, it well might. Hence it is, that we find him in the Old Testament so frequently represented with affections analogous to human passions. The civil relation in which he stood to the Israelites made such a representation natural; the grossness of their conceptions made the representation necessary; and the guarded manner in which it was always qualified prevented it from being mischievous†." Hence too it is, that under the Mosaic dispensation, idolatry was a crime of state, punishable by the civil magistrate. It was indeed high treason, against which laws were enacted on the juttest principles, and carried into effect without danger of error. Nothing less indeed than penal laws of the severest kind could have restrained the violent propensity of that headstrong people to worship, together with their own God, the gods of the Heathen. But penal laws enacted by human authority for errors in religion are manifestly unjust; and therefore a theocratic government seems to have been absolutely necessary to obtain the end for which the Israelites were separated from the surrounding nations.

It was for the same purpose that the ritual law was given, after their presumptuous rebellions in the wilderness. Before the buffaloes of the golden calf, and their frequent attempts to return into Egypt, it seems not to have been the Divine intention to lay on them a yoke of ordinances; but to make his covenant depend entirely on their duly practising the rite of circumcision; observing the festivals instituted in commemoration of their deliverance from bondage, and other signal services vouchsafed them; and keeping inviolate all the precepts of the decalogue (a), which, if they had done, they should have even lived in them†. But after their repeated apostacies, and impious wishes to mix with the surrounding nations, it was necessary to subject them to a multifarious ritual, of which the ceremonial parts were solemn and splendid, fitted to engage and fix the attention of a people whose hearts were gross; to inspire them with reverence, and to withdraw their affections from the pageantry of those idle superstitions which they had so long winneffed in the land of Egypt.

To keep them warmly attached to their public worship, that worship was loaded with opulent and magnificent rites, and so completely incorporated with their civil polity as to make the same things at once duties of religion and acts of state. The service of God was indeed so ordered as to be the constant business as well as entertainment of their lives, supplanting the place of all other entertainments; and the sacrifices which they were commanded to offer on the most solemn occasions, were of such animals as the Egyptians and other Heathens deemed sacred.

Thus a heifer without blemish was in Egypt held sanctified to the goddess Isis, and worshipped as the representative of that divinity; but the same kind of heifer, by the ritual law of the Hebrews commanded to be burnt without the camp, as the vilest animal, and the water of separation to be prepared from her ashes*. Num. xii; The goat was by the Egyptians held in great veneration as emblematical of their ancient god Pan, and sacrifices of the most abominable kind were offered to the impure animal (see PAN); but God, by his servant Moses, enjoined the Israelites to offer goats themselves as sacrifices for sin, and on one occasion to dismiss the live animal loaded with maledictions into the wilderness†. The Egyptians, with singular zeal, worshipped a calf without blemish as the symbol of Apis, or the god of fertility; and it appears from the book of Exodus, that the Israelites themselves had been infected with that superstition. They were, however, so far from being permitted by their Divine lawgiver to consider that animal as sacred, that their priests were commanded to offer for themselves a young calf as a sin-offering†. No animal was in Egypt held in greater reverence than the ram, the symbol of their god Ammon, one of the constellations. It was therefore with wisdom truly divine, that Jehovah, at the institution of the passover, ordered his people to kill and eat a young ram on the very day that the Egyptians began their annual solemnities § in honour of that animal as one of their greatest gods; and that he enjoined the blood of this divine victimity to be sprinkled as a sign on the two side-panels and upper door-post of the house in which he was eaten, cap. iv.

Surely it is not in the power of imagination to conceive a ritual better calculated to cure the Israelites of their propensity to idol worship, or to keep them separate from the people who had first given them that propensity, than one which enjoined them to offer in sacrifice the very creatures which their superstitious matters had worshipped as gods. "Shall we (said Moses) sacrifice the abominations of the Egyptians before their eyes, and will they not flume us?"

But it was not against Egyptian idolatry only that the ritual law was framed: the nations of Syria, in the midst of whom the Israelites were to dwell, were addicted to many cruel and absurd superstitions, against which it was necessary to guard the people of God as against the brute-worship of Egypt. We need not inform any reader of the book of Moses that those nations worshipped

---

(a) Of these precepts we think it not necessary, in an abstract so short as this, to waste the reader's time with a formal and laboured defence. To the decalogue no objection can be made by any man who admits the obligations of natural religion; for, except the observation of the Sabbath-day, it enjoins not a single duty which does not by the confession of all men result from our relations to God, ourselves, and our fellow-creatures. Theology ped the sun and moon and all the host of heaven; or that it was part of their religion to propitiate their offended gods by occasionally sacrificing their sons and their daughters. From such worship and sacrifices the Israelites were prohibited under the severest penalties; but we cannot consider that prohibition as making part of the ritual law, since it relates to practices impious and immoral in themselves, and therefore declared to be abominations to the Lord. The Phoenicians, however, and the Canaanites, entertained an opinion that every child came into the world with a polluted nature, and that this pollution could be removed only by a lufrat fire. Hence they took their new-born infants, and with particular ceremonies made them pass through the flame of a pile sacred to Baal or Moloch, the symbols of their great god the sun. Sometimes this purgation was delayed till the children had arrived at their tenth or twelfth year, when they were made either to leap through the flame, or run several times backwards and forwards between two contiguous sacred fires; and this lustration was supposed to free them from every natural pollution, and to make them through life the peculiar care of the deity in whose honour it was performed.

The true God, however, who would have no fellowship with idols, forbade all such purifications among his people, whether done by fires consecrated to himself or to the bloody deities of the Syrian nations. "There shall not be found (says he) among you any one that maketh his son or his daughter to pass through the fire."

There are, in the Jewish law, few precepts more frequently repeated than that which prohibits the feeding of a kid in its mother's milk; and there being no moral fitness in this precept when considered absolutely and without regard to the circumstances under which it was given, infidel ignorance has frequently thought fit to make it the subject of profane ridicule. But the ridicule will be forborne by those who know that, among the nations round Judea, the feeding on a kid boiled in its mother's milk was an essential part of the impious and magical ceremonies celebrated in honour of one of their gods, who was supposed to have been suckled by a she-goat. Hence, in the Samaritan Pentateuch, the text runs thus: "Thou shalt not feed a kid in its mother's milk; for whoever does so, is as one who sacrifices an abominable thing, which offends the God of Jacob."

Another precept, apparently of very little importance, is given in these words: "Ye shall not round the corners of your heads, neither shalt thou mar the corners of thy beard." But its wisdom is seen at once, when we know that at funerals it was the practice of many of the heathens, in that early period, to round the corners of their heads, and mar their beards, that by throwing the hairs they had cut off on the dead body, or the funeral pile, they might propitiate the shade of the departed hero; and that in other nations, particularly in Phoenicia, it was customary to cut off all the hair of their heads except what grew on the crown, which, with great solemnity, was consecrated either to the sun or to Saturn. The unlearned Christian, if he be a man of reflection, must read with some degree of wonder such laws as these: "Thou shalt not sow thy vineyard with divers seeds, lest the fruit of thy seed which thou hast sown and the fruits of thy vineyard be defiled. Thou shalt not plow with an ox and an ass together. Thou shalt not wear a garment of divers sorts, or of woollen and linen together." But his wonder will cease when he knows that all these were practices from which the Sabian idolaters of the east expected the coming of greatest advantages. Their belief in magic and judicial astrology led them to imagine, that by sowing different kinds of corn among their vines they should propitiate the gods which were afterwards known in Rome by the names of Bacchus and Ceres; that, by yoking animals to heterogeneous as the ox and the ass in the same plough, they should by a charm secure the favour of the deities who presided over the affairs of husbandry; and that a garment composed of linen and woollen, worn under certain conjunctions of the stars, would protect its owner, his flocks, his herds, and his field, from all malign influences, and render him in the highest degree prosperous through the whole course of his life. But magical ceremonies were always performed in order to render propitious good or evil demons (see Magic), and therefore such ceremonies, however unimportant in themselves, were in that age most wisely prohibited in the Mosaic law, as they naturally led those who were addicted to them to the worship of idols and impure spirits.

If the whole ritual of the Jewish economy be examined in this manner, every precept in it will be found to be directed against some idolatrous practice of the age in which it was given. It was therefore admirably calculated to keep the Israelites a separate people, and to prevent too close an intercourse between them and their Gentile neighbours. The distinction made by their law between clean and unclean animals (see Slavery, No. 33) rendered it impossible for them, without a breach of that law, to eat and drink with their idolatrous neighbours; their sacred and civil ceremonies being directly levelled against the Egyptian, Zabian, and Canaanitish superstitions, had a tendency to generate in their minds a contempt of those superstitions; and that contempt must have been greatly increased by their yearly, monthly, and daily sacrifices, of the very animals which their Egyptian masters had worshipped as gods.

That these laws might have the fuller effect on minds grofs and carnal, they were all enforced by temporal functions. Hence it is that Moses assured them, that if by temporal they would hearken to God's judgements, and keep all them, and do them, they should be blest above all nations; threatening them at the same time with utter destruction if they should at all walk after other gods, and serve them, and worship them. Nor were these temporal rewards and punishments held out only to the nation as a collective body; they were promised and threatened to every individual in his private capacity as the certain consequences of his obedience or disobedience. Every particular Hebrew was commanded to honour his father and mother, that it might go well with him, and that his days might be prolonged; whilst he who cursed his father or his mother was surely to be put to death. Against every idolater, and even against the wilful transgressor of the ceremonial law, God repeatedly declared that he would set his face, and would cut off that man from among his people; and that individuals, as well as the nation, were in this life actually rewarded and punished according to their deserts, has been proved by Bishop Warburton. Indeed the Mo. Theology saith law, taken in its literal sense, holds out no other prospect to the Israelites than temporal happiness; such as, health, long life, peace, plenty, and dominion, if they should keep the covenant; and temporal misery, viz. disease, immature death, war, famine, want, subjection, and captivity, if they should break it. "See (says Moses), I have set before thee this day life and good, death and evil; in that I command thee this day to love the Lord thy God, to walk in his ways, and to keep his commandments, and his statutes, and his judgments, that thou mayest live and multiply; and the Lord thy God shall bless thee in the land whither thou goest to possess it. But if thine heart turn away, so that thou wilt not hear, but shalt be drawn away, and worship other gods, and serve them; I denounce unto you this day, that ye shall surely perish, and that ye shall not prolong your days upon the land whither thou passest over Jordan to possess it." And elsewhere, having informed them that, upon their apostacy, their land should be rendered like Sodom and Gomorrah, he adds, that all men should know the reason of such barrenness being brought upon it, and should say, "Because they have forsaken the covenant of the Lord God of their fathers, which he made with them when he brought them forth out of the land of Egypt, the anger of the Lord was kindled against this land, to bring upon it all the curses that are written in this book."

From this fact, which scarcely any man of letters will venture to deny, some divines have concluded, that the ancient Israelites had no hope whatever beyond the grave; and that in the whole Old Testament there is not a single intimation of a future state. That many of the lower classes, who could neither read nor write, were in this state of darkness, may be true; but it is impossible that those who understood the book of Genesis could be ignorant that death came into the world by the transgression of their first parents, and that God had repeatedly promised to redeem mankind from every consequence of that transgression. They must likewise have known that, before the deluge, Enoch was translated into heaven without tasting death; that afterwards Elijah had the same exemption from the common lot of humanity; and that, as God is no respecter of persons, every one who served him with the zeal and fidelity of these two prophets would, by some means or other, be made capable of enjoying the same rewards. The God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, was not the God of the dead, but of the living.

In the earliest periods of their commonwealth, the Israelites could, indeed, only infer, from different passages of their sacred books, that there would be a general resurrection of the dead, and a future state of rewards and punishments; but from the writings of the prophets it appears, that before the Babylonish captivity that doctrine must have been very generally received. In the Psalms, and in the prophecies of Isaiah, Daniel, and Ezekiel, there are several texts which seem to us to prove, incontrovertibly, that, at the time when these inspired books were written, every Israelite who could read the scriptures must have had some hopes of a resurrection from the dead. We shall consider two of these texts, because they have been quoted by a very learned and valuable writer in support of an opinion the reverse of ours.

In a sublime song, composed with a view to incite the people to confidence in God, the prophet Isaiah has these remarkable words; "Thy dead men shall live together with my dead body shall they arise. Awake and sing, ye that dwell in the dust; for thy dew is as the dew of herbs, and the earth shall cast out the dead." We agree with Bishop Warburton that these words are figurative, and that they were uttered to give the Israelites consolation in very distressful times. The purpose of the prophet was to assure them, that though scattered, their community should, in Babylon, be as completely dispersed as a dead body reduced to dust; yet God would restore them to their own land, and raise that community again to life. This was indeed a prophecy only of a temporal deliverance; but as it is expressed in terms relating to the death and resurrection of man, the doctrine of a resurrection must then have been well known, and generally received, or such language would have been altogether unintelligible.

The prophet Ezekiel, when the state of things was most desperate, is carried by the Spirit into a valley full of dry bones, and asked this question; "Son of man, can these bones live?" To which he answers; "O Lord God, thou knowest." He was not asked if all the dead would rise at the last day; but only if the particular bones then presented to him could live at that time; and while other bones were mouldering in corruption; and to such a question we cannot conceive any answer that a man brought up in the belief of a general resurrection could have given, but—"O Lord God, thou knowest." Had Ezekiel been a stranger to the doctrine of a general resurrection, or had he not believed that doctrine, he would doubtless have answered the question that was put to him in the negative; but convinced that all men are at some period to rise from the dead, "that every one may receive the things done in his body, according to that he hath done, whether it be good or bad," he very naturally said, that God alone knew whether the bones then exhibited to him in the valley would rise before the general resurrection.

But though the more intelligent and righteous Israelites certainly "all died in faith, and not having re-ceived the promises, but having seen them afar off, were persuaded of them and embraced them, confessing that they were strangers and pilgrims on earth, who desired a better country, that is, a heavenly one," they are not to suppose that this heavenly desire arose from any thing taught in the law of Moses. That law, when taken by itself, as unconnected with prior and subsequent revelations, makes no mention whatever of a heavenly inheritance, which St Paul assures us § was given Gal. iii. 430 years before to Abraham by a promise which may be traced back to the first ray of comfort vouchsafed to fallen man in the sentence passed on the original deceiver. "Wherefore then served the law? It was added (says the apostle), because of transgressions, till the seed should come to whom the promise was made." The transgressions here alluded to were polytheism and idolatry, which, with a train of cruel and detestable vices, had overspread the whole world; and the primary intention of the law was to stem the torrent of these corruptions, for which we have seen it was admirably calculated; and, like a schoolmaster, to instruct the Israelites in the unity and worship of Jehovah, and thus by degrees bring them to Christ. But though it is apparent that a future state of rewards and punishments made no part of the Mosaic dispensation, yet the law had certainly a spiritual meaning to be understood when the fulness of time should come.

Every Christian sees a striking resemblance between the sacrifice of the paschal lamb, which delivered the Israelites from the destroying angel in Egypt, and the sacrifice of the Lamb of God, which taketh away the sin of the world. Indeed the whole ritual of sacrifice must have led the more intelligent of them to faith in a future sacrifice; by which, while the heel of the seed of the woman should be bruised, the head of the serpent should be completely crushed (see Sacrifice); and as prophets were raised up from time to time, to prepare them for the coming of the Messiah, and to foretell the nature of his kingdom, there can be no doubt but that those inspired teachers would lay open to them, as far as was expedient, the temporary duration of the Mosaic law, and convince them that it was only the shadow of better things to come. From the nature of their ritual, and the different prophecies vouchsafed them, which became more and more explicit as the time approached for their accomplishment, they must surely have been led to expect redemption from the curse of the fall by the sufferings of their Messiah; but that any one of them knew precisely the manner in which they were to be redeemed, and the nature of that religion which was to supercede their own, is wholly incredible. Such knowledge would have made them impatient under the yoke of ordinances to which they were subjected; for after the Christian faith came into full splendour, mankind could be no longer under the tuition of such a schoolmaster as the law, which "had only a shadow of good things; and so far from their reality, not even the very image of them." Through these shadows, however, the Jews, aided by the clearer light of prophecy, though it too shone in a dark place, might have seen enough of God's plan of redemption to make them acknowledge Jesus of Nazareth, when he came among them working miracles of mercy, for the Messiah so long promised to their forefathers, and in whom it was repeatedly said, that all the nations of the earth should be blessed.

While such care was taken to prepare the descendants of Abraham for the coming of the Prince of Peace, we must not suppose that God was a respecter of persons, and that the rest of the world was totally neglected. The dispersion of the ten tribes certainly contributed to spread the knowledge of the true God among the eastern nations. The subsequent captivity of the tribes of Judah and Benjamin must have confirmed that knowledge in the great empires of Babylon and Persia; and that particular providence of God which afterwards led Ptolemy Philadelphus to have the Jewish scriptures translated into the Greek language, laid the divine oracles open to the study of every accomplished scholar. At last, when the arms of Rome had conquered the civilized world, and rendered Judea a province of the empire; when Augustus had given peace to that empire, and men were at leisure to cultivate the arts and sciences; when the different sects of philosophers had by their disputations whetted each other's understandings, so that none of them was disposed to submit to an imposture; and when the police of the Roman government was such that intelligence of every thing important was quickly transmitted from the most distant provinces to the capital of the empire; "when that fulness of time was come, God sent forth his Son made of a woman, made under the law, to redeem them that were under the law, that we might receive the adoption of sons," and be restored to that inheritance of which the forfeiture introduced the several dispensations of revealed religion into the world.

Sect. V. View of Theology more peculiarly Christian.

Mankind being trained by various dispensations of providence for the reception of Jesus Christ, and the time fixed by the prophets for his coming being arrived, "a messenger was sent before his face to prepare his way before him by preaching the baptism of repentance for the remission of sins." This messenger was John the Baptist, a very extraordinary man, and the greatest of all the prophets. His birth was miraculous, the scene of his ministry the wilderness, his manners austere, and his preaching upright, without respect of persons. He frankly told his audience that he was not the Messiah, that the Messiah would soon appear among them, that "he was mightier than himself, and that he would baptise them with the Holy Ghost and with fire."

Mightier indeed he was; for though born, of a woman the Messiah was not the son of a human father; and though living for the first thirty years of his life in obscurity and poverty, he was the lineal descendant of David, and heir to the throne of Israel. But the dignity of his human descent, great as it was, vanishes from consideration when compared with the glory which he had with his Father before the world was. The Jewish dispensation was given by the ministry of Moses; and illustrated by subsequent revelations vouchsafed to the prophets; the immediate author of the Christian religion is the Logos or the second person of the blessed Trinity, of whom St. John declares, that "he was in the beginning with God, and was God; that all things were made by him; and that without him was not any thing made that was made." We have already proved that in the one Godhead there is a Trinity of persons; and that the Logos is one of the three, is apparent from these words of the apostle, and from many other passages of sacred scripture. Thus he is called the Lord of hosts himself; the first and the last, besides whom there is no God; the most high God; God blest for ever; the mighty God, the everlasting Father, Jehovah our righteousness; and the only wise God our Saviour (b). This great Being, as the same apostle affirms us, was made flesh, and dwelt among men; not that the divine nature was or could be changed into humanity, for God is immutable, the same almighty and incomprehensible Spirit,

(b) Isaiah viii. 13, 14. compared with 1 Peter ii. 7, 8.; Isaiah vi. 5. compared with John xii. 41.; Isaiah xlviv. 6. compared with Revelation xxii. 13.; Psalm lxxviii. 56. compared with 1 Corinthians x. 9. Romans ix. 5. Isaiah ix. 6. Jeremiah xxiii. 6. Jude. Theology Spirit yesterday, today, and forever; but the Word or second person in the godhead, assuming a human soul and body into a personal union with himself, dwelt upon earth as a man, veiling his divinity under mortal flesh. Hence he is said elsewhere to have been "manifested in the flesh," and "to have taken upon him the nature of man;" phrases of the same import with that which affirms "the Word to have been made flesh."

This incarnation of the Son of God is perhaps the greatest mystery of the Christian faith, and that to which ancient and modern heretics have urged the most plausible objections. The doctrine of the Trinity is indeed equally incomprehensible; but the nature of God and the mode of his subsistence, as revealed in scripture, no man, who thinks, can be surprised that he does not comprehend; for a revelation which should teach nothing mysterious on such a subject would be as incredible and as useless as another which contained nothing but mystery. The difficulty respecting the incarnation, which forces itself on the mind, is not how two natures so different as the divine and human can be so intimately united as to become one person; for this union in itself is not more inconceivable than that of the soul and body in one man; but that which at first is apt to stagger the faith of the reflecting Christian is the infinite distance between the two natures in Christ, and the comparatively small importance of the object, for the attainment of which the eternal Son of God is said to have taken on him our nature.

Upon mature reflection, however, much of this difficulty will vanish to him who considers the ways of Providence, and attends to the meaning of the words in which this mystery is taught. The importance of the object for which the Word condescended to be made flesh, we cannot adequately know. The oracles of truth indeed inform us, that Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners; but there are parables scattered through the New Testament which indicate, not obscurely, that the influence of his sufferings extends to other worlds besides this; and if so, who can take on him to say, that the quantity of good which they may have produced was not of sufficient importance to move even to this condescension a Being who is emphatically styled LOVE?

But let us suppose that every thing which he did and taught and suffered was intended only for the benefit of man, we shall, in the daily administration of providence, find other instances of the divine condescension; which, though they cannot be compared with the incarnation of the second person in the blest Trinity, are yet sufficient to reconcile our understandings to that mystery when revealed to us by the Spirit of God. That in Christ there should have dwelt on earth "all the fulness of the Godhead bodily," is indeed a truth by which the devout mind is overwhelmed with astonishment; but it is little less astonishing that the omnipotent Creator should be intimately present at every instant of time to the meanest of his creatures, "upholding all things, the vilest reptile as well as the most glorious angel, by the word of his power." Yet it is a truth self-evident, that without this constant presence of the Creator, nothing which had a beginning could continue one moment in being; that the visible universe would not only crumble into chaos, but vanish into nothing; and that the souls of men, and even the most exalted spirits of creation, would instantly lose that existence, which, as it was not of itself, and is not necessary, must depend more peculiarly on the will of Him from whom it was originally derived. See Metaphysics, No. 272-276, and Providence, No. 3.

In what particular way God is present to his works, we cannot know. He is not diffused through the universe like the anima mundi of the ancient Platonists, or that modern idol termed the substratum of space (Metaphysics, No. 309, 310); but that he is in power as intimately present now to every atom of matter as when he first brought it into existence, is equally the dictate of sound philosophy and of divine revelation; for "in him we live and move and have our being;" and power without subsistence is inconceivable. If then the divine nature be not debased, if it cannot be debased by being constantly present with the vilest reptile on which we tread, why should our minds recoil from the idea of a still closer union between the second person of the ever blest Trinity and the body and soul of Jesus Christ? The one union is indeed different from the other, but we are in truth equally ignorant of the nature of both. Reason and revelation assure us that God must be present to his works to preserve them in existence; and revelation informs us farther, that one of the persons in the Godhead assumed human nature into a personal union with himself, to redeem myriads of rational creatures from the miserable consequences of their own folly and wickedness. The importance of this object is such, that, for the attainment of it, we may easily conceive that he who condescends to be potentially present with the worms of the earth and the grass of the field, would condescend still farther to be personally present with the foulest foul and body of a man. Jesus Christ lived indeed a life of poverty and suffering upon earth, but his divine nature was not affected by his sufferings. At the very time when, as a man, he had not a place where to lay his head; as God, he was in heaven as well as upon earth, dwelling in light inaccessible; and while, as a man, he was increasing in wisdom and stature, his divinity was the fulness of him who filleth all in all, and from whom nothing can be hid.

Perhaps the very improper appellation of mother of God, which at an early period of the church was given to the Virgin Mary, may have been one cause of the reluctance with which the incarnation has been admitted; for as we have elsewhere observed (see Nestorius), such language, in the proper sense of the words, implies what those, by whom it is used, cannot possibly believe to be true; but it is not the language of scripture. We are there taught, that "Christ being in the form of God, thought it no robbery to be equal with God; but made himself of no reputation, and took upon him the form of a servant, and was made in the likeness of man;" that "God sent forth his Son made of a woman, made under the law, to redeem them that were under the law, that we might receive the adoption of sons;" and that "the Word who was in the beginning with God, and was God, by whom all things were made, was made flesh, and dwelt among men (who beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father), full of grace and truth;" but we are nowhere taught that, as God, he had a mother! It was Hey's indeed the doctrine of the primitive church, that the Sermion on very principle of personality and individual existence in the incarnation of Mary's Theology

Mary's son, was union with the uncreated word; and this doctrine is thought to imply the miraculous conception, which is recorded in the plainest terms by two of the evangelists; for he was conceived by the Holy Ghost and born of a virgin*; but, as God, he had been begotten from all eternity of the Father, and in order of nature was prior to the Holy Ghost. This is evident from the appellation of ἀνάγκη given to him by St John; for the term being used in that age, both by the Jewish rabbies and the heathen philosophers, to denote the second divine subsistence, which they considered as an eternal and necessary emanation from the first, sometimes called ἀνάγκης and sometimes τὸ ἐξ ἀνάγκης; and the apostle giving no intimation of his using the word in any uncommon sense, we must necessarily conclude, that he meant to inform us that the divinity of Christ is of eternal generation. That the term ἀνάγκης was used in this sense by the later Platonists, and in all probability by Plato himself, we have sufficiently thrown in another place (see Platonism); and that a similar mode of expression prevailed among the Jews in the time of St John, is apparent from the Chaldee paraphrase; which, in the 110th psalm, instead of the words "the Lord said unto my Lord," has, "the Lord said unto his Word." Again, where we are told in the Hebrew that Jehovah said to Abraham †, "I am thy shield and thy exceeding great reward," we read in the Chaldee, "my Word is thy shield, and thy exceeding great reward." Where it is said, "your new moons and your appointed feasts my soul hateth," the paraphrast hath it, "my Word hateth;" and where it is said, that "Israel shall be saved in the Lord with an everlasting salvation §," in the same paraphrase it is, "Israel shall be saved by the Word of the Lord with everlasting salvation." But there is a passage in the Jerusalem Targum which puts it beyond a doubt, that by the ἀνάγκης the Jews understood a divine person begotten of his Father before all worlds; for commenting on Genesis iii. 22, the authors of that work thus express themselves: "The word of the Lord said, behold Adam, whom I created, is the only begotten upon earth, as I am the only begotten in heaven:" in conformity with which, Philo introduces || the Logos speaking thus of himself; ὁ λόγος ἐλεύθερος ἦν ἐν ἀρχῇ, ὁ λόγος ἦν ἐν ἀρχῇ. I am neither unbegotten, as God, nor begotten after the same manner as you are.

Orthodoxy of the Nicean creed.

(c) We beg leave to recommend to our readers this author's excellent exposition of the apostle's creed, as a work which will render them great affluence in acquiring just notions of the fundamental articles of the Christian faith. They will find it, we think, a complete antidote against the poison of modern Unitarians and modern Trinitarians; of whom the former teach that Jesus Christ was a mere man, the son of Joseph as well as of Mary; while the latter, running to the other extreme, maintain, that, with respect to his divinity, he is in no sense subordinate to the Father, but might have been the Father, the Son, or the Holy Ghost, according to the good pleasure of the eternal three. We have been at some pains to prove his divinity, and likewise his eternal generation; but in such a short compend as we must give, it seems not to be worth while to prove his miraculous conception. That miracle is plainly affected in the New Testament in words void of all ambiguity; and as it is surely as easy for God to make a man of the substance of a woman as of the dust of the earth, we cannot conceive what should have induced any person professing Christianity to call it in question. The natural generation of Christ is a groundless fancy, which can serve no purpose whatever, even to the Unitarians. while they improved that of their neighbours. Hence, by the time that Christ came among them, they had made the word of God of none effect through a number of idle fancies which they inculcated on the people as the traditions of the elders; and as they had attached themselves to different matters in philosophy, their unauthorized opinions were of course different according to the different sources whence they were drawn. The peculiar tenets of the Essenes seem to have been a species of mystic Platonism. The Pharisees are thought to have derived their origin from a Jewish philosopher of the Peripatetic school; and the resemblance between the doctrines of the Sadducees and the philosophy of Epicurus has escaped no man's observation.

Though these sects maintained mutual communion in public worship, they abhorred each other's distinguishing tenets; and their wranglings had nearly banished from them every sentiment of true religion. They agreed, however, in the general expectation of the Messiah promised to their fathers; but, unhappily for themselves, expected him as a great and temporal prince. To this mistake several circumstances contributed: some of their prophets had foretold his coming in lofty terms, borrowed from the ritual law, and the splendor of earthly monarchs. The necessity of casting this veil over those living oracles we have thrown in another place (see Prophecy, No. 17.). At the time when the predictions were made, the Mosaic system had not run out half its course, and was therefore not to be exposed to popular contempt by an information that it was only the harsh rudiment of one more easy and perfect. To prevent, however, all mistakes in the candid and impartial, when the Messiah should arrive with the credentials of miraculous powers, other prophets had described him in the clearest terms as having no form nor comeliness, as a sheep dumb before his shearers, and as a lamb brought to the slaughter; but the Jews had suffered so much from the Chaldeans, the Greeks, and other nations by whom they had been conquered, and were then suffering so much from their masters the Romans, that they could think of no deliverance greater than that which should rescue their nation from every foreign yoke.

What men earnestly wish to be true, they readily believe. Hence that people, being fitted of the yoke under which they and the whole human race were brought by the fall of Adam, mistaking the sense of the blessing promised to all nations through the seed of Abraham, and devoting their whole attention to the most magnificent descriptions of the Messiah's kingdom, expected in him a prince who should conquer the Romans, and establish on earth a universal monarchy, of which Jerusalem was to be the metropolis.

As our Saviour came for a very different purpose, the first object of his mission was to rectify the notions of his erring countrymen, in order to fit them for the deliverance which they were to obtain through him. Accordingly, when he entered on his office as a preacher of righteousness, he embraced every opportunity of inveighing against the false doctrines taught as traditions of the elders; and by his knowledge of the secrets of all hearts, he exposed the vile hypocrisy of those who made a gain of godliness. The Jews had been led, by their separation from the rest of the world, to consider themselves as the peculiar favourites of Jehovah; and the consequence was, that, contrary to the spirit of their own law, and the explicit doctrines of some of their prophets, they looked on all other nations with abhorrence, as on people physically impure. These prejudices all mankind as the objects of love*. The importance in which Moses held the ritual law, and to which, as x. 25—38, the means of preserving its votaries from the contagion of idolatry, it was justly intitled, had led the Jews to consider every ceremony of it as of intrinsic value and perpetual obligation: but Jesus brought to their recollection God's declared preference of mercy to sacrifice; shewed them that the weightier matters of the law, judgement, mercy, and faith, claimed their regard in the first place, and its ceremonial observances only in the second; and taught them, in conformity with the predictions of their own prophets†, that the hour was about to come when the worship of God should not xxxi. 31, be confined to Jerusalem, but that "true worshippers &c. should everywhere worship the Father in spirit and in truth."*

It being the design of Christ's coming into the world to break down the middle wall of partition between the Jews and Gentiles, and to introduce a new dispensation of religion which should unite all mankind as brethren in the worship of the true God, and fit them for the enjoyment of heaven; he did not content himself with merely restoring the moral part of the Mosaic law to its primitive purity, disencumbered of the corrupt gloffes of the Scribes and Pharisees, but added to it many spiritual precepts, which, till they were taught by him, had never occurred either to Jew or Gentile. The Hebrew lawgiver had prohibited murder under the penalty of death; but Christ extended the prohibition to caulefs anger, and to contemptuous treatment of our brethren, commanding his followers, as they valued their everlasting salvation, to forgive their enemies, and to love all mankind. Adultery was forbidden by the law of Moses as a crime of the deepest dye; but Jesus said to his disciples, "that whosoever looketh on a woman to lust after her, hath committed adultery with her already in his heart," and is of course liable to the Divine vengeance. The lex talionis was in force among the Jews, so that the man who had deprived his neighbour of an eye or a tooth, was to suffer the loss of an eye or a tooth himself; but this mode of punishment, which inflicted blemish for blemish, though suited to the hardness of Jewish hearts, being inconsistent with the mild spirit of Christianity, was abolished by our blest Lord, who severely prohibited the indulgence of revenge, and commanded his followers to love even their enemies. Perjury has in every civilized nation been justly considered as a crime of the highest atrocity, and the Mosaic law doomed the false witness to bear the punishment, whatever it might be, which he intended by swearing falsely to bring on his brother; but the Author of the Christian religion forbade not only false swearing, but swearing at all, except on solemn occasions, and when an oath should be required by legal authority. See OATH.

By thus restoring the law to its original purity, and in many cases extending its sense, the blessed Jesus executed the office of a Prophet to the lost sheep of the house of Israel; but had he not been more than an ordinary prophet, he could not have abrogated the most trivial ceremony of it, nor even extended the sense of any of its moral precepts; for their great lawgiver had told them, that "the Lord their God would raise up unto them but one Prophet, like unto him, to whom they should hearken." That Prophet was by themselves understood to be the Messiah, whom they expected to tell them all things. It was necessary therefore that Jesus, as he taught some new doctrines, and plainly indicated that greater changes would soon be introduced, should vindicate his claim to that exalted character which alone could authorise him to propose innovations. This he did in the simplest manner, by fulfilling prophecies and working miracles (see Miracle and Prophecy); so that the unprejudiced part of the people readily acknowledged him to be of a truth "that prophet which should come into the world—the Son of God, and the King of Israel." He did not, however, make any change in the national worship, or assume to himself the smallest civil authority. He had submitted to the rite of circumcision, and strictly performed every duty, ceremonial as well as moral, which that covenant made incumbent on other Jews; thus fulfilling all righteousness. Though the religion which he came to propagate was in many respects contrary to the ritual law, it could not be established, or that law abrogated, but in consequence of his death, which the system of sacrifices was appointed to prefigure; and as his kingdom, which was not of this world, could not commence till after his resurrection, he yielded during the whole course of his life a cheerful obedience to the civil magistrate, and wrought a miracle to obtain money to pay the tribute that was exacted of him. Being thus circumcised, he chose from the lowest and least corrupted of the people certain followers, whom he treated with the most enduring familiarity for three years, and commissioned at his departure to promulgate such doctrines as, consistently with the order of the divine dispensations, he could not personally preach himself. With these men, during the course of his ministry on earth, he went about continually doing good, healing the sick, casting out devils, raising the dead, reproving vice, preaching righteousness, and instructing his countrymen, by the most perfect example which was ever exhibited in the world, of whatsoever things are true, or honest, or just, or pure, or lovely, or of good report. The Scribes and Pharisees, however, finding him not that conqueror whom they vainly expected, becoming envious of his reputation among the people, and being filled with rancour against him for detecting their hypocritical arts, delivered him up to the Roman governor, who, though convinced of his innocence, yielded to the popular clamour, and crucified him between two thieves, as an enemy to Caesar.

Just before he expired, he said, It is finished, intimating that the purpose was now fulfilled for which he had come into the world, and which, as he had formerly told his disciples, "was not to be ministered unto, but to minister, and to give his life a ransom for many." For his blood, as he assured them at the institution of the Eucharist, "was to be shed for the remission of sins." That Christ died voluntarily for us, the just for the unjust, and that "there is none other name under heaven given among men whereby we must be saved," is the uniform doctrine of the prophets who foretold his coming, of John the Baptist who was his immediate forerunner, and of the apostles and evangelists who preached the gospel after his ascension into heaven. Thus Isaiah says of the Messiah, that "he was wounded for our transgressions, and bruised for our iniquities; that the chastisement of our peace was upon him, and that with his stripes we are healed; that we had all like thee gone astray, turning every one to his own way, and that the Lord laid on him the iniquity of us all; that he was cut off out of the land of the living, and stricken for the transgression of God's people; that his soul or life was made an offering for sin; and that he bore the sin of many, and made intercession for the transgressors." The Baptist, "when he saw Jesus coming unto him, said to the people, Behold the Lamb of God, which taketh away the sin of the world;" plainly intimating that his death was to be a sacrifice, since it was only as a sacrifice that the Jews could form any conception of a lamb taking away sin. The epistles of St Paul are so full of the doctrine of Christ's satisfaction, that it is needless to quote particular texts in proof of it. He tells the Romans, that Jesus Christ was set forth to be a propitiation through faith in his blood; he was delivered for our offences, and "raised again for our justification; that he died for the ungodly; and that God commendeth his love towards us, in that while we were yet sinners Christ died for us." He affirms the Corinthians that Christ died for all; that they who live should not henceforth live unto themselves, but to him who died for them and rose again; and that God made him to be sin for us, who knew no sin, that we might be made the righteousness of God in him." He informs the Galatians, that Christ "gave himself for our sins, that he might deliver us from this present evil world, according to the will of God and our Father; and that he redeemed us from the curse of the law, being made a curse for us." St Peter and St John speak the very same language; the former teaching us, that "Christ suffered for us, and bare our sins in his own body on the tree;" the latter, that the blood of Jesus Christ cleanseth us from all sin, and that he is the propitiation for our sins; and not for our sins only, but also for the sins of the whole world. That John, he came into the world for the purpose of suffering, ap. 7. ii. 2. appears from his own words: for "no man (said he) taketh my life from me, but I lay it down of myself: I x. 18. have power to lay it down, and I have power to take it again. This commandment have I received from my Father." And that he voluntarily laid it down for mankind, is evident from his calling himself the Good Shepherd, and adding, that "the Good Shepherd giveth his life for the sheep."

That Christ died for the benefit of the human race, is a truth so apparent from these texts, that no man professing Christianity has hitherto called it in question. Very different opinions have been formed indeed concerning and extent the nature and extent of that benefit, and the means by which it is applied; but that the passion and death of the blest Jesus were essential parts of his ministry on earth, his death has seldom been controverted. That on the cross he made satisfaction to his Father for the sins of the world, is the general belief of Christians; but presumptuous men, aiming at being wise beyond what is written, have started a thousand idle questions concerning the necessity Theology of such satisfaction, and the manner in which it was made. Some limiting the power and mercy of the Omnipotent, have dared to affirm that God could not have pardoned man without receiving full satisfaction for his offences; that nothing but the shedding of the blood of Christ could make that satisfaction; that his death was indeed sufficient to atone for a thousand worlds; that, however, he did not die for all mankind, but only for a chosen few, ordained to eternal life by a secret decree before the foundation of the world; and that the rest of the race are passed by, and doomed to eternal perdition, for the glory of God's justice. Others, convinced by every thing around them that the Creator and Governor of the universe is a being of infinite benevolence, whose only end in giving life must have been to communicate happiness, have contended, that no atonement whatever could be necessary to obtain from him the forgiveness of sin on sincere repentance; that it is contrary to all our notions of justice to punish the innocent for the guilty; and that therefore the death of Christ, though the essential part of his ministry, could not be necessary, but at the most expedient.

We enter not into these debates. The Scriptures have nowhere said what God could or could not do; and on this subject we can know nothing but what they have taught us. That "we are reconciled to God by the death of his Son," is the principal doctrine of the New Testament; and without presuming to limit the power, the mercy, or the wisdom, of him who created and sustains the universe, we shall endeavour to show that it is a doctrine worthy of all acceptation. In doing this, we shall state impartially the opinions which pious men have held respecting the form or manner in which Christ by his death made satisfaction to God for the sins of the world; and we hope that our readers will embrace that opinion which shall appear to them most consonant to the general sense of sacred Scripture.

The strictest adherents to the theological system of Calvin, interpreting literally such texts of Scripture as speak of his being made sin for us, of his bearing our sins in his own body on the tree, and of the Lord's laying on him the iniquity of us all, contend, that the sins of the elect were lifted off from them and laid on Christ by imputation, much in the same way as they think the sin of Adam is imputed to his posterity. "By bearing the sins of his people (says Dr Gill*) he took them off from them, and took them upon himself, bearing or carrying them, as a man bears or carries a burden on his shoulders. There was no sin in him inherently, for if there had, he would not have been a fit person to make satisfaction for it; but sin was put upon him by his Divine Father, as the sins of the Israelites were put upon the scape-goat by Aaron. No creature (continues he) could have done this; but the Lord hath laid on him, or made to meet on him, the iniquity of us all, not a single iniquity, but a whole mass and lump of sins collected together; and laid as a common burden upon him, even the sins of all the elect of God. This phrase of laying sin on Christ is expressive of the imputation of it to him; for it was the will of God not to impute the transgressions of his elect to themselves, but to Christ, which was done by an act of his own; for he hath made him to be sin for us, that is, by imputation, in which way we are made the righteousness of God in him; that being imputed to us by him as our sins were to Christ. The sense (says our author) is, a charge of sin was brought against him as the surety of his people. He was numbered with the transgressors; for bearing the sins of many, he was reckoned as if he had been a sinner himself, sin being imputed to him; and he was dealt with as such. Sin being found upon him by imputation, a demand of satisfaction for sin was made, and he answered it to the full. All this was with his own consent. He agreed to have sin laid upon him, and imputed to him, and a charge of it brought against him, to which he engaged to be responsible; yea, he himself took the sins of his people upon him; so the evangelist Matthew has it, 'He Himself took our infirmities, and bore our sicknesses.' As he took the nature of men, so he took their sins, which made his flesh to have the likeness of sin—viii. 17. fulness, though it really was not sinful. What Christ bore being laid upon him, and imputed to him, were sins of all sorts, original and actual; sins of every kind, open and secret, of heart, lip, and life; all acts of sin committed by his people, for he has redeemed them from all their iniquities; and God, for Christ's sake, forgives all trespasses, his blood cleanses from all sin, and his righteousness justifies from all; all being imputed to him as that is to them. Bearing sin supposes it to be a burden; and indeed it is a burden too heavy to bear by a sensible sinner (E). When sin is charged home upon the conscience, and a faint groans, being burdened with it, what must that burden be, and how heavy the load which Christ bore, consisting of all the sins of all the elect from the beginning of the world to the end of it? and yet he sunk not, but stood up under it; failed not, nor was he discouraged, being the mighty God, and the Man of God's right hand, made strong for himself."

To the Arminians or Remonstrants, this doctrine of the imputation of the sins of men to the Son of God appears as absurd as the similar doctrine of the imputation of the sin of Adam to his unborn posterity; and it is certainly attended with consequences which have alarmed serious Christians of other denominations.

Were it possible in the nature of things, says the Arminian, to transfer the guilt of one person to another, and to lay it upon him as a burden, it could not be done without violating those laws of equity which are established in the scripture and engraven on the human heart. But this is not possible. To talk of lifting lumps of sin, or transferring them like burdens from the guilty to the innocent, is to utter jargon, says he, which has no meaning; and we might with as much propriety speak of lifting a scarlet colour from a piece of cloth and laying it on the sound of a trumpet, as of literally lifting the sins of the elect from them and laying them on Christ. Guilt is seated in the mind; and no man can become a sinner but by an act of volition. If Christ therefore really took upon him the sins of his people, he must have deliberately formed a wish to have actually committed

(E) By the phrase a sensible sinner, the learned author means a sinner who is not past feeling, but has a conscience alive to the sense of remorse. committed all these sins; but such a wish, though it would have made him inherently guilty, and therefore incapable of satisfying for sin, could not have cancelled deeds that were done before he was born, or have made those innocent who really had been sinners. A deed once done cannot be undone; a volition which has been formed cannot be annihilated. By sincere repentance, the habitual dispositions are indeed changed, and those who have been sinners become objects of mercy; but no power can recall the hours that are past, or make those actions which have been performed to have been not performed. To remove guilt from the sinner and lay it on the innocent may therefore be safely pronounced impossible even for Omnipotence itself, for it implies that a thing may be and not be at the same instant of time; and the doctrine which teaches that this removal was made from the elect to Christ, is an imagination of yesterday, which has no countenance from scripture, and is contrary to the established constitution of things. Those who imagine that guilt may be propagated from father to son, have something like an argument to urge for the imputation of Adam's sin to his numberless posterity; for all the men and women who have by ordinary generation been introduced into the world, have undoubtedly derived their nature from the primeval pair. But Christ did not derive his nature from the elect, that their sins should be communicated to him; nor, as he was miraculously conceived by the Holy Ghost, can we attribute to him any degree of that taint which is supposed to have been conveyed from Adam to all the other generations of men.

Nothing more, therefore, can be meant by "Christ's being made sin for us," and "bearing our sins in his own body on the tree," or by God's "laying upon him the iniquity of us all," than that by his sufferings we are freed from the punishment of our sins; it being in scripture a common figure of speech, as even Dr Gill has somewhere acknowledged, to denote by the word fin the consequences of sin. That this figure is used in those texts from which he infers that Christ took the sins of the elect on himself, is evident from the verse which he quotes from the Gospel of St Matthew; in which it is said, that "himself took our infirmities and bore our sicknesses." The sicknesses and infirmities there alluded to are the leprosy, the palsy, the fever, and demoniacal possessions: but when our blest Lord cured these diseases, surely he did not by his omnipotent word lift them off from the patients and take them on himself, so as actually to become a leper, a paralytic, and a daemoniac, or even to be reckoned as such either by the multitude, or by the priests, whose duty it was to take cognizance of every illegal uncleanness*. And if his inveterate enemies did not impute to him the leprosy when he removed that plague from others, why should it be supposed that his own Father, to whom he was at all times well-pleasing, imputed to him the sins of which, by his sufferings, he removed the punishment from those who were guilty? To impute to a person any action, whether virtuous or vicious, which he did not perform, can proceed only from ignorance, or malice, or partiality; but God is no respecter of persons, and from ignorance and malice he is removed to an infinite distance. It is indeed an undoubted truth, that "the Lord Jesus, by his perfect obedience and sacrifice of himself, which he through the eternal Spirit once offered up unto God, hath fully satisfied the justice of his Father; and purchased not only reconciliation, but an everlasting inheritance in the kingdom of heaven for all those whom the Father hath given him;"* but that he actually took on himself the sins of mankind, or that those sins were imputed to him by God, who punished him as a person whom he considered as guilty, is a doctrine equally injurious to the justice of the Father and to the immaculate purity of the Son.

The earnestness with which this doctrine was inculcated by some of the earliest reformers, and the impossibility of admitting it, which every reflecting and unprejudiced mind must feel, was probably one of the causes which drove Socinus and his followers to the extreme of denying Christ's satisfaction altogether, and considering his death as nothing more than that of an ordinary martyr, permitted for the purpose of attesting the truth of his doctrine, and paving the way for his resurrection, to confirm the great promise of immortality. According to these men, forgiveness is freely dispensed to those who repent, by the essential goodness of God, without regard to the merit or sufferings of any other being; and the gospel is said to save from sin, because it is the most perfect lesson of righteousness. The great objection of Crellius to the doctrine of the satisfaction is, that it is a hindrance to piety; for if Christ has paid the whole debt, he thinks that he must have nothing to do, as nothing more can be required of us. And if it were indeed true that our sins are imputed to Christ, and his righteousness imputed to us, this objection would be insurmountable; for God could not justly exact a double punishment for the same sin, or inflict misery on those to whom he imputes perfect righteousness. But as to this imaginary transferring of virtues and vices from one person to another, the scriptures give no countenance; so they nowhere call the death of Christ a satisfaction for the sins of men. The term has indeed been long in use among divines, and when properly explained it may be retained without any danger; but in treating of this subject, it would perhaps be more prudent to restrict ourselves to the use of scripture language, as the word satisfaction carries in it the ideas of a debt paid and accepted; whereas it is said by St Paul, that "eternal life is the gift of God through Jesus Christ our Lord; and that we are justified freely by his grace through the redemption that is in Jesus Christ, whom God hath set forth to be a propitiation through faith in his blood."

To clear up this matter, and attain adequate notions of the death redemption and justification, it will be necessary to look back to the fall of our first parents; for the great purpose for which Christ was promised, and for which he came into the world, was, by bruising the head of the serpent, to restore mankind to the inheritance which they had lost through the transgression of Adam. This is apparent not only from the original promise made to the woman, but also from different passages in the epistles of St Paul, who expressly calls Christ the second Adam, and says, that "as by the offence of one, judgment came upon all men to condemnation; even so by the righteousness of one, the free gift came upon all men unto justification of life;" that "as by one man's disobedience many were made sinners, so by the obedience of one shall many be made righteous;" and that, "as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive." Theology alive." Hence it was that John the Baptist, when he more peculiarly Christian, saw Jesus coming to him, said to his disciples, "Behold the Lamb of God which taketh away, not the sins, but the sin of the world," evidently alluding to Adam's sin and its consequences, since no other sin was ever committed of which the consequences extend to the whole world.

This being the case, it is undeniable, that whatever we lost in the first Adam is restored to us by the second; and therefore they who believe that the punishment denounced against eating the forbidden fruit was death corporal, spiritual, and eternal, must believe that we are redeemed from all these by Christ; who having appeared once in the end of the world to put away sin by the sacrifice of himself, died for us, that whether we wake or sleep, we should live together with him.* If the image of God in which man was created was lost by the breach of the first covenant, it is more than restored to us by the Mediator of a better covenant, which is established upon better promises; if by the sin of Adam we were utterly indispensible, disfavored, and made opposite to all that is spiritually good, and wholly inclined to all evil, and that continually, we are freed from that dreadful curse by our Saviour Jesus Christ, who gave himself for us, that he might redeem us from all iniquity, and purify to himself a peculiar people zealous of good works; and if for our share in the first transgression we be justly liable to all punishments in this world and in that which is to come, the apostle affirms us, that "when we were enemies we were reconciled to God by the death of his Son, because that God was in Christ reconciling the world to himself, not imputing their trespasses unto them." As Jesus is the Lamb slain in the divine decree from the foundation of the world, these beneficial consequences of his death have been extended by a retrospective view to all in every age whose names are written in the book of life, though it is absurd to suppose that he literally took their sins upon him, and impious to imagine that he suffered under the imputation of sin.

Such is the general doctrine of redemption, as it is taught by the more moderate Calvinists and more moderate Remonstrants; for moderate Christians of all denominations, though they express themselves differently, have nearly the same views of the fundamental articles of their common faith. It must not, however, be concealed, that many divines of great learning and piety contend strenuously against the doctrine of vicarious atonement for actual transgressions of the moral law. These are the more zealous Arminians, who deny that we inherit any mortal taint or intellectual weakness from our first parents, whom they believe never to have been in a state of greater perfection than many of their posterity who are called degenerate. According to them, we lose nothing by the fall of Adam but our title to eternal life or perpetual existence, together with those graces of the Holy Spirit which were bestowed under the first covenant to train mankind for the society of heaven; and as eternal life and supernatural grace constituted one free-gift, not due to the nature of man, or indeed of any created being, they might, when forfeited, be restored by any means or on any condition which should seem expedient to the all-wise Donor. These means, and that condition, human reason cannot indeed discover; but it seems very fit that they should be different from the means by which moral agents under the law of nature can secure to themselves the favour of their Creator, or recover it when occasionally lost. The former depends on arbitrary will and pleasure, or at least on no other principles discoverable by us; while the latter arises out of the established and well-known constitution of things. Thus moral virtue, comprehending piety, was the condition of that favour and protection which man, in his original state, could claim from his Maker; but obedience to a positive command was the condition of the free gift of immortality conferred on Adam on his introduction into paradise. The claim arising from the relation between the creature and the Creator is indissoluble, because that relation cannot be dissolved: so that the man who, by a transgression of the moral law has forfeited the favour of God, may reasonably hope to recover it by sincere repentance and a return to his duty: and nothing but such repentance and reformation can recover it; because, in a moral agent, nothing can be agreeable to God but moral dispositions, which cannot be transferred from one person to another, and for the want of which nothing can alone. Our virtues are not required nor our vices prohibited, as if the one could profit and the other injure him who created us; for "is it any pleasure to the Almighty that we are righteous? or is it gain to him that we make our ways perfect?" Will he reprove us for fear of us?" No! He commands us to be virtuous, and forbids us to be vicious, only because virtue is necessary to our own happiness, and vice productive of everlasting misery.

Were an immoral man to be introduced into the society of angels and just men made perfect, he would not experience in that society what we are taught to expect from the joys of heaven; because to such joys his acquired dispositions would be wholly repugnant. Nor could the sufferings of any person whatever, or the imputation of any extrinsic righteousness, make that mind which had long been immersed in the grossest sensuality relish the intellectual and refined enjoyments of heaven; or the man who had been the habitual slave of envy, malice, and duplicity, a fit inhabitant of that place where all are actuated by mutual love. On the other hand, lay the divines whose doctrine we are now detailing, it is impossible to suppose that the Father of mercies, who knows whereof we are made, should have doomed to eternal misery any moral agent who had laboured through life to serve him in sincerity and in truth; or that any atonement could be necessary to redeem from the pains of hell the man whose pious and virtuous dispositions have through penitence and prayer become united to the society of heaven. Unflinching perfection never was nor ever could be expected in man. He is brought into the world free indeed from vice, but equally destitute of virtue; and the great business of his life is to guard his mind from being polluted by the former, and to acquire dispositions habitually leading to the practice of the latter. Till these habits be fairly formed, it seems impossible that he should not sometimes deviate from the paths of rectitude, and thereby incur a temporary forfeiture of the divine favour; but the very constitution of his mind, and the purpose for which he is placed in a state of probation, show that the divine favour thus forfeited can be recovered only by repentance and reformation. Widely different, however, is the case with respect to the forfeiture and recovery of a free gift, to which man has no natural claim. When the condition is broken on which such a gift was bestowed, repentance can be of no avail; it must be either irrecoverably lost, or restored by the mere good pleasure of the giver. Immortality or perpetual existence is a gift which upon certain terms was freely bestowed upon the human race, and forfeited by the transgression of their first parent violating those terms. It was restored by the free grace of God, who was pleased to ordain, that "since by man came death, by man should also come the resurrection of the dead; for as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive." Hence the apostle, writing to the Romans of the benefits of being the children of God, and joint-heirs with Christ, summeth up those benefits with resurrection from the dead." For the creature, i.e., mankind, was made subject (except he *) to vanity or death, not willingly, but by reason of him who hath subjected the same in hope: because the creature itself also shall be delivered from the bondage of corruption into the glorious liberty of the children of God. For we know that the whole creation groaneth, and travaileth in pain together until now: and not only they, but ourselves also, who have the first fruits of the spirit, even we ourselves groan within ourselves, waiting for the adoption, viz., the redemption of our body (r). That this the redemption of our body is the consequence of the sacrifice of Christ, is taught in the most explicit terms in the epistle to the Hebrews; of which the inspired author informs us, that "forasmuch as the children are partakers of flesh and blood, he also himself likewise took part of the same; that through death he might destroy him that had the power of death, that is the devil; and deliver them, who through fear of death were all their lifetime subject to bondage." A vicarious atonement made with this view, the divines, whose theory we are now considering, acknowledge to be perfectly rational and consistent with the strictest justice. "The law of nature (say they +) allows not of vicarious atonements; but ordains that the man who transgresseth shall himself bear the punishment of his iniquity; a punishment which no man deserves for the faults of another, unless he be partaker of the guilt by joining in the transgression." And in proof of this their opinion, they appeal to the words of God himself, declaring to Moses,—"Whoever hath sinned against me, him will I blot out of my book f." But when the free gift of immortality was lost, it was with great wisdom, say they, that God restored it through a Mediator who should make atonement by his blood for the breach of the first covenant; since such a mediation implies that the gift restored is merely of grace, to the attainment of which man could no further co-operate than by his hopes and wishes.

To this view of redemption, and indeed to every view of it which we have yet taken, an objection forces itself upon the mind. Throughout the New Testament life and immortality are considered as a free gift, and called so in express words by St Paul *. To the scheme under consideration it is essential to consider them as * Rom. v. such; and yet we know that a large price was paid for them, as St Paul likewise acknowledges, when he twice tells the Corinthians that they were bought with a price †.

"To clear up this matter (says Bishop Warburton), and to reconcile the apostle to himself, who certainly was not defective either in natural sense or artificial logic, let us once again remind the reader, that life and immortality bestowed on Adam in paradise was a free gift, as appears from the history of his creation. As a free gift, it was taken back by the Donor when Adam fell; to which resumption our original natural rights are not subject, since natural religion teacheth, that sincere repentance alone will reinstate us in the possession of those rights which our crimes had suspended. So that when this free gift, forfeited by the first Adam, was recovered by the second, its nature continuing the same, it must still remain a free gift—a gift to which man, by and at his creation had no claim; a gift which natural religion did not bestow. But if misled by measuring this revealed mystery of human redemption by the feint idea of human transactions, where a free gift and purchased benefit are commonly opposed to one another, yet even here we may be able to set ourselves right, since, with regard to man, the character of a free gift remains to immortality restored. For the price paid by forfeited man was not paid by him, but by a Redeemer of divine extraction, who was pleased, by participating of man's nature, to stand in his stead. Hence the sacred writers seeing, in this case, the perfect agreement between a FREE GIFT and a PURCHASED POSSESSION, call it sometimes by the one and sometimes by the other name t."

A restoration to life and immortality from that state The death of unconfiscatedness or extinction, to which all mankind of Christ were doomed in consequence of the fall, is that great atonement only our Redeemer; and according to the theologians whose actual theory we are now considering, it was the only thing in the divine intention when the promise was given to the first mother that the seed of the woman should bruise head of the serpent. But though they contend that the death of Christ does not operate directly as an atonement for the actual sins of men, they admit that it does so indirectly and by necessary consequence, since it gives opportunities for repentance and newness of life, which under the first covenant they did not enjoy. Had a man under that covenant transgressed any moral precept, he would have forfeited the favour of his God, and either been subjected to punishment or to a long course of repentance; but supposing the efficacy of repentance under

(f) That by the words creature and creation the apostle here means all mankind, and by vanity and corruption, death, the reader will find proved by Dr Whitby, in his note on the place, with a strength of argument which cannot be shaken; and that the whole creation, the Gentiles as well as the Jews, groaned and travailed in pain together under the apprehension of death, is apparent from the writings of Cicero, who always seems doubtful whether death be a good or an evil; and from the lamentation of Hezekiah, when desired by the prophet to set his house in order because he should die and not live. Theology

Part II.

der the law of nature to be what they suppose it to be, he might before it was perfected have lost his existence by the eating of the forbidden fruit; and thus his penitence or punishment have ended in everlasting death. This can never be the issue of things under the new covenant, which, by the death of Christ, secures immortality to man, and gives him opportunities, as long as he shall be in a state of probation, of recovering the divine favour when forfeited, whether by a moral transgression or a temporary violation of the peculiar condition of the covenant. Hence they admit the truth of the apostle's doctrine, that we are gainers by the fall of Adam and the redemption wrought by Christ; which will appear when we come to consider their notions of justification. In the meantime it may be proper to observe, that they consider it as no small confirmation of their opinion, that it tends to put an end to the long agitated disputes concerning the extent of redemption, and to reconcile passages of scripture which, on the commonly received theories both of Calvinists and Arminians, seem to be at variance with each other.

It is well known to be one of the fundamental doctrines of the Calvinistic school, that "none are redeemed by Christ, effectually called, justified, adopted, sanctified, and saved, but the elect only"; and if the notions of redemption, which, in the end of the 17th century, were very generally embraced, be admitted as of faith of justification, it will not be easy to overturn the arguments by which that doctrine is supported. Such of them as are connected with the great question of election and reprobation, and enter into the decision of it, we have stated in another place (see Predestination, No. 14); but it is farther argued, that the doctrine of universal redemption reflects on the wisdom, the justice, and the power of God, and robs him of his glory.

The scriptures assure us that all men shall not be saved; but how can this be, if Christ died for all, and the scheme of salvation by his death was formed by infinite wisdom? The Arminians indeed say, that those who fail of salvation, fail through their own fault in not performing the conditions required of them; but God either knew or knew not that such men would not perform those conditions. If he knew it not, his knowledge is limited; if he did know it, where was his wisdom in providing a scheme of redemption for men to whom he was aware that it would be of no benefit?

"God, we are told, is righteous in all his ways, and holy in all his works;" but there is no righteousness in making Christ bear the sins of all men, and suffer the punishment due to them, if any one of those men shall be afterwards punished eternally. If Christ has already paid the debts of the whole world, it cannot be just to cast a single inhabitant of the whole world into the prison of hell, there to be detained till he shall again have paid the uttermost farthing. "The Lord's hand is not shortened that it cannot save;" for he is and always will be the same Almighty power that he was from eternity; but if by the divine decree Christ died for all men, and yet all men shall not be saved, it would appear that man is mightier than his Maker!

The ultimate end of God in the redemption of man is admitted to have been his own glory; but if any individual of the human race, who was redeemed by Christ, shall not be saved, God will so far lose his end, and be deprived of his glory. For, if this were the case, where would be the glory of God the Father in forming a scheme which, with respect to multitudes, does not succeed? and where would be the glory of the Son of God, the Redeemer, in working out the redemption of men who are yet not to be saved by him? and where would be the glory of the Spirit of God, if redemption were not by him effectually applied to every individual for whom it was wrought? By such arguments as these do the Calvinists oppose the scheme of universal redemption, and contend that Christ died only for the elect, or such as shall be placed on his right hand at the day of judgement. This notion of a limited redemption, as they think it more worthy of the sovereignty of God, they believe to be taught by our Saviour himself, when he said, "All that the Father giveth me shall come unto me; and him that cometh to me, I will in nowise cast out. For I came down from heaven, not to do mine own will, but the will of him that sent me. And this is the Father's will who hath sent me, that of all which he hath given me I should lose nothing, but should raise it up again at the last day."

The Arminians, on the other hand, contend, that it is impious to limit the effects of Christ's death to a chosen few, since it appears from scripture, that by the decrees and intention of his Father he taunted death for men, that all, without exception, might through him obtain remission of their sins. Thus our Lord himself told Nicodemus, that "as Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, even so must the Son of Man be lifted up; that whoever believeth in him, should not perish, but have everlasting life." For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life. For God sent not his Son into the world to condemn the world, but that the world through him might be saved." In perfect conformity with the doctrine of his divine Matter, St Paul teaches, that "Christ died for all;" that God was in Christ reconciling the world to himself, not imputing their trespasses unto them; that "he will have all men to be saved, and to come unto the knowledge of the truth;" that "Christ gave himself a ransom for all;" and that "Jesus Christ the righteous is the propitiation for our sins; and not for our's only, but for the whole world."

On these texts, without any commentary, the Arminians are willing to rest their doctrine of universal redemption; though they think that a very strong additional argument for its truth arises from the numberless absurdities which flow from the contrary opinion. Thus, say they, the apostles were commanded by our Savior to go into all the world and preach the gospel to every creature, and all who hear it preached are required to believe it: but no man, as the Calvinists themselves confess, can believe the gospel as a Christian, without believing that Christ died for him; and therefore, if it be true that Christ died only for the elect, a great part of mankind are required to believe a lie, and a falsity is made the object of divine faith! Again, if Christ did not die for all, then no man can be sure that he Theology he is bound to believe in Christ when preached to him; nor can any man be justly condemned for infidelity: which is not only absurd in itself, but directly contrary to what we are taught by our blessed Lord, who affirms us*, that unbelief is the cause of condemnation. Lastly, if Christ died not for all, then is it certain that he cannot claim dominion over all in consequence of his death.

† Rom. xiv. and resurrection; but S. Paul says expressly†, that "to this end Christ both died, and rose, and revived," that he might be the Lord both of the dead and living." The Arminians acknowledge, that though Christ died for all, there are many who will not be saved; for, say they†, the death of Christ did not literally pay the debts incurred by sinners, but only obtained for them the gracious covenant of the gospel, by which all who believe in him, and sincerely endeavour to work out their own salvation with fear and trembling, are entitled to forgiveness of sins and eternal life.

Such is the state of this controversy as it was agitated between the Calvinists and Arminians of the 17th century; but the present leaders of this latter school are of opinion, that it never could have been started, had not both parties mistaken the purpose for which Christ died. It is not conceivable, say they, that anything for which the eternal Son of God took upon him human nature, and in that nature suffered a cruel and ignominious death, shall not be fully accomplished; and therefore, if in the divine intention he died to make atonement for the sins of man actual as well as original, we must of necessity conclude, that those for whom he died shall certainly be saved. Yet we learn from scripture that many shall go away into everlasting punishment, though the same scripture repeatedly assures us that Christ gave his life a ransom for all, and that he is the propitiation for the whole world. To reconcile these different passages of scripture is impossible, if we suppose that he laid down his life to atone for the actual transgressions of men; but if the direct purpose of the Godhead in forming this stupendous plan of redemption was, that the death of Christ should be the ransom of all from the grave or utter extinction, every difficulty is removed; for we know that all, the wicked as well as the righteous, shall through him be raised to life at the last day. That this was the purpose for which he died, they think apparent from the very words quoted by the Calvinists to prove that redemption was not universal; for he declares that it was his Father's will, "that of all which had been given him he should lose nothing;" not that he should save it all from future punishment, but only that he "should raise it up at the last day."

When St John calls him a propitiation for our sins, which, as we have seen, the divines whose doctrine we are now stating hold him to be indirectly, he does not add, as in our translation, for the sins of the whole world, but παντὸς ἀνθρώπου τοῦ κόσμου, for the whole world, which, by his death, he redeemed from that vanity and corruption under which, according to St Paul, it had groaned from the fall till the preaching of the gospel. Hence it is that our blessed Lord calls himself "the resurrection and the life," and always promises to those who should believe in him that though they were dead, yet should they live, and that he would raise them up at the last day.

Among these various opinions respecting the destination of the death of Christ, it belongs not to us to decide. The serious reader, divesting himself of prejudice in favour of the system in which he has been educated, more particularly Christian, will search the scriptures, and adopt the theory which he shall find most explicitly taught in that sacred volume; but as in every system it is admitted, that one purpose for which Christ died was to redeem mankind from the everlasting power of the grave, and bring to pole for light life and immortality, it is of the utmost importance which to know whether that purpose has been fully attained, as Death we see still triumphing over all the generations born to of men; and as the scriptures give us no hopes of being light life rescued from its dominion but through the medium of a immortal resurrection, some sensible evidence seems necessary to evince that a general resurrection shall actually take place. This we are promised as one great benefit purchased for us by the sufferings of Christ sacrificed on the cross. And since the price has been paid, and paid thus visibly, the nature of the covenant requires that the benefit should be as visibly enjoyed by the person whose sufferings obtained it for his brethren. "If the Redeemer himself had not been seen to enjoy the fruits of the redemption procured, what hopes could have remained for the rest of mankind? Would not the natural conclusion have been, that the expedient of redemption, by the death and sacrifice of Jesus, had proved ineffectual?" This is the conclusion which St Paul himself draws: "If Christ be not risen (says he*), then is our preaching vain, and your faith is also vain; ye are yet in your sins. Then they also, who are fallen asleep in Christ, are perished—ἀπώλονται—are lost, as if they had never existed. But now (adds he) is Christ risen from the dead, and become the first fruits of them that slept. For since by man came death, by man came also the resurrection of the dead: For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive."—So necessarily connected, in the opinion of the apostle, is the resurrection of Christ with the very essence of Christianity†.

We have in another place (see RESURRECTION, No 50.) stated such arguments for the truth of this fundamental article of our common faith, as must carry conviction to every mind capable of estimating the force of evidence; we shall not here relume the subject.

Archbishop King has supposed†, that the human will is a faculty distinct from the understanding and the appetites; that activity is essential to it; and that previous to an election formed, it is equally indifferent to all objects. He thence infers, that a man may choose, and even take delight in, what is not naturally agreeable to any of his appetites; because when the choice is made, a relation is formed between the will and the object of choice, which, from being originally indifferent, now becomes a favourite object. But neither his Grace, nor any other adherer of human liberty, has ever affirmed or supposed, that any man or body of men could deliberately choose evil for its own sake, or enter zealously upon a tedious and difficult enterprise, from which no good could possibly arise, and from which unmixed misery was clearly foreseen as the necessary result of every step of the progress. Such, however, must have been the choice and the conduct of the apostles, when they resolved to preach a new religion founded on the resurrection of Jesus, if they did not certainly know that Jesus had risen from the dead. And this conduct must have been adopted, and, in opposition to every motive which can influence the human mind, have been perfected. vered in by a great number of men and women, without the smallest contradiction having ever appeared in the various testimonies, which at different times, and under the cruellest tortures, they all gave to a variety of circumstances, of which not one had its foundation in truth. He who can admit this supposition, will not surely object to the incredibility of miracles. The resurrection of a man from the dead is an event so different indeed from the common course of things, that nothing but the most complete evidence can make it an object of rational belief; but as the resurrection of Jesus has always been said to have had God for its Author, it is an effect which does not exceed the power of the cause assigned, and is therefore an event possible in itself and capable of proof. It is a deviation from the laws of nature, but it is not contradictory to any one of those laws.

That a great number of men and women should deliberately form a plan of ruin and misery to themselves, without a prospect of the smallest advantage either in this world or in the next, is as different from the common course of things as the resurrection from the dead; and therefore in itself at least as great a miracle: but that they should persist in prosecuting this plan in the midst of torments; that they should spread themselves over the whole world, and everywhere publish a number of falsehoods, without any one of them contradicting the rest; that truth should never escape them either in an unguarded moment, or when lingering on the rack, and yet that all their lies should be in perfect agreement with each other; that they should every one of them court sufferings for a person whom they knew to be an impostor; that not one of the number—not even a single woman—should have so much compassion for a fellow-creature, as to refuse him from the flames by confessing a truth which could injure nobody—not even the suffering deceivers themselves—all this is not only different from the common course of things, but directly contrary to the most known laws of nature, and is therefore not miraculous, but may be pronounced impossible. Yet this impossibility we must admit, or acknowledge, that as Christ died for our sins, according to the Scriptures, and was buried; so he rose again the third day according to the Scriptures; that he was seen of Cephas, then of the twelve; after that of above five hundred brethren at once; after that of James; then of all the apostles; and that he was last of all seen of St Paul *, who was converted by the vision to preach the faith which till then he had persecuted.

Thus are we assured, that "those who have fallen asleep in Christ are not lost, since he is risen from the dead, and become the first fruits of them that slept. For since by man came death, by man came also the resurrection of the dead. For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive. But every man in his own order: Christ the first-fruits, afterwards they that are Christ's at his coming; for all that are in the graves shall hear his voice, and shall come forth; they that have done good unto the resurrection of life, and they that have done evil to the resurrection of damnation +."

Our blessed Lord having conversed familiarly with the eleven apostles for forty days after his resurrection, instructing them in the things pertaining to the kingdom of God; having extended their authority as his ministers, by giving them a commission to teach all nations, and make them his disciples, by baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost; and having promised them power from on high to enable them to discharge the duties of so laborious an office—led them out as far as Bethany, that they might be witnesses of his ascension into heaven. "When they therefore were come together, they asked of him, saying, Lord, wilt thou at this time restore again the kingdom to Israel? And he said, it is not for you to know the times and the seasons, which the Father hath put in his own power. But ye shall receive power after that the Holy Ghost is come upon you; and ye shall be witnesses unto me, both in Jerusalem, and in all Judea, and in Samaria, and unto the uttermost parts of the earth. But tarry ye in the city of Jerusalem, until ye be endued with power from on high; and he lift up his hands and blessed them; and it came to pass while he blessed them, he was parted from them, and a cloud received him out of their sight. And while they looked steadfastly towards heaven, as he went up, behold, two men stood by them in white apparel; who also said, ye men of Galilee, why stand ye gazing up into heaven? This same Jesus, who is taken up from you into heaven, shall so come, in like manner as ye have seen him go into heaven. And they worshipping him, and returned to Jerusalem with great joy *."

That our blessed Lord ascended into heaven, will proofs scarcely be denied in the present age by any one who Christ's ascension admits that he rose from the dead. The ascension was indeed the natural consequence of the resurrection; for we cannot suppose that a man would be called back from the grave to live for ever in a world where all other men fall in succession a prey to death. The purpose for which he died was to recover for the descendants of Adam every privilege which they had forfeited through his transgression; and if, as has been generally believed, mankind were by the terms of the first covenant to enjoy eternal life in heaven, some proof was necessary that Christ by his death and resurrection had opened the kingdom of heaven to all faithful observers of the terms of the second. Hence it was prophesied + Ps. lxviii. of the Messiah, in whom all the nations of the earth 18. cx. ii. were to be blest, that "he should ascend on high, Micah ii. lead captivity captive, and sit on the right hand of God 15: until his enemies should be made his footstool." It was therefore of the greatest importance to the apostles to have sufficient proof of their Master's exaltation to the right hand of the Majesty on high; for otherwise they could neither have looked for an entrance into heaven themselves, by a new and living way, as the author of the epistle to the Hebrews expresses it, nor have preached Jesus as the Messiah promised to their fathers, since they could not have known that in him these prophecies were fulfilled. But the proof vouchsafed them was the most complete that the nature of the thing would bear. The spectators of the ascension were many; for, according to the history of St Luke †, those who returned Acts i., from the Mount of Olives to Jerusalem, and prepared 12—16. themselves for the coming of the Holy Ghost, were in number about five score; and to such a cloud of witnesses the evangelist would not have appealed, had not the fact he was recording been very generally known. Yet these were perhaps but part of the witnesses; for since Theology since Christ had told to his disciples that he was to ascend to his Father and their Father, to his God and their God, and that he was going to prepare a place for them, that where he is there they might be likewise; we can hardly doubt but that all who believed in him as the Redeemer of the world would take care to be present, not only to view their Master's triumph over all his enemies, but also to have a sight of that glory which awaited themselves. It was on this occasion probably that he was seen after his resurrection by above five hundred brethren at once, of whom the greater part were alive at the writing of St Paul's first epistle to the Corinthians.

But though such multitudes of people saw Jesus lifted up from the mount, and gradually vanish out of their sight, some other evidence seemed necessary to certify them of the place to which he had gone. Two angels therefore appear, and attest what human eyes could not see, but what was indeed the consequence of what they had seen. They attest that Christ had ascended to heaven, not to descend again till the last day; and surely, with respect to this point, the citizens of heaven were the most unexceptionable witnesses. We must therefore acknowledge and confess, against all the wild heresies of old (K), that Jesus Christ the Son of God, who died and rose again, did with the same body and soul with which he had lived upon earth ascend up into heaven, there to appear in the presence of God for us.*

Having in the outward tabernacle of this world once offered up himself a pure and perfect sacrifice for the expiation of our sins, he entered within the veil into the most holy place, there to present his blood before God himself, in order to obtain mercy for us, and therefore to the Divine favour. So that, "if any man sin, we have an advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous, who is the propitiation for our sins, and not for ours only, but also for the sins of the whole world; and he is able to save to the uttermost those that come to God by him, seeing he ever liveth to make intercession for us." Seeing then that we have a great high-priest, who is passed into the heavens, Jesus the Son of God, we may through him come boldly unto the throne of grace, that we may obtain mercy, and find grace to help in time of need."

But it is not the office of a priest only that our Lord discharges in heaven; he is represented as sitting on the right hand of God, to denote that regal authority with which he is now vested; "angels, and authorities, and powers, being made subject to him." Hence it is, that after his resurrection, he said of himself†, "all power is given unto me in heaven and in earth;" for, as St Paul informs us§, "because he humbled himself and became obedient unto death, even the death of the cross, therefore God hath highly exalted him, and given him a name which is above every name: that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, of things in heaven, and things in earth, and things under the earth. And this submission is due to him, because "God raised him from the dead, and set him at his own right hand in the heavenly places, far above all principalities and powers, and might, and dominion, and every name that is named, not only in this world, but also in that which is to come; and hath put all things under his feet, and gave him to be head over all things to the church."* Eph. As God, Christ possessed a kingdom, which, as it had no beginning, can never have an end: but the dominion, of which the apostle is here treating, was confined upon him as the mediator of the new covenant, and will no longer continue than till his enemies shall be subdued; for we are told, that "he must reign till he hath put all enemies under his feet; and that the last enemy which shall be destroyed is death."† He will ransom his subjects from the power of the grave; he will redeem them from death. O death, he will be thy plague; O grave, he will be thy destruction.§

The trumpet shall sound, the graves shall be opened, all the sons and daughters of Adam shall return to life, and death shall be swallowed up in victory. Then cometh the end, when the office of mediator ceasing, he shall have delivered up the kingdom to God, even the Father, when he shall have put down all rule and all authority and power. For when all things shall be subjected unto him, then shall the Son also himself be subject unto him that put all things under him, that God may be all in all.†

The first conspicuous proof which our blessed Lord gave of being veiled with supreme power, and made head over all things to the church, was on the day of Pentecost. He had told the apostles that he would pray the Father to give them another comforter, who should abide with them for ever, even the Spirit of truth, which should teach them all things, and bring all things to their remembrance which he had said unto them. He had assured them, that it was expedient for them that he himself should go away; "for if I go not away (said he*), the Comforter will not come unto you; but if I depart, I will send him unto you." At his last interview with them, just before his ascension, he had desired them to tarry at Jerusalem till they should be endued with power from on high, before they entered upon their great work of converting the nations. These promises were amply fulfilled; for "when the day of Pentecost was fully come, they were all with one accord in one place. And suddenly there came a sound from heaven as of a rushing mighty wind, and it filled all the house where they were sitting. And there appeared unto them cloven tongues, like as of fire, and it sat upon each of them. And they were all filled with the Holy Ghost, and began to speak with other tongues, as the Spirit gave them utterance. And there were dwelling

---

(H) There was one Apelles in the primitive church, who was condemned as a heretic for teaching that Christ's body was dissolved in the air, and that he ascended to heaven without it. The opinions of this man and his followers are stated at large and controverted by Tertullian, Gregory Nazianzen, and Epiphanius; and the reader who thinks such ridiculous notions worthy of his notice, will find enough said of them in the Notes to the sixth article of Pearson's Exposition of the Creed. Perhaps it may be from a hint communicated in these Notes, that our great modern corrector of the evangelists has discovered, if it be indeed true that he pretends to have discovered, that Jesus Christ is still upon earth. Theology dwelling at Jerusalem Jews, devout men, out of every nation under heaven. Now when this was noised abroad, the multitude came together, and were confounded, because that every man heard them speak in his own language. And they were all amazed, and marvelled, saying one to another, Behold, are not all these who speak Galileans? And how hear we every man in our own tongue, wherein we were born? Parthians, and Medes, and Elamites, and the dwellers in Mesopotamia, and in Judea, and Cappadocia, in Pontus and Asia, Phrygia and Pamphylia, in Egypt and in the parts of Libya about Cyrene, and strangers of Rome, Jews and proselytes, Cretes and Arabians—we do hear them speak in our tongues the wonderful works of God. And they were all amazed, and were in doubt, saying one to another, What meaneth this?

That those who heard the apostles speak so many different languages were amazed, is what we should naturally suppose; but that a single individual among them remained unconvinced, is astonishing; for the gift of tongues on the day of Pentecost is one of the most palpable miracles that was ever wrought. It is likewise one of the best authenticated miracles; for the book entitled the Acts of the Apostles was written not more than 30 years after the event took place (see Scripture, No. 168); and it is not conceivable that, within so short a period, St Luke, or any man of common sense, would have appealed for the truth of what he recorded to so many inveterate enemies of the Christian name, had he not been aware that the miraculous gift of tongues was a fact incontrovertible. We all know how detestous the Jewish rulers were to stop the progress of the faith, by whatever means; but if this miracle was not really performed, they had now an opportunity of doing it effectually by means to which truth and honour would give their approbation. Thousands must have been alive in the city of Jerusalem who were men and women at the time when the apostles were said to have been thus suddenly inspired with the tongues of the Parthians, Medes, and Elamites, &c.; and as these foreigners were themselves either Jews by descent, or at least proselytes to the Jewish religion, surely the chief-priests would have found multitudes ready, both at home and abroad, to contradict this confident appeal of St Luke's if contradiction had been possible. We read however of no objection whatever being made to this miracle. Some of the audience, indeed, when the apostles addressed people of so many nations in all their respective languages, not understanding what was said, and taking it for jargon which had no meaning, concluded, not unnaturally, that the speakers were full of new wine, and mocked them for being drunk so early in the day; but this is a circumstance which, so far from rendering the miracle doubtful, adds much to the credit of the historian, as it would hardly have occurred to the writer of a narrative wholly false, and would certainly not have been mentioned, had he known that the apostles really attempted to impose on the multitude unmeaning sounds for foreign languages.

As it is thus certain that the apostles were miraculously furnished with the gift of tongues, so the elegance and propriety of that miracle to attest the real descent of the Spirit of truth, who was to teach them all things, and endue them with power from on high to convert the nations, can never be enough admired by the pious Christian; for words being the vehicle of knowledge, an ability to speak the different languages of the earth, more peculiarly necessary to enable those who had been originally fishermen to go into all the world and preach the gospel to every creature. Yet there have been writers*, who, though unable to call in question the reality of the gift of tongues on the day of Pentecost, have contended, that it was a gift "not lasting, but instantaneous and transitory; not bestowed upon them for the constant work of the ministry, but as an occasional sign only, that the person endowed with it was a chosen minister of the gospel; which sign, according to them, ceased and totally vanished as soon as it had served that particular purpose." The chief argument upon which this opinion is attempted to be built, is Objections drawn from the scripture Greek, which is said to be "utterly rude and barbarous, and abounding with every fault which can possibly deform a language; whereas we should naturally expect to find an inspired language pure, clear, noble, and affecting, even beyond the force of common speech; since nothing can come from God but what is perfect in its kind. In short, we should expect, says the objector, the purity of Plato and the eloquence of Cicero."

In reply to this objection, it has been well observed†, that it supposes what is called the purity, elegance, and sublimity, of language, to be something natural and essential to human speech, and inherent in the constitution of things. "But the matter is far otherwise. These qualities are accidental and arbitrary, and depend on custom and fashion; modes of humanity as various as Anfwered, the differing climes of the earth; and as inconstant as the tempers, genius, and circumstances, of its inhabitants. For what is purity, but the use of such terms and their combinations as the caprice of a writer or speaker of authority hath preferred to their equals? what is elegance, but such a turn of idiom as a fashionable fancy hath brought into credit? and what is sublimity, but the application of such images as arbitrary and casual connections, rather than their own native grandeur, have dignified and ennobled? The consequence of this is, that the mode of composition which is a model of perfection to one nation or people, has always appeared either extravagant or mean to another. Asiatic and Indian eloquence was esteemed hyperbolical and unnatural by the Greeks and Romans, and is so esteemed by us; whilst the Greek and Roman eloquence in its turn appeared cold and inipid to the warm inhabitants of the east; and ours would appear perhaps still colder. But the New Testament was designed for the rule of life to all mankind. Such a rule required inspiration; and inspiration, say the objectors, implies the most perfect eloquence. What human model then was the Holy Ghost to follow? for a human model it must have been, because there was no other; and if there had, no other would have answered the purpose, which was to make a due impression on the mind and affections. Should the eastern eloquence have been employed? But it would have been too swelling and animated for the west. Should the western? This would have been too stiff and inactive for the east. Or suppose us only solicitous for what we best understand; which species of this latter genus should the sacred writers have preferred? The dissolute softness of the Asiatic Greeks, or the dry conciseness of the Spartans? The flowing exuberances Theology

uberances of Attic eloquence, or the grave severity of the Roman?

"But are there not some general principles of eloquence in common to all the species? There are. Why then should not these have been employed to credit the apostolic inspiration? Because the end even of these (replies our author), is to mislead reason, and inflame the passions; which being abhorrent to the truth and purity of our holy religion, were very fitly rejected by the inspired penman. Besides, it might easily be known to have been the purpose of Providence, though such purpose had not been expressly declared, that the gospel should bear all possible marks of its divine original, as well in the course of its progress as in the circumstances of its promulgation. To this end, the human instruments of its conveyance were mean and illiterate, and chosen from among the lowest of the people, that when the world saw itself converted by the foolishness of preaching, as the only learned apostle thinks fit to call it, unbelievers might have no pretence to ascribe its success to the parts, or stations, or authority, of the preachers. Now had the language inspired into these illiterate men been the eloquence of Plato or Tully, Providence would have appeared to counteract its own measures, and to defeat the purpose best calculated to advance its glory. But God is wise, though man is a fool. The course of Providence was uniform and constant: it not only chose the weakest instruments, but carefully kept out of their hands that powerful weapon of words which their adversaries might so easily have wrested to the dishonour of the gospel. Common sense tells us, that the style of an universal law should retain what is common to all languages, and neglect what is peculiar to each. It should retain nothing but clearness and precision, by which the mind and sentiments of the writer are intelligibly conveyed to the reader. This quality is essential, invariably the same, and independent of custom and fashion. It is the consequence of syntax, the very thing in language which is least positive, being formed on the principles of philosophy and logic: whereas all besides, from the very power of the elements and signification of the terms to the tropes and figures in composition, are arbitrary; and, as deviating from these principles, frequently vicious. But this quality of clearness and precision eminently distinguishes the writings of the New Testament; inasmuch that it may be easily shown, that whatever difficulties occur in the sacred books do not arise from any imperfect information caused by this local or nominal barbarity of style; but either from the sublime or obscure nature of the things treated of, or from the intentional conciseness of the writers; who, in the casual mention of anything not essential to the dispensation, always observe a studied brevity."

After much ingenious and found reasoning on the nature of language in general, our author concludes, that the style of the New Testament, even on the truth of what has been said to its discredit, is so far from proving the language not to be divinely inspired, that it bears one certain mark of that original. "Every language consists of two distinct parts, the single terms, and the phrases and idioms. Suppose now a foreign language to be instantaneously introduced into the minds of illiterate men like the apostles; the impression must be made either by fixing in the memory the terms and single words only with their signification, as, for instance, Greek words corresponding to such or such Syriac or Hebrew words; or else, together with that simple impression, by enriching the mind with all the phrases and idioms of the language so inspired. But to enrich the mind with the peculiar phrases and idiom of a foreign language, would require a previous impression to be made of the manners, notions, fashions, and opinions, of the people to whom that language is native; because the idiom and phrases arise from and are dependent on these manners. But this would be a waste of miracles without sufficient cause or occasion; for the Syriac or Hebrew idiom, to which the Jews were of themselves enabled to adapt the Greek or any other words, abundantly served the useful purposes of the gift of tongues, which all centered in those tongues, being so spoken and written as to be clearly understood. Hence it follows, that if the style of the New Testament were indeed derived from that language which was miraculously impressed upon the apostles on the day of Pentecost, it must be just such a one as in reality we find it to be; that is, it must consist of Greek words in the Syriac or Hebrew idiom."

The immediate author of this gift, so necessary to the Divinity propagation of the gospel, was the Spirit of truth, or of the Holy Ghost, who is the Holy Ghost and the third person in the blest Trinity. That there are three persons in the one Godhead, has been shewn at large in a former section of this article; and that the Holy Ghost is one of these three, might be safely concluded from the form of baptism instituted by Christ himself. But as more plausible objections have been urged against his divinity than any that we have met with against the divinity of Christ, it may not be improper to consider these before we proceed to give an account of the graces which he imparted to the infant church, and of the apostles preaching under his influence. By the Arians the Holy Ghost is considered as a creature; by the Socinians and modern Unitarians, as they call themselves, the words Holy Ghost are supposed to express, not a person or spiritual subsistence, but merely an energy or operation, a quality or power, of the Father, whom alone they acknowledge to be God. If this doctrine can be confuted, the Arian hypothesis will fall to the ground of itself; for it is not conceivable than any inspired teacher should command his followers to be baptized in the name of the self-existent God and two creatures.

It is admitted by the Socinians themselves, that in the Scriptures many things are spoken of the Holy Ghost which can be properly predicated only of a person; but the inference drawn from this conception they endeavour to invalidate by observing, that in scripture there are likewise expressions in which things are predicated of abstract virtues, which can be literally true only of such persons as practice these virtues. Thus when St Paul says*, that "charity suffereth long and is kind, charity envieth not, charity vaunteth not itself, is not puffed up, &c." we cannot suppose his meaning to be, that these actions are performed by charity in the abstract, but that every charitable person, in consequence of that one Christian grace, suffereth long and is kind, envieth not, vaunteth not himself, and is not puffed up, &c. In like manner, say they, personal actions are attributed to the Holy Ghost, which itself is no person, but only the virtue, power, or efficacy, of God the Father; because God the Father, who is a person, performs such actions by that power, virtue, or efficacy, in himself, which is denominated the Holy Ghost. Thus when we read * that "the Spirit said unto Peter, Behold three men seek thee; arise therefore and get thee down, and go with them, doubting nothing, for I have sent them;" we must understand that God the Father was the person who spoke these words and sent the three men; but because he did so by that virtue in him which is called the Spirit, therefore the Spirit is said to have spoken the words and sent the men.

Again, when "the Holy Ghost said + to those at Antioch, Separate me Barnabas and Saul for the work whereunto I have called them;" we are to conceive that it was God the Father who commanded the two apostles to be separated for the work to which he had called them; but because he had done all this by that power within him which is called the Holy Ghost, therefore his words and actions are attributed to the Holy Ghost, just as long-suffering in men is attributed to charity.

This reasoning has a plausible appearance, and would be of much force were all the actions which in scripture are attributed to the Holy Ghost of such a nature as that they could be supposed to have proceeded from the person of God the Father in consequence of any particular power or virtue in him; but this is far from being the case. Thus "Spirit is said + to make intercession for us;" but with whom can we suppose God the Father, the fountain of divinity, to intercede? Our Saviour assured his disciples, that the Father would, in his name, send to them the Holy Ghost, who is the Comforter; that he would himself send the Comforter unto them from the Father; that the Comforter should not speak of himself, but speak only what he should hear; and that he should receive of Christ's, and shew it unto them. But we cannot, without blasphemy and absurdity, suppose that the Father would, in the name of Christ, send himself; that the Son would send the Father from the Father; and the Father would not speak of himself, but speak only what he heard; or that either the Father in person, or a quality of the Father, should receive any thing of Christ to shew unto the apostles.

The sagacity of Socinus perceived the force of such objections as these to his notion of the Holy Ghost, being nothing more than the power of the Father personified; and therefore he invented another propriety to serve his purpose in the interpretation of those texts to which this one cannot be applied. "The Spirit of God (says he ||) may be considered either as a property or power in God, or as the things on which that power is working. When taken in the former sense, the Spirit, where any personal attribute is given to it, means God the Father; when taken in the latter sense, it means the man on whom the power of the Father is working; who, as long as he is affected by that power, is therefore called the Spirit of God;" and he quotes, we think most absurdly, the tenth verse of the second chapter of the first epistle to the Corinthians, as a text in which by the Spirit is meant an inspired man who could teach all things, yea, even the deep things of God.

How his modern followers, who deny the plenary inspiration even of Christ, will relish such a degree of inspiration as this, which raises mere men to a temporary equality with God, we know not; but leaving them to settle the dispute with their matter, we shall produce one or two passages in which personal attributes are given to the Spirit of God, when it is impossible to conceive that Spirit, either as a power inherent in the Divine Father, or as the person on whom that power is operating. We need not bring new texts into view, as some of those already quoted will serve our purpose. When our Saviour promises that the Holy Ghost, the Comforter, the Spirit of truth, should be sent by the Father and the Son to the apostles, we have seen, that by this Spirit he could not mean the Father or a property of the Father; neither could he possibly mean the apostles themselves, unless we are to suppose that the Father and the Son sent St Peter to St Peter, and that St Peter, so sent, came to St Peter! Again, when Christ faith of the Holy Ghost, "he shall receive of mine, and shall shew it unto you," he could not, for the reason already assigned, mean by the Holy Ghost the Father or the power of the Father; and surely his meaning was not, that the apostles, under the influence of the power of the Father, should receive something and shew it each to himself! The Holy Ghost therefore is unquestionably a person; for though there are many passages of scripture in which the gifts of the Holy Ghost are called the Holy Ghost, they are so called by a very common figure of speech, in which the effect receives the name of its cause: and since this person is joined with the Father and the Son in the formula of Christian baptism; since they who lied to the Holy Ghost are said * to have lied unto God; since blasphemy Acts v. against him is a more heinous offence than the same sin against even the Father or the Son +; and since it was Mark iii., by the operation of the Holy Ghost that Jesus Christ 28, 29, was conceived of the Virgin Mary, and even on that account called the + Son of God—it follows that the Holy Ghost is God, of the same habitude with the Father and Son.

It was this Divine Spirit which, on the day of Pentecost, inspired the apostles with the knowledge of different languages; and as these were given only to enable them to preach the gospel to every creature, it can admit of no doubt but that he, who so amply provided the means of preaching, would take care that the gospel should be preached in purity. Our Saviour had told his apostles, that the Comforter would guide them into all the truth (οὕτως ἐγὼ ὑμῖν ἐδίδαξα), and bring all things to their remembrance, whatsoever he had said unto them; but if they had not comprehended the meaning of what he said, the bare remembrance of his sayings would have been of little importance. That before this miraculous shedding abroad of the Spirit they had but a very imperfect knowledge of his doctrines, and of the purpose for which he had come into the world, is apparent from that unseasonable question which they put to him when assembled to witness his glorious ascension; "Lord, wilt thou at this time restore again the kingdom to Israel?"

Their minds still cherished with fondness the vain prospect of temporal power; but after the day of Pentecost they were directed to nobler objects. From the such infame Spirit they received diversities of gifts besides that function of language; for we are assured by St Paul *, when * 1 Cor. speaking of the early converts to Christianity in gene.xii. 8—12. Theology ral, that "to one was given by the Spirit the word of more peculiar wisdom; to another the word of knowledge by the same Spirit; to another faith by the same Spirit; to another the gifts of healing by the same Spirit; to another the working of miracles; to another prophecy; to another discerning of spirits; to another divers kinds of tongues; to another the interpretation of tongues." And these gifts, which were generally divided either among private Christians or among the inferior orders of ministers in the church, we have reason to believe were all bestowed in a greater or less degree upon each of the apostles.

Men thus endowed were well qualified to declare unto the world all the council of God. By the word of wisdom they communicated to the Gentile nations a pure system of what is called natural religion; turning them from the vanity of idols to the worship of the living God; by the word of knowledge, they preached the great doctrines of revelation both to Jews and Gentiles, shewing them that there is none other name under heaven given unto men whereby they may be saved than the name of Jesus Christ (i.e.) and by their gifts of healing and of miracles, &c.; they were enabled to prove unanswerably, that their doctrines were divine. They taught everywhere the unity of God, the creation of the world, the fall of man, the necessity of redemption, the divinity of the Redeemer, his sacrifice on the cross to restore mankind to their forfeited immortality, and the terms of the new covenant into which they had through him been graciously admitted by God.

Such a view as our limits would admit of we have given of all these doctrines, except that which respects the terms of the gospel covenant; but these being explicitly stated only by St. Paul and St. James, we could not till now investigate them, without violating the historical order into which, for the sake of perspicuity, we have digested the several parts of this short system. Our Saviour himself has indeed taught with great plainness the necessity of faith and baptism to the salvation of those who have an opportunity of hearing the gospel preached with power (see Baptism) and in his sermon on the mount, which is such a lecture of ethics founded on religion as the Son of God only could have delivered, we learn, that "unless our righteousness shall exceed the righteousness of the Scribes and Pharisees, we shall in no case enter into the kingdom of heaven; that not everyone who faith unto Christ, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven, but he who doth the will of the Father who is in heaven; and that many will say to him at the day of judgement, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in thy name, and in thy name done many wonderful works?" which could not be done without faith; Theology to whom he will, notwithstanding, say, "Depart from me, ye that work iniquity." St. Paul, however, seems to attribute our justification to the bare act of believing; for he repeatedly affirms us, "that a man is justified by faith without the deeds of the law;" while St. James, on the other hand, affirms, "that by works a man is justified, and not by faith only." This apparent difference in the language of the two apostles, has produced among divines opinions really different respecting the justification of Christians; and the principal of these opinions it is our duty to state.

Between pardon of sin and justification there is so close a connection, that many writers seem to consider the two terms as synonymous, and to infer, that he who is pardoned is also justified. That every Christian, who shall be pardoned at the judgement of the great day, will likewise be justified, is indeed true; but in propriety of speech, justification is a word of very different import from pardon, and will entitle the Christian to what mere pardon could not lead him to expect. An innocent person, when falsely accused and acquitted, is justified but not pardoned; and a criminal may be pardoned, though he cannot be justified or declared innocent. A man whose sins are pardoned is free from punishment; but the justified Christian is entitled to everlasting life, happiness, and glory. If we were only pardoned through Christ, we should indeed escape the pains of hell, but could have no claim to the enjoyments of heaven; for these, being more than the most perfect human virtue can merit, must be, what in the scriptures they are always said to be, "the gift of God through Jesus Christ our Lord." Hence it is that St. Paul, distinguishing, as we have done upon his authority, between mere remission of sins and justification of life, declares, that "Jesus our Lord was delivered for our offences, and raised again for our justification."

The word justification, as used both by St. Paul and St. James, has been very generally considered as a forensic term expressing the sentence of a judge. The most eminent reformed divines of all denominations, and even many of the Romanists themselves, have strenuously contended, that this is its genuine sense, when it is distinguished from mere remission of sins, regeneration, and sanctification; and if so, it will signify God's pronouncing a person just, either as being perfectly blameless, or as having fulfilled certain conditions required of him in the Christian covenant. But that "there is not a just man upon earth, who doth good and finneth not," is made known to us by the most complete evidence possible, the joint dictates of our own consciences and of divine.

(L.) It is not perhaps easy to determine what is here meant by the word of wisdom and the word of knowledge, as distinguished from each other. By the former (λόγος σοφίας), Bishop Warburton understands all the great principles of natural religion. "The ancients (says he) used the word σοφία in this peculiar sense; it is used in the same sense by St. Paul in Col. iv. 5; and we can hardly give it any other in the place before us, where we see the word of wisdom distinguished from the word of knowledge (λόγος γνώσεως), which evidently means all the great principles of revelation; the term γνώσις being as peculiarly applied by Christian writers to revealed religion as σοφία is by the Gentiles to the natural. St. Paul uses the word in this sense in 2 Cor. xi. 6, where he says, ἐν τῇ ἀπόστολος τῷ κυρίῳ ἀληθῶς τὸ γνώσις; and St. Peter in his first epistle, chap. iii. verse 7. Hence those early heretics who too much deformed the simplicity and purity of the Christian faith by visionary pretences to superior knowledge of revelation, took from this word the name of Gnostics." See Warburton's Sermon on the Office and Operation of the Holy Ghost. Theology

more peculiarly Christian.

It is a forensic term.

This scheme (continues he) is wrong; for the law is not relaxed, nor any of its severities abated; Christ came not to destroy, but to fulfill it; and therefore it requires the same holy, just, and good things, as ever. Nor is the gospel a new law. There is nothing in it (he says) which looks like a law; for it has no commands in it, but all promises, being a pure declaration of grace and salvation by Christ; nor are faith, repentance, and a new obedience, required by it as conditions of man's acceptance with God. Faith and repentance are gospel doctrines, and parts of the gospel ministry; they are graces, and not terms required to be performed by men of themselves. Faith is the gift of God, and repentance is a grant from him. It is not true (continues our author) that God will accept of an imperfect righteousness in the room of a perfect one; nor can anything more highly reflect upon the justice and truth of God, who is the judge of all the earth, than to suppose that he can ever account that as a righteousness which is not one."

Having thus proved by arguments which were almost in the same words stated long before by Bishop Beveridge *, that the gospel is no relaxation of the law, he proceeds to lay down his own notions of justification, of which (he says) "the sole matter, or that for the fake of which a sinner is justified before God, is the righteousness of Christ—that which he did and suffered on earth, in our nature, in our stead, and as our representative. This is commonly called his active and passive obedience; and when the purity and holiness of his own nature was added to it, the whole made up the righteousness of the law, which was fulfilled by him as the head and representative of his people; for whatever the law required is necessary to a sinner's justification before God, and it required of sinners more than it did of man in innocence. Man was created with a pure and holy nature, conformable to the pure and holy law of God; and it was incumbent on him to continue so, and to yield in it perfect and inflexible obedience, in the failure whereof he was threatened with death. Man did fail, by which his nature was vitiated and corrupted, and his obedience became faulty and imperfect. He therefore became liable to the penalty of the law, and still perfect obedience was required of him. To the justification of a sinner therefore is required the most complete obedience, active and passive; or, in other words, purity of nature, perfect obedience, and the sufferings of death; all which meet in Christ, the representative of his people, in whom they are justified. There are indeed some divines (continues our author) who exclude the active obedience of Christ from being any part of the righteousness by which men are justified. They allow it to have been a condition requisite in him as a Mediator, qualifying him for his office; but deny that it is the matter of justification, or reckoned for righteousness to man. But without the active obedience of Christ the law would not be satisfied; the language of which is, Do and live; and unless its precepts be obeyed, as well as its penalty endured, it cannot be satisfied; and unless it be satisfied, there can be no justification. If therefore men are justified by the righteousness of Christ, it must be by his active obedience imputed and made over to them, so as to become their's, even as David declared the blessedness of the man unto whom God imputeth righteousness without works. That this is really the way in which men are justified, our author thinks evident,

---

* Rom. iii. 24, 25.

† Body of Divinity, vol. ii. book iii. chap. 8. § 5.

‡ Rom. viii. 4.

§ Rom. iv. evident, because they must be justified either by an inherent or by an imputed righteousness; but they cannot be justified by their own inherent righteousness, for that is imperfect, and therefore not justifying. Hence the apostle counts all things but dung, that he may win Christ and be found in him; not having his own righteousness, which is of the law, but that which is through the faith of Christ, the righteousness which is of God by faith.* But by such a righteousness as this a man cannot be justified in any other way than by an imputation of it to him. Whence it follows, that "as by one man's disobedience many were made sinners by imputation, so by the obedience of one shall many be made righteous, by having that obedience placed to their own account."

As this author properly considers justification as the act of God, he does not approve of the language in which faith is called the instrument either of conferring or receiving it. "Faith (says he) is merely the evidence of justification to the person justified; for faith is the evidence of things not seen." The righteousness of God, of the God-man and Mediator Jesus Christ, is revealed from faith to faith in the everlasting gospel; and therefore must be before it is revealed, and before the faith to which it is revealed. Faith is that grace whereby a soul, having seen its want of righteousness, beholds in the light of the Divine Spirit a complete righteousness in Christ, renounces its own, lays hold on that, puts it on as a garment, rejoices in it, and glories of it; the Spirit of God witnessing to his spirit that he is a justified person; and so he is evidently and declaratively "justified in the name of the Lord Jesus, and by the spirit of our God." Faith adds nothing to the effect, only to the bene effe of justification; which is a complete act in the eternal mind of God, without the being or consideration of faith, or any foresight of it. In the account of God, a man is as much justified before his faith as after it; and after he does believe, his justification depends not on his acts of faith, for though we believe not, yet God abides faithful to his covenant engagements with his Son, by whose suretyship-righteousness the elect are justified; but by faith men have a comfortable sense, perception, and apprehension, of their justification, and enjoy that peace of soul which results from it. It is by that only, under the testimony of the Divine Spirit, that they know their interest in it, and can claim it, and so have the comfort of it."

Though this language differs from that of the Westminster Confession, the author seems not to teach a different doctrine; for if faith be that grace by which a soul renounces its own righteousness, and lays hold of Christ's, which it puts on as a garment, it must be that very thing which the compilers of the Confession meant by their definition of faith receiving and resting on Christ and his righteousness, when they called it "the alone instrument of justification." Accordingly our author elsewhere* teaches, that "true faith in sensible sinners afflicts to Christ and embraces him, not merely as a Saviour of man in general, but as a special suitable Saviour for them in particular. It proceeds upon Christ's being revealed in them as well as to them, by the spirit of wisdom and revelation, in the knowledge of him as a Saviour that becomes them. It comes not merely through external teachings by the hearing of the word from men; for no man, faith our blessed Lord, can come to me except the Father draw him; but such souls as are thus drawn, having heard and learned of the Father, believe not only in the doctrine of Christ, but also in himself, trusting in him alone for everlasting life and salvation."

Were it not that this author, in every thing that he writes, has an eye to the doctrine of election and reprobation, which he carries to a greater height than almost any other divine with whose works we are acquainted, he would differ little in his notions of justification from the more moderate Arminians. "Justification (says Limborch) is the merciful and gracious act of God, whereby he fully absolves from all guilt the truly penitent and believing soul, through and for the sake of Christ apprehended by a true faith; or gratuitously remits sins upon the account of faith in Jesus Christ, and graciously imputes that faith for righteousness." Here indeed the imputation of Christ's righteousness is expressly denied; but Dr Waterland, who can hardly be considered as a Calvinist, seems to contend for the imputation of that righteousness to the sinner, as well as for faith being the instrument by which it is received.

"It cannot be for nothing (says that able writer*) that St Paul so often and so emphatically speaks of man's view of being justified by faith, or through faith in Christ's blood; and that he particularly notes it of Abraham, that he believed, and that his faith was counted to him for justification, when he might as easily have said that Abraham, to whom the gospel was preached, was justified by gospel-faith and obedience, had he thought faith and obedience equally instruments of justification. Besides, it is on all hands allowed, that though St Paul did not directly oppose faith to evangelical works, yet he comprehended the works of the moral law under those which he excluded from the office of justifying, in his sense of the word justification. He even used such arguments as extended to all kinds of works; for Abraham's works were excluded, though they were undoubtedly evangelical. To prove that he interprets the apostle's doctrine fairly, our author quotes, from the genuine epistle of Clemens of Rome, a passage, in which it appears beyond a doubt that this fellow-labourer of St Paul so understood the doctrine of justifying faith as to oppose it even to evangelical works, however exalted. It is true (continues our author), Clemens elsewhere, and St Paul almost everywhere, insists upon true holiness of heart and obedience of life as indispensible conditions of salvation or justification; and of that, one would think, there could be no question among men of any judgment or probity. But the question about conditions is very distinct from the other question about instruments; and therefore both parts may be true, viz. that faith and obedience are equally conditions, and equally indispensable where opportunities permit; and yet faith over and above is emphatically the instrument both of receiving and holding justification, or a title to salvation.

"To explain this matter more distinctly, let it be remembered, that God may be considered either as a party contracting with man on very gracious terms, or as a Judge to pronounce sentence on him. Man can enter into the covenant, supposing him adult, only by attending to it, and accepting it, to have and to hold it on such kind of tenure as God proposes: that is to say, upon a self-denying tenure, considering himself as a guilty man standing in need of pardon, and of borrowed merits, and at length resting upon mercy. So here, the previous question is, Whether a person shall consent to hold a privilege upon this submissive kind of tenure or not?" Theology not? Such assent or consent, if he comes into it, is the very thing which St Paul and St Clemens call faith. And this previous and general question is the question which both of them determine against any proud claimants who would hold by a more self-admiring tenure.

"Or if we next consider God as fitting in judgement, and man before the tribunal going to plead his cause; here the question is, What kind of plea shall a man resolve to trust his salvation upon? Shall he stand upon his innocence, and rest upon strict law? or shall he plead guilty, and rest in an act of grace? If he chooses the former, he is proud, and sure to be cast: if he chooses the latter, he is safe so far in throwing himself upon an act of grace. Now this question also, which St Paul has decided, is previous to the question, What conditions even the act of grace itself finally inflicts upon? A question which St James, in particular, and the general tenure of the whole Scripture, has abundantly satisfied; and which could never have been made a question by any considerate or impartial Christian. None of our works are good enough to stand by themselves before him who is of purer eyes than to behold iniquity. Christ only is pure enough for it at first hand, and they that are Christ's at second hand in and through him. Now because it is by faith that we thus interpose, as it were, Christ between God and us, in order to gain acceptance by him; therefore faith is emphatically the instrument whereby we receive the grant of justification. Obedience is equally a condition or qualification, but not an instrument, not being that act of the mind whereby we look up to God and Christ, and whereby we embrace the promises."

But though our author contends that faith is the instrument of justification, he does not, like the Antinomians, teach that it will save men without works. "The covenant of grace (says he) has conditions annexed to it of great importance, for without them no instruments can avail. These are faith and obedience, as St James hath particularly maintained. St Paul had before determined the general and previous question respecting the plea by which we ought to abide; and when some libertines, as is probable, had perverted his doctrine of faith and grace, St James showed that the very faith which rests in a covenant of grace implies a cordial submission to the conditions of that covenant, otherwise it would be nothing but an empty ceremony. The perfect agreement between St Paul and St James in the article of justification, appears very clear and certain. St Paul declares, that in order to come to justification, it is necessary to stand upon grace, not upon merit; which St James does not deny, but rather confirms, in what he says of the perfect law of liberty (James i. 25, ii. 12). St Paul makes faith the instrument of receiving that grace; which St James does not dispute, but approves by what he says of Abraham (ii. 23); only he maintains also, that, in the conditionate sense, justification depends equally upon faith and good works; which St Paul also teaches and inculcates in effect, or, in other words, through all his writings. If St Paul had had precisely the same question before him which St James happened to have, he would have decided just as St James did; and if St James had had precisely the same question before him which St Paul had, he would have determined just as St Paul did. Their principles were exactly the same, but the questions were diverse; and they had different adversaries to deal with, and opposite extremes to encounter, which is a common case.

"It may be noted, that that faith which is here called a condition, is of much wider compass than that particular kind of faith which is precisely the instrument of justification. For faith as a condition means the whole complex of Christian belief, as expressed in the creeds; while faith as an instrument means only the laying hold on grace, and resting in Christ's merits in opposition to our own deservings: though this also, if it is a vital and operative principle (and if it is not, it is nothing worth), must of course draw after it an hearty submission to, and observance of, all the necessary conditions of that covenant of grace wherein we repose our whole trust and confidence. So that St Paul might well say, 'Do we then make void the law (the moral law) through faith?' God forbid: Yea, we establish the law." We exempt no man from religious duties; which are duties still, though they do not merit nor are practicable to such a degree as to be above the need of pardon: they are necessary conditions in their measure of justification, though not sufficient in themselves to justify, nor perfect enough to stand before God or to abide trial: therefore Christ's merits must be taken in to supply their defects: and so our resting in Christ's atonement by an humble self-denying faith is our last resort, our anchor of salvation both sure and steadfast, after we have otherwise done our utmost towards the fulfilling of God's sacred laws, towards the performing of all the conditions required.

"That good works, internal and external, are according as opportunities offer and circumstances permit, conditions properly so called, is clear from the whole tenor of Scripture, as hath been often and abundantly proved by our own divines (m), and is admitted by the most judicious among the foreign Reformed (n). Yet some have been very scrupulous as to this innocent name, even while they allow the absolute necessity of good works as indispensible qualifications for future blessedness. Why not conditions therefore as well as qualifications? Perhaps because that name might appear to strike at absolute predetermination, or unconditional election; and there may lie the scruple: otherwise the difference appears to lie rather in words than in things.

"Some will have them called not conditions, but fruits or consequents of justification. If they mean by justification the same as the grace of the Holy Spirit, and the first grace of faith springing from it, they say true; and then there is nothing more in it than an improper use of the word justification, except that from abuse of words very frequently arises some corruption of doctrine. If they mean only, that outward acts of righteousness are fruits of inward habits or dispositions; that

(m) Bull. Op. Latin. p. 412, 414, 415, 430, 434, 514, 516, 544, 583, 645, 668. Edit. ult.—Stillingfleet's Works, vol. iii. p. 267, 380, 393, 398.—Tillotson's Posthumous Sermons, vol. ii. p. 484, 487. (n) Volius de Bonis Operibus, Thel. x. p. 370.—Op. tom. vi.—Frid. Spanheim. fil. Op. tom. iii. p. 141, 159. Part II.

Theology

That also is undoubtedly true; but that is no reason why more peculiarly Christian should not be called conditions of justification; or why the outward acts should not be justly thought conditions of preserving it. But if they mean that justification is ordinarily given to adults, without any preparative or previous conditions of faith and repentance, that indeed is very new doctrine and dangerous, and opens a wide door to carnal security and to all ungodliness."

Such is the doctrine of Christian justification as it has been taught by the followers of Calvin, and by some of the most eminent Arminians who flourished in the end of the 17th and beginning of the 18th century. They appear not, from this view of their opinions, to differ so widely as some of them have wished the world to believe. It is evident that Dr Waterland, though he rejects some of the distinguishing tenets of Calvinism, lays greater stress upon faith in his scheme of justification than Dr Gill himself; and that they both confide in it as the instrument by which the adult Christian must receive the imputed righteousness of Christ. The greater part of modern Arminians, however, exclaim against the imputation of Christ's righteousness, as a doctrine false in itself, and fraught with the most pernicious consequences; and they would be ready to tell Dr Gill, in his own words, that of his scheme every article is wrong. It is not true (say they) that God exacts of man, or ever did exact of him, an obedience absolutely perfect; for under every dispensation man was in a state of discipline, and had habits of virtue and piety to acquire; and it is probable that his progress in piety, virtue, and wisdom, will continue for ever, as none but God is perfect and stationary, and incapable of deviating from the line of rectitude. Most of them, after Bishop Bull, dislike the use of such unscriptural phrases as the instrument of justification, applied either to faith or to works; and think, that by considering God as the sole justifier of man, upon certain conditions, they can more precisely ascertain the distinct provinces of faith and obedience in the scheme of justification, than either their brethren of the old school of Arminius, or their rivals of the school of Calvin.

By the very constitution of man, piety and virtue are duties which, if he do not sincerely perform, i.e., must of course forfeit the favour of his Maker; but the most perfect performance of his natural duties would not entitle him to a supernatural and eternal reward. Eternal life is the gift of God through Jesus Christ; and it is surely unreasonable that we should acknowledge it to be so, and not claim it as a debt due to our merits. The pious and virtuous man has a natural claim to more happiness than misery during the period of his existence, a claim founded on the attributes of that God who called him into being; but he has no natural claim to a future life, and still less to a perpetuity of existence. This is a truth not more clearly taught in the holy scripture than consonant to the soundest philosophy: and yet, by not attending to it, have St Paul and St James been set at variance, and the most opposite doctrines taught respecting the justification of Christians.

Because faith in Christ cannot entitle a wicked man to eternal happiness, one class of divines seem to infer that such faith is not necessary to Christian justification, and that "his faith cannot be wrong whose life is in the right." They proceed upon the supposition that man is naturally immortal; that piety and virtue are entitled to reward; and that therefore the pious and virtuous man, whatever be his belief, must undoubtedly inherit an eternal reward. But this is very fallacious reasoning. That piety and virtue are through the divine justice and benevolence entitled to reward, is indeed a truth incontrovertible; but that man who is of yesterday is naturally immortal; that a being who began to exist by the mere good will of his Maker, has in himself a principle of perpetual existence independent of that will—is a direct contradiction. Whatever began to be, can be continued in being only by the power, and according to the pleasure, of the infinite Creator; but it pleaded the Creator of his free grace at first to promise mankind eternal life, on the single condition of their first father's observing one positive precept. That precept was violated, and the free gift lost: but the covenant was renewed in Christ, who "by his death hath abolished death, and by his resurrection hath brought to light life and immortality." The condition annexed to the gift of eternal life thus restored was faith; for "being justified by faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ; by whom also we have access by faith into this grace wherein we stand, and rejoice in the hope of the glory of God." Faith therefore in the Son of God and Saviour of the world, is not only a condition, but the sole condition, of that justification which is peculiarly Christian; for since Christ, without any co-operation of ours, hath purchased for us the free gift of eternal life, we shall be guilty of the grossest ingratitude to our Divine Benefactor, and impiously claim an independence on God, if we look upon that gift either as a right inherent in our nature, or as a debt due to our meritorious deeds.

But though faith be the condition of justification, as but not of that implies the inheritance of eternal life, there are obtaining other conditions to be performed before a man can be put in possession of eternal felicity. By a law long prior to the promulgation of the gospel—a law interwoven with our very being—no man can enjoy the favour of his Maker, who does not make it his constant endeavour "to do justly, to love mercy, and to walk humbly with his God." This law was in force before man fell; it continues to be in force now that he is redeemed; and it will not be abrogated even at that period when faith shall give place to vision, and hope to enjoyment. By the grace of the Christian covenant, all mankind are rendered immortal in consequence of the death and resurrection of Christ, who is the Lamb slain, in the divine decree, from the foundation of the world; but to obtain eternal happiness, they must observe the conditions both of natural and of revealed religion, which are repentance from dead works, and faith in Christ the Redeemer. The former is that condition upon which alone we can retain the Divine favour, and of course enjoy either present or future happiness; the latter is a most equitable acknowledgement required of us, that perpetual conscious existence is neither a right inherent in our nature, nor a debt due to our virtuous obedience, but merely the gift of God through Jesus Christ our Lord.

"To make the distinct provinces of faith and works in the business of justification clear, let us suppose (says Bishop Warburton), that, at the publication of the gospel, all to whom the glad tidings of immortality were..." were offered on the condition of faith in Jesus had been moral or virtuous men, and on that account entitled (as natural religion teacheth) to the favour of God and an abundant reward; is it not self-evident, that faith alone, exclusive of the condition of good works, would, in that case, have been the very thing which justified or entitled them to life everlasting? But are good works, therefore, of no use in the Christian system? So far from it, that those only who serve God in sincerity and in truth are capable of the justification which faith alone embraces; for, to illustrate this matter by a familiar instance, suppose a British monarch to bestow, in free gift, a certain portion of his own domains, to which immortality may well be compared, upon such of his subjects as should perform a certain service to which they were not obliged by the laws of the kingdom; it is evident that the performance of this last service only would be the thing which entitled them to the free gift. Yet it is obvious that obedience to the laws, which gave them a claim to protection as subjects, in the enjoyment of their own property (to which the reward offered by natural religion may be compared), would be a previous and necessary qualification to their enjoyment of their new possession; since it is absurd to suppose that such a gift could be intended for rebels and traitors, or indeed for any but good and faithful servants of their king and country." Well therefore might the apostle reprove the ignorance or licentiousness of certain of his converts at Rome, in his question—"Do we then make void the law through faith? God forbid! yea, we establish the law," obedience to it being the previous qualification of all who are entitled to the fruits of justifying faith—LIFE AND IMMORTALITY.

Had proper attention been paid to this distinction, which St Paul everywhere makes between such duties as are common to all religions that are true, and those which are peculiar to the Christian revelation, many useless controversies might have been avoided respecting the instrument of justification and the conditions of the Christian covenant. By not attending to it, the divines of one school, who perceive that the mere belief of any truth whatever cannot entitle a man to eternal felicity, have almost dropt faith from their system of Christianity, and taught moral duties like pagan philosophers; whilst another party, who err almost as far in their interpretations of scripture, finding eternal life represented as the gift of God, and faith in Christ as the instrument or means by which that gift must be accepted, have extinguished from their system the necessity of good works, forgetting surely that wicked believers, like believing devils, may be doomed to an eternity of torments. But the sum of Christianity, as we are taught by the beloved disciple, is comprehended in this one commandment of God, "that we should believe on the name of His Son Jesus Christ, and love one another as He gave us commandment." In perfect harmony with him, the great apostle of the Gentiles affirms us, that "in Christ Jesus nothing can avail to our eternal happiness but faith which worketh by love;" and he informs Titus, that it "is a true saying, and what he wills to be constantly affirmed, that they who have believed in God be careful to maintain good works."

Indeed no man can have complete faith in Christ, who believes not the promises of the gospel; but all those promises, except the single one of a resurrection from the dead to perpetual conscious existence, are made to us upon the express condition that we obey the law of the gospel; "for God will render to every man according to his deeds: to them that are contentious and do not obey the truth, but obey unrighteousness, indignation and wrath; tribulation and anguish upon every soul of man that doth evil, of the Jew first and also of the Gentile; but glory, honour, and peace to every man that worketh good, to the Jew first and also to the Gentile."*

Such are the notions of justification entertained by those who in the present age have been considered as the leaders† of the feet of Arminians. How far they are just, the reader must decide for himself; but under every view of this doctrine which we have taken, the Christian covenant appears much more gracious than that into which Adam was admitted in paradise: since the Christian affords room for repentance, even to that man, who sin may be so unhappy as to be drawn for a time into apostacy from the terms of the covenant. Whether the actual death of Christ therefore was a direct atonement for the actual sins of men, or only operated as such indirectly by procuring for them repeated opportunities of repentance, it is an undoubted truth, that "if through the offence of one many be dead, much more the grace of God, and the gift by grace, which is by one man, Jesus Christ, hath abounded unto many." And not as it was by one that sinned, so is the gift: for the judgement was of one offence to condemnation, but the free gift is of many offence to justification."

Thus graciously has the divine goodness displayed itself in the restoration of our lost inheritance. But it stood not here. The same bountiful Lord of life, for its further security, imparts to every true believer the strength and light of his holy spirit to support faith in working out our own salvation. Our blessed Saviour promised, before he left this world, to send to his followers the Holy Ghost or Comforter to abide with them for ever, to guide them into all truth, to bring all things to their remembrance whatsoever he had said unto them, and, as we learn from other passages of scripture, to "work in them both to will and to do of his good pleasure." How amply this promise was fulfilled to the apostles, we have already seen; but we are not to suppose that it was restricted to them. As man is designed for a supernatural state in heaven, he stands in need of supernatural direction to guide him to that state. "No man (says our Lord the Holy Saviour) can come to me except the Father draw him; for as no man knoweth the things of a man save the spirit of a man which is in him, even so none knoweth the things of God but the Spirit of God." This omniscient Spirit indeed, "searcheth all things, yea even the deep things of God," and revealeth them to the sons of men, to enlighten their understandings and purify their hearts. The grace which he sheds abroad is either external and general, or internal and particular. The former has been extended to the whole church of God under the patriarchal, Mosaic, and Christian dispensations, in such a revelation of the divine will as was sufficient to instruct men unto eternal life, whether they had a clear view or not of that stupendous plan of redemption, by which the kingdom of heaven was opened to them after the forfeiture of the terrestrial paradise; for there have been "holy prophets ever since the world began;" Theology began; and prophecy came not at any time by the will of man, but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost.* Hence it is that all scripture was given by inspiration of God to teach us every thing which it is necessary for us to know and believe; and the scripture is that work of the spirit which is extended to the universal church.

But the same spirit which thus generally reveals the object of faith to the church, does likewise particularly illuminate the minds of individual believers, working in them an assent to that which is taught them from the written word. It was thus that "the Lord opened the heart of Lydia;"† that the attended to the things which were spoken by Paul;‡ it is thus that "the word preached doth not profit if it be not mixed with faith in them who hear it;"§ and it is thus that "God deals to every man the measure of faith;"|| "by grace are we saved through faith, which is not of ourselves; it is the gift of God."¶ This illumination of the Spirit was conveyed to the apostles "in a sound from heaven as of a rushing mighty wind," because it was meant to testify to the world that they were chosen ministers of the gospel; but the ordinary Christian receives it "in the still small voice," because it is conveyed to him only to "open his understanding that he may understand the scriptures."

Another operation of the Spirit on the minds of believers is that which is scripture is called regeneration; for "according to his mercy God saveth us by the washing of regeneration and renewing of the Holy Ghost," which he sheds on us abundantly through Jesus Christ our Lord.* To those who believe that we derive from Adam a corrupted nature, this particular grace must appear to absolutely necessary, that without it we could have no relish for heaven or heavenly things.¶ The natural man (we are told) receiveth not the things of the spirit of God; for they are foolishness to him; neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned. Indeed whatever be the powers of our moral faculties, when compared with those of our first father, it is so long before they be completely developed, that we should infallibly be lost, if we were not blest by a supernatural guide, when reason is incapable of directing our conduct. Our passions and appetites are in their full strength before experience has furnished the mind with materials, by means of which motives may be weighed; and therefore it would be impossible, during the giddy period of youth, to keep them in due subjection, or to prevent vicious habits from being formed, were we not influenced by divine grace.

So true is it, that "except a man be born again of water and of the Holy Ghost, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God." This change in our dispositions, from an immoderate attachment to earth to a relish for the things of heaven, is in scripture called "a renewing of our minds, a new creation, a new man;" in opposition to our natural disposition, which is called "the old man, corrupted according to the deceitful lusts." The ancient fathers of the church, as well as some very eminent modern divines,† generally speak of baptism as the and Water-instrument in God's hand of man's regeneration; and for the truth of their opinion they appeal to John iii. 3, 5. Ephes. v. 25, 26. and 1 Cor. vi. 11. in which great itself is certainly laid on the washing of water, as well as on sanctification by the word.

A third office of the Holy Spirit is to lead, direct, and govern us through all the periods of our lives. Without such a leader and guide, the temptations with which we are surrounded would certainly overcome us, and we should faint long before we arrive at the end of our journey. By the very constitution of our nature we guides are subjected in some degree to the influence of sense, through which the objects are present, whilst the enjoyments of heaven are future, and seem, as at a distance, only by the eye of faith; but "the law of the Spirit of life, in Christ Jesus, hath made us free from the law of sin and death;" for God worketh in us both to will and to do of his good pleasure; and as many as are thus led by the spirit of God, they are the sons of God; and while they walk in the Spirit, they do not fulfil the lusts of the flesh. Without the aid of the same Spirit, we could not even make our prayers acceptable; for since "our confidence in God is, that he heareth us only when we ask anything according to his will; and since we know not what we should pray for as we ought, the Spirit itself maketh intercession for us with groanings which cannot be uttered.* Romans viii.

A fourth operation of the Holy Ghost, as he is the sanctifier of Christians, is to join them to Christ, and make them members of that one body of which he is the head. For by one Spirit are we all baptized into one body; and as the body is one and hath many members, and all the members of that one body being many are one body, so also is Christ. Hereby we unite them that God abideth in us, by the Spirit which he to Christ, hath given us; and as, in the ordinary course of his dealings with Christians, this Spirit is first given in baptism, so it is continued to the faithful by the instrumentality of the Lord's supper. That ordinance we have elsewhere (see Supper of the Lord) proved to be a federal rite; and surely no time can be supposed to highly sanctified for the reception of the graces of the Holy Spirit, as that in which we renew our federal union with our Lord and Master in the communion of his body and blood.

It is likewise the office of the Holy Ghost to give us an earnest of our everlasting inheritance, to create in us a sense of the paternal love of God, and thereby to assure us of the adoption of sons. As many as are led by the Spirit of God, they are the sons of God; and because we are sons, God hath sent forth the spirit of his Son into our hearts. For we have not received the spirit of bondage again to fear; but we have received the Spirit of adoption, whereby we cry Abba Father; the Spirit itself bearing witness with our spirit, that we are the children of God! Gal. iv. 6.

As the gifts of grace are generally annexed to means to the proper use of the word and sacraments, it is a fifth office of the same Spirit to sanctify such persons as are regularly set apart for the work of the ministry, and ordained to offer up the public prayers of the people; to bless them in the name of God; to teach the doctrines and sanctify of the gospel; to administer the sacraments instituted by Christ; and to perform all things necessary for the perfecting of the saints, for the work of the ministry, ministers for the edifying of the body of Christ. The same Spirit which illuminated the apostles, and endowed them with power from above to perform personally their apostolic functions, fitted them also for sending others, as they were sent by their Divine Master; and for establishing... not conceivable that a particular providence can be ad- ministered without the influence of the Deity on the minds of men. That the poets and philosophers of the heathen world derived these notions from primeval tra- dition, cannot, we think, be questioned; but if they were absurd in themselves, or apparently contradictory to the laws of nature, they would not surely have been so universally embraced; for it will scarcely be denied, that Socrates and Cicero were men of as great natural lagacity as Pelagius or any of his followers. It is in- deed so far from being incredible that the Father of spirits occasionally directs the thoughts and actions of men, that we believe there are very few who have made observations on themselves and their own affairs, who have not found, on reflection, many instances in which their usual judgement and sense of things were over- ruled, they know not how or why; and that the ac- tions which they performed in those circumstances have had consequences very remarkable in their general hi- story. See PROVIDENCE, No 18, 19.

This being the case, why should the pride of Chri- stians make them hesitate to admit, on the authority of divine revelation, what Socrates, and Plutarch, and Ci- cero, and all the virtuous and wise men of antiquity, ad- mitted in effect, on no better evidence than that of oral tradition, supported by their own meditations on their own thoughts, and the principles of their own conduct? Is it that they see not such beneficial effects of Christianity as to induce them to believe the profes- sors of that religion to be indeed "chosen to salvation through the sanctification of the Spirit + ?" Let them study the practical precepts of the gospel, consider the consequences which they have had on the peace and happiness of society, and compare the general conduct of Christians with that of the Jews, Pagans, and Maho- metans (see RELIGION), and they will doubtless find reason to alter their opinion; and let those who em- brace the truth, remember, that as they are the temple of God, if the Spirit of God dwell in them, "it is their indispensable duty to cleanse themselves from all filthi- ness of the flesh and spirit; to follow peace with all men, and holiness, without which no man shall see the Lord; and to work out their own salvation with fear and trem- bling, since it is God who worketh in them both to will and to do of his good pleasure."

From this short view of the several dispensations of the revealed religion, it is evident that the gospel is not on the last rea- son but the last gift of the kind which man has rea- son to expect from his Maker; that the scheme of re- velation is completed; and that the pretences of Mahomet and of more modern enthusiasts to divine inspiration are not only false, but fraught with contradictions. All these men admit the divine origin of the Mosaic and Christian religions; but it appears from the scriptures, in which those religions are taught, that the system of revealed truths which constitute the Patriarchal, Mo- saic, and Christian revelations, commenced with the fall of man, and that it must therefore necessarily end with his restoration to life and immortality by the sacrifice of Christ upon the cross. A new revelation therefore like- that of Mahomet cannot be admitted without rejecting the whole Bible, though the impostor himself every- where acknowledges the inspiration of Abraham, of Moses, and of Christ. Nor is greater regard due to the claims of Christian enthusiasts. Such as pretend to have