supported by every authority that can be brought for any one doctrine
of the gospel, have we not here an utter condemnation of pluralities?
Is it not an affront to the gospel, to the plainest maxims of right and
wrong, the whole authority of the church, to offer one single word in
defence of them? Logical, scholastic distinctions and definitions of
the nature of parishes and residence, can signify no more here, where
the whole nature of the thing is to be avoided, than the same art of
words, when used by _Jesuitical Casuists_, can justify the violation of
moral duties. And if Dr. _♦Trapp_ was only to look at this one doctrine,
he would have no reason to think it so sad a thing, to see _Pluralists_
coupled with _Cardinals_. “_See_, says the learned _Dupin_, rules which
will appear hard to many of the beneficed clergy, but yet, they are
true, conformable to natural equity, the laws, custom, and tradition
of the church, and the practice of the most holy bishops; and woe be
to those that observe them not! _Malheur a Ceux qui ne les suivent
pas._”¹ And therefore he concludes thus, “There may be many amongst
the beneficed clergy who err in this matter, thro’ an ignorance of that
which is required of them; therefore what I have said ought to be taken
in good part, as proceeding from charity, and a sincere love of truth.”
♦ “Trap” replaced with “Trapp”
¹ Ibid. p. 442.
SHORT but SUFFICIENT
CONFUTATION
Of Bp. WARBURTON’s projected defence (_as he calls it_) of
Christianity, in his _divine legation of_ Moses, in a letter
to the Right Reverend the Lord Bishop of London.
_My LORD_,
THE reason of my presuming to write to your lordship on the following
subject is, because it is a matter on which your lordship has employed
your excellent pen, greatly to the benefit of the world.
And the reason of my writing at all, is owing to a book newly
published¹ in defence of bishop _Warburton_, in which your lordship,
is charged with a multitude of contradictions, and inconsistencies
relating to this point.
¹ Free and candid examination of the bishop of London’s
sermons, &c.
It is not my design to enter here as an assistant to your lordship. For
this is quite needless.
My intention is, as mentioned in the title page. And because bishop
_Warburton_ has owned this writer, as a most able defender of his
scheme. I have taken occasion to shew, that it is a scheme so contrary
to scripture, and the truth of things, as no art of words, or stretch
of genius, however powerful in paradox, can ever be able to support.
The author of this book, as bishop _Warburton_ assures us,¹ is too
modest to make his name known to the world; a quality, which from the
reading of his book, one would not suspect to be so predominate in
him.――But though modesty has forced him to conceal his name, yet he
has given us some information of his character. He begins; “I, who
am a bare looker-on, and absolutely disengaged from all that biass of
affection, which is so wont to warp the followers of an old system, or
the inventers of a new, have done my best to examine this question with
all impartiality.”²
¹ Preface to critical enquiry, &c.
² Examination p. 2.
Had one of the antient writers of _Greece_ said this of himself, how
positive, might a modern critic have been, from the decisive words,
a _bare looker-on_, that he had never wrote upon the same subject
before? And that therefore, any book of that kind ascribed to him,
must infallibly be false and spurious. And yet, to the confusion
of criticism, this author, who unasked, and of his own free motion,
declares, that he begins this work as a bare looker-on, has for more
than ten years before he made this declaration, been sweating in the
thickest dust, and heat of Doctor _Warburton_’s most ardent contention
for novelties.¹
¹ Critical enquiry, &c. published 1746.
I have the Doctor’s own words for this, both for the novelties, and
this gentleman’s wonderful zeal, and skill shewn in the defence of them,
so many years ago.
“Notwithstanding, says the Doctor, all that can be said, much clamour
will ever attend novelties, though never so strongly proved.――But truth
seldom thrives the worse, for unreasonable opposition; and it would
seem (N. B.) _not to be far from its establishment_, when such writers,
as the following, appear in its defence――He hath established what
he undertook to defend, with such extent of learning, and force of
good argument, that I dare become responsible for all he says; and am
willing, that those of my opinions here debated, may stand, or fall,
by the strength, or the invalidity of this defence.”¹
¹ Preface to the critical enquiry, p. 10.
This compliment, so very hearty, as well as elegant, puts me in mind
of another, which the learned Doctor made some time since, to the
whole clergy of this nation; “a body of men, says he, the most learned,
virtuous, and truly Christian, that ever adorned a church, or state.”¹
¹ D. L. Vol. 2. Preface, p. 6.
These two compliments are of so very high a strain, that were it not
for the gravity of the Doctor’s character, and the seriousness of the
subject, the reader might have thought himself obliged to understand
them both ironically. But if the Doctor meant no more by this, than to
buy a peace with the clergy, it must however be said, that he gave more
for the purchase of it, than a man of a scrupulous conscience would
have given.
However the compliment paid to this modest gentleman (who to be sure
will, now never be able to let the world know his name) seems to have
been comfortably received in secret, by the ample return he has made
the Doctor for it, in his new book. Where, speaking of a part of the
Doctor’s performance, he says, “For this answer, I must refer the
reader to the _D. L._ where he will find the subject handled with
that force, solidity, and precision of argument, which so eminently
distinguish the author from all his cotemporaries.”
I shall now only just observe, that the compliment made by the bishop
to the clergy, has here very much abatement made to it, by his great
ally. For as matters now stand, if this very clergy, good, learned, and
Christian, beyond any thing ever heard of in the world before, should
one and all unite in opposing the bishop, all that they could possibly
get by their pains, would be only to shew, how eminently he stands
distinguished by force, solidity, and precision of argument from all
his cotemporaries.
But no more of this. Bishop _Warburton_ grounds his scheme, upon the
doctrine of the Old and the New Testament. But seeing he affirms that
to be of the greatest weight, which is taken from the New Testament,
and this author also begins there, I shall do so likewise.
_First_, I shall clearly evince, that there is not in all the New
Testament, one single text, which either in the letter, or the spirit
proves, or has the least tendency, or design to prove, that the
_immortality_ of the soul, or its perpetual duration after the death
of the body, was not an _universal_, _commonly_ received opinion in,
and thro’ every age of the world from _Adam_ to Christ. _Secondly_,
That this doctrine or belief of a future state, was not _designedly
secreted_, or _industriously hidden_ from the eyes of the people of
God by _Moses_, neither by the types and figures of the law, nor by any
other part of his writings. From whence I shall occasionally shew, that
the true _ground_ and _method_ of Christian redemption to eternal life,
preached by the apostles, began with _Adam_, was the religion of _Adam_,
and all his descendants. And also, that the writings of _Moses_, and
the patriarchal faith, give the very same full proof of the immortality
of the soul, or a future state, as the gospel doth.
Need I not observe, that the whole merits of the debate, betwixt Bishop
_Warburton_ on the one side, and the whole Christian church of all ages,
on the other side, lie wholly in these particulars, which, if they
can be made good, the whole costly fabric of the Doctor’s _projected
defence of Christianity_, (as he calls it) built at the expence of such
immense treasures of learning, fetched from all quarters of the antient
and modern world, must have the fate which always happens to castles
built in the air.
This learned writer, to shew, that the immortality of the soul, or its
perpetual duration in a future state, was entirely unknown in all the
former dispensations of God, until the coming of Christ, begins with
this passage of St. _Paul_. “God hath saved us according to his own
purpose, and his grace which was given us in Christ Jesus, before the
world began. But is now made manifest by the appearing of our Saviour
Jesus Christ, who hath abolished death, and hath brought life and
immortality to light, thro’ the gospel.”
On which words he thus proceeds: ♦“We are told, that God, before the
world began, had decreed to restore mankind to that lost inheritance
of eternal life, which they should forfeit by the disobedience of our
first parents. It is added, that this secret purpose, was now at last
made manifest by the appearing of Christ, who hath abolished death,
and brought life, and immortality to light by the gospel. The apostle
mentions two periods, one, when it was originally formed in the secret
counsels of God, the other, when it was published and revealed. The
opposition between these two states, seems necessarily to imply,
that during the interval, it remained a secret. If the apostle may be
allowed to be his own interpreter, it will be easy to establish this
exposition by a parallel passage in the epistle to _Titus_. _In hope of
eternal life_, which God, that cannot lie, promised _before the world
began, but hath in due time manifested his word through preaching_.
Agreeably to this, the author of the epistle to the _Hebrews_, assures
us, that the _great salvation of the gospel_, that is, the _promise of
eternal life, first began to be spoken by the Lord_. But how could he
be the first who taught this doctrine, if _Moses_ and the prophets had
taught it long before? Or how did he begin to speak of that, which so
many others had been commissioned to teach before? Sometimes we are
told, that life and immortality are brought to light, sometimes that it
was made manifest, sometimes that it first began to be spoken by Jesus
Christ. The bringing to light, and making manifest, are equivalent to
the beginning first to teach. And if so, the publication ascribed to
Jesus Christ, must have been the first and original publication, and
not merely the illustrating or giving new splendor to a doctrine, by
the addition of one, or more circumstances unknown before. However, an
eminent writer (meaning your Lordship) assures us, that Jesus Christ
did not give the first notice of this doctrine. All that I need remark
upon it, is, that this assurance seems directly to contradict the word
of inspiration.
♦ no endquote in text; unsure of placement
Your Lordship has also said, that the antient revelations _afforded a
good proof of a future state_. This writer makes great shew of triumph
over this most true assertion, and is continually bringing it forth as
a proof of your inconsistency, both with yourself and the apostles.
But to follow him farther: “St. _Paul_, saith he, observes that Jesus
Christ was sent to shew light to the people, that is, to the _Jews_
and to the _Gentiles_. It is plain from hence, that he was a light to
the first, in the same sense, in which he was a light to the last; and
therefore as he was a light to the Gentiles, by revealing the mystery
of redemption, in a restoration to life and immortality, to them
_absolutely unknown_, it seems to follow, that he also enlightened the
_Jews_, by the manifestation of a truth _equally unknown_. Agreeably to
this account of things, _Zacharias_, in his prophecy upon the birth of
_John_ Baptist, says, _The day-spring from on high hath visited us, to
give light to them that sit in darkness, and in the shadow of death,
to guide our feet into the way of peace_. A description, which will by
no means permit us to suppose, that they were enlightened with a good
proof of a future state. If they had been enlightened with such a proof,
they would have been in the region of life and immortality, and not
in the verge and shadow of death. They would not have been sitting
in darkness, but walking in the light, if they actually saw the grand
object in question: how consistent it is, to assign a good view of an
object, to a people sitting in darkness, must be left to the judgment
of others. However, this seems to be the necessary consequence of
affirming, that the _Jews_ had a good proof of a future life.”
This is the glaring contradiction, which he is continually charging
upon your Lordship throughout his whole book. Again, he attacks your
Lordship thus, from your own words: “St. _Peter_, says his Lordship,
tells all Christians, that they are called out of darkness into
a marvellous light. Ask the evangelists, they will tell you, _The
day-spring from on high hath visited us, to give light to them that
sit in darkness, and in the shadow of death_. Ask any, or all the
apostles, and they will tell you, their commission is, to open the
eyes of the people, _and turn them from darkness unto light_. But how
could the _Jewish_ people have a _good view and prospect_ of life, and
immortality, if their eyes were not opened? How could they be called
out of darkness, if their situation presented them with a good view of
an object, which they were now first invited to behold? And how could
they sit in the shadow of death, if they had been favoured with a good
proof of a future state?
“It would be ridiculous to say, that they sat in darkness, or that they
had not their eyes, merely, because they did not see the object in its
full proportion, or extent, or had not an exact view of every minute
part, and the opportunity of surveying it quite round. The sitting in
darkness and the shadow of death, evidently implies a total want of
light, by which the people thus circumstanced, were to be enlightened;
it being impossible to express the most entire ignorance in more
emphatic terms.”¹
¹ Pages 4, 5, 6, &c.
I have made these large quotations from this author, containing all his
chief texts of scripture, and his comments upon them, in his own words,
that there might be no complaint of my robbing his arguments of any of
their force, for all that he farther says on this subject, is but mere
repetition.
I shall now shew, that all his reasoning upon these texts is false in
itself, and nothing at all to the purpose, as not touching the one
great point in question, which is the doctrine or belief of a future
state, or the immortality of the soul in a life after this.――And this
I shall do, by making it plain, that not one of these texts, nor any
other in all the New Testament, proves, or has the least tendency to
prove, that the doctrine or belief of the soul’s immortality, and a
future state, was not known in and thro’ every age of the world, before
the coming of Christ in the flesh.
This will be sufficiently done, by shewing, that the doctrine of
the immortality of the soul, or its future existence in some kind of
happiness or misery in another life, is a matter about which these
texts say not a syllable, but leave it as untouched as the doctrine of
the pre-existence of souls.
If it be asked then, What is the great discovery, new light and
knowledge, declared in these texts, as newly made known to the world
by the gospel? It is answered, that the one thing meant both by the
letter and spirit of all these, and every other the like passages of
scripture, speaking of that mystery, new light, or knowledge made known
by the gospel, and unknown before, is absolutely nothing else, points
at nothing else, and has nothing else implied in it, but the one
whole process of Christ in his personality, his birth, his life, his
sufferings, his death, his resurrection and ascension into heaven.
This, and this alone, namely, The whole process of Christ, in all these
important particulars, is the great salvation, the great mystery, the
hidden wisdom of God, kept secret from the foundation of the world, and
not manifested, nor possible to be manifested, but by Christ himself
entering into, and going thro’ all the parts of this process.――Of this
process alone it is, that the apostles speak, when they declare the
mystery opened in the gospel, to have been a mystery kept secret since
the world began: and the reason why it was so is plain, because it must
be a secret, and continue such, till what was contained in it came into
actual existence, and thereby manifested itself.
Of this process alone, and its wonderful effects, it is that the
apostles speak, when they glory of the abolishment of death, and of
life and immortality brought to light through the gospel: because it is
the gospel alone, that manifests the actual existence of this process
of Christ in all its parts. Nor do they ever speak of any light,
life, or knowledge, as formerly the hidden wisdom of God, and now made
manifest to the world, but solely that light, that life, and knowledge,
which arises from some one or other, or all the parts of our Saviour’s
process, as the one only possible and actual Redeemer of the world.
That this is, the plain full truth of the matter, that the only thing,
discovered to the world by the light of the gospel, is the one whole
process of Christ, must be acknowledged by every considerate man, even
from the nature of the thing.――For what can the mystery of the gospel
be, but the mystery of Christ, as a Saviour, made known to the world?
And what can the mystery of Christ, as a Saviour made known be, but
the manifestation of _what_ he is in himself, in the power of his
personality, in the efficacy of his birth, in the blessed consequences
of his life, his sufferings, his death, resurrection, and ascension
into heaven, as our _second Adam_, or father of a new, divine nature,
derived into us by his wonderful process in all its parts.
Now as all these particulars make up the _whole manifestation_ of the
mystery opened in the gospel, so there is not in any of these, the most
distant _hint_ given, that the doctrine of a _future state_, was not
as soon, as universally, and constantly known as the fall of man was.
Nor do they any more imply, _such ignorance_, than they imply, the
fall of man not known till Christ came in the flesh.――Now that which
is not taught in, and by the process of Christ, cannot be taught by the
manifestation of the gospel mystery. But in all our Saviour’s process,
there is no possibility of making any part of it prove, that the
_immortality_ of the soul, or its _destination_ to a future life, was
not the common belief, of every age from _Adam_ to Christ.
For this wonderful process of Christ, which is the whole mystery opened
in the gospel, is about quite _another kind_ of life in the soul,
than that which consists in its _bare immortality_. For immortality,
considered in itself, may as well be a curse as a blessing. But this is
not the life and immortality that the gospel boasts of. It leaves such
natural immortality, which belongs as well to devils as men, as wholly
untouched, as it does the original of the alphabet. And for this reason,
because the _one knowledge_ which the former world wanted, and the
Christian world got, is by all the evangelists and apostles confined to
that, which Christ, as God and man, was, did, suffered, purchased, and
obtained, in and through the efficacy and merits of his process, till
as a second _Adam_, he was placed at the right hand of God.
It is the living knowledge, the real participation of all these parts
of our Saviour’s process, as a God incarnate, that contains all that
life and immortality, all the glad tidings of salvation, and light out
of darkness, made known to the world by Christ and his apostles. Nor
do they ever call the attention of mankind to any other new light or
knowledge, but that of seeing and knowing, how every part of Christ’s
process had its particular and joint efficacy, to destroy the works of
the devil, and the power of hell in fallen man.
This was the good news of _life and immortality_ brought to light by a
glorious gospel, which shewed the whole counsel of God towards fallen
men; how they were before the foundation of the world seen in Christ,
_predestinated to be made conformable to his image_, who by all that
he was, did and suffered, from his first coming down, to his ascension
into heaven, was the one, only possible means of their partaking again
of the divine nature.
Every step of our Saviour’s process from first to last, was only so
many necessary steps of our progress out of the eternal death of sin
and misery, into a participation of an heavenly life in Christ Jesus.
And in this process is contained all that Christian theology, which
makes up the whole doctrine of Christ and his apostles.
No power of reasoning, no art of criticism, can force one single
text of the New Testament to speak, or so much as hint at any other
life or immortality but this, _as first_ made known to the world by
the gospel.――The natural immortality of the soul, is no part of its
redemption, but belongs to it as it belongs to all angels, whether
in heaven or in hell, and is an immortality no more purchased by the
incarnation of the Son of God, than the immortality which belongs to
_Lucifer_ and his angels.――Therefore this cannot be that immortality,
which is the gift of God through Jesus Christ. And therefore nothing
that is said of that immortality, which comes to fallen man only by
Jesus Christ, can be the least proof, that the belief of the soul’s
perpetual existence in a future state came first, or only by him, and
was not always held by every age, from the beginning of the world.
Natural immortality has its full nature in the fallen angels; but the
one immortality that comes by Jesus Christ, is the glory of the Holy
Trinity, dwelling and manifesting itself in the immortal nature of the
soul.
For this is a certain truth, that all that is divine and God-like in
any creature, dwells as a supernatural gift or operation of God in it;
which may be lost, as it was in angels, and _Adam_; and can be kept by
no other power but that of faith; nor regained, when lost, but by the
return of that same faith, and full resignation to God. So that the
natural immortality of angels or men, is only their capacity to receive
the never-ending, but always increasing manifestation of divine glory
in, and thro’ all the natural powers. And this is the one immortality
made known, and purchased for us through the blessed Jesus, being and
doing what he was and did, in our poor immortal nature, that had lost
its God.
But to consider now the texts of the New Testament, on which this
author has endeavoured to establish Bishop _Warburton_’s opinion. The
first and chief of these is that of St. _Paul_; “God hath saved us,
according to his own purpose, and his grace, which was given us in
Christ Jesus, before the world began: but is now made manifest by the
appearing of our Saviour Jesus Christ, who hath abolished death, and
brought life and immortality to light through the gospel.”
Now every word in this passage excludes all regard to the natural
immortality of the soul, and necessarily leads and confines us to that
one life and immortality, to a life and immortality of the heavenly
nature brought forth in our souls.――For the life and immortality
here granted to us, is expressly affirmed to be effected by Christ’s
abolishment of death. Therefore as is the death here abolished, such
must be the life that is brought forth in the stead of it.
The death here abolished is not the natural mortality of body or soul,
but that death, whose destruction is declared in these words of the
apostle, _Christ was manifested to destroy the works of the devil_: and
from that destruction comes forth the one true life and immortality,
which is an eternal union of righteousness in and with Christ, as a
principle of a divine life eternally dwelling in us.
_To be carnally minded_, saith the apostle, is death, this is the one
death that Christ is here said to abolish; but to be spiritually minded
is life and peace; and this is the one life and immortality that Christ
sets up in the stead of death, by making us spiritually minded, or as
St. _Peter_ words it, “partakers of the divine nature, by which we are
made children of God, and if children, then heirs of God, and joint
heirs with Christ.”
Farther, St. _John_ saith, _This is the record, that God hath given
unto us eternal life_; surely this is the one immortality brought to
light by the gospel. But to shew us what, and wherein this immortal, or
eternal life consists, the apostle adds, “and this life is in his Son:
he that hath the Son, hath life, and he that hath not the Son; hath not
life.”
* Therefore this immortality, or eternal life given unto us of God, not
only has nothing in it concerning the natural immortality of souls, but
is necessarily to be understood of quite another matter.
* For they only can have this eternal life given to them of God, who
have the Son: therefore it has no relation to the natural immortality
of souls, and they can only have the Son, of whom it can be truly
said, “that Christ is of God become wisdom and righteousness, and
sanctification to them.”
* As another full proof of all that has been said, it may be added,
that the life and immortality brought to light by the gospel, is purely
conditional and only offered to mankind, as a gift of God, upon certain
terms. And therefore does not, cannot mean the immortality of the soul,
or its perpetual natural duration in a future state.
Thus, “God gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believed on him,
should not perish, but have everlasting life. Ye will not come to me,
that ye may have life.” Therefore the immortality of life revealed by
the gospel, is purely conditional, and adventitious to the soul, such
as may be received, or not received, and consequently cannot possibly
be, or mean a natural immortality, for such immortality, it has no
power of freely receiving, or not receiving upon terms.
That blessing of a heavenly immortality, freely given by God, is
nothing else but a celestial holiness, purity and perfection brought
forth in the soul, by its having the eternal WORD and SPIRIT of God
again restored to, and united with it: called immortality, not because
of its eternal duration, but because eternally free from all that,
which is death, or the deadly evil of sin in the soul; called also so,
in opposition to that natural immortality of devils, and damned souls,
which tho’ never ceasing, is only an eternal death. So that no argument,
from what is said of the life and immortality made known by the gospel,
can be drawn into a proof, that the belief of a future state, was
not the general belief of the world before. Because the immortality
preached by the gospel, is a thing quite different from the natural,
perpetual duration of the soul, and means neither more, nor less, than
the _glory and perfection of a divine life_, to which _Adam_ died the
very day that he did eat of the forbidden tree, and which is quickened
again, in and by the whole process of Christ in our nature.
I come now, to my second proposition, namely, to shew, that the
doctrine of a future state, or the immortality of the soul, was not
designedly secreted, or industriously hidden from the eyes of the
people of God by the types and figures of the Mosaic dispensation.――My
reasons for it are as follow. _First_, because it is highly unworthy
of God, to suppose, that it was, the end of those types and figures,
designedly to _secrete_, or _hide_ from the people of God, the
knowledge _of any truth_, much less the knowledge of a truth,
absolutely _necessary_, to the very possibility of any spiritual
relation, or religious communication between God and man, as that of
the immortality of the soul, must be.――For though the Mosaic state, may
be justly called a _region of darkness_, when compared to that _light_
which has arisen from the process of Christ; yet so far as it went, and
with regard to the people under it, it was a degree of _light_, and a
degree of _life_: it was _some progress_ in victory over death, it was
_some opening_ of divine light, an help to such kind of knowledge, as
could be had in such a state, as was only formed to support, and keep
up a faith, and hope, and expectation of such a redemption to come, as
had been promised from the beginning of the world, but could have no
open manifestation, till its _own existence_ manifested itself.――It is
therefore a gross mistaking the _whole nature_ of the law, to consider
its types and figures as _designedly_ hiding any thing from man.――Their
design was quite the contrary, namely, to convey _new_ light and
_farther_ information. And though they may be said to be a _shadowy_,
and imperfect representation, yet its whole intent is, to give some
knowledge of the substance; and by its signs to make the things to come
more expected, than they would have been without such types and figures.
Bishop _Warburton_, speaking of typical representation, saith, _it
necessarily implies the throwing a thing into shade_, or _secreting_
it from _vulgar knowledge_.
Typical representation, in the _law_, is not, cannot be the _throwing a
thing into shade_, or _secreting_ it from _vulgar knowledge_. For this
supposes the thing typified to have been already _in existence_, or
it could not be _thrown_ into shade. But this hath no place in the
Mosaic types and figures; they are not the putting any thing _already
existent_, under a cover, but are a _degree_ of light cast upon such a
matter, as had _never shewn_ itself, and which could therefore only be
typically pointed at, till it came into actual existence.
Again, that typical representation does not _necessarily imply, the
throwing a thing into shade, and secreting it from vulgar knowledge_,
is plain from hence.――Baptism, and bread and wine in the sacrament,
are merely corporeal types and figures of spiritual things; but if it
was _necessarily essential_ to typical representation, _to throw things
into shade, and secrete them from vulgar knowledge_, it would follow,
that these two sacraments could have no other end, but to cast the
spiritual things of the gospel into shade, and secrete them from vulgar
knowledge. Type, figure, and human language, with regard to spiritual
things, have the same kind of imperfection, though not in the same
_degree_; but yet teaching and informing, is the design of both of them.
Of the Mosaic types therefore it may justly be affirmed, that they
were so far from _designedly_ hiding, or covering any truths from man,
that their whole intent was, to _uncover_, and make _less hidden_ such
things as at that time, could not be seen, or known as they were in
themselves.――Nothing could possibly manifest the nature, power, and
efficacy of Christ’s process (the one thing typified) but its own
real nature, come into _actual existence in all its parts_.――Therefore
through every age of the world, from the first promise made to _Adam_,
of _a seed of the woman to bruise the head of the serpent_, to that
time, all the religious goodness of mankind consisted in their _walking
before God_ in an _implicit faith_ of a full redemption, made known
to them under representation of a seed of the woman, overcoming the
mischief that the serpent had done to them. And through this _faith
alone_ it was, that all the holy men of old had their righteousness,
and peace, and union with God. And _God was not ashamed to be called
their God, inasmuch as having received the promises, and seen them afar
off, and embraced them, they confessed they were strangers and pilgrims
on earth, desired a heavenly country, and through faith, looked for a
city whose builder and maker is God_.
Hence are the following great truths undeniably evident, (1.) That
_faith in Christ_, has always been, and always must be, the _only_
ground of salvation possible to man, in any age of the world. (2.) That
_this faith_ itself, and all its power and efficacy, has always, as
fully proceeded from Christ alone, as the faith of those who believed
in him, when come in the flesh. For as then Christ truly said of
himself, _without me ye can do nothing_, so it was equally true of the
first promised seed of the woman, _that without it_, nothing good could
have been done by fallen man.
Therefore, (3) the covenant of God with all mankind through Christ,
is a living, operative covenant of life and immortality, not first
begun, or first made known, when Christ was on earth, and died for us,
but a covenant as antient as our first parents, as universal as their
offspring. And what the apostle saith, that _God was in Christ Jesus
reconciling the world unto himself_, tells us a truth and goodness of
God, that extends itself to every nation, people, and language, that
ever hath been, or ever shall be upon the face of the earth.
* And as an implicit faith in a promised redemption was all the
religion of the old world; all that could be done by the infinite
wisdom of God, was according to the fitness of times, seasons and
occasions (only known to himself) to give forth such typical and
prophetic intimations of this redemption, as should more and more
confirm their faith, and prepare them to see, that the whole process
of Christ, when finished, was that very redemption first promised to
all the world, in the promise made to the common Father of mankind,
through succeeding ages kept constantly in view, by a train of types
and prophecies.
* And as the history and ritual of _Moses_, could not possibly design
to take away the knowledge of any divine truths from the people of
God, so least of all could they designedly hide from them a belief of
the natural immortality of the soul: a truth absolutely necessary and
essential to any spiritual relation, or religious communion between God
and man.
* And indeed, _Moses_, is as free from any such _design_, as the
apostles themselves.
* For to say, that the types of the law have designedly hid, from the
people of God, all sense of the immortality of the soul, is as false,
as bold and extravagant, as to say the same thing of the gospel.
For in the New Testament, not a word is to be found, that expressly
affirms the soul to be naturally immortal; in this respect the law and
the gospel are equally silent; and yet neither of them secrete, or hide
it from the people of God, but both fully prove, and with the same kind
of proof, the absolute necessity of believing it.
For as in the gospel it is never expressly asserted, and yet is fully
proved, because unavoidably supposed, and necessarily implied in and
by the open, and plain doctrines of the gospel: so it is with the books
of _Moses_; they never expressly affirm the natural immortality of the
soul, and yet give one, and the same full proof of it, as the gospel
doth. Because the express doctrines of every dispensation of God, from
_Adam_ to Christ, openly teach doctrines, which not by inference, but
in the plain nature of the thing, unavoidably require, and necessarily
imply, the immortality of the soul, and the common belief of it in all
ages of the church before the coming of Christ.
The obtaining an union with Christ, is the one life and immortality
brought to light by the gospel; but this immortality unavoidably
requires, and necessarily implies the perpetual duration of the soul’s
natural life. For nothing but an ever-enduring creature, is capable of
enjoying an everlasting gift.
Therefore the gospel, tho’ never once expressly asserting, yet
continually demonstrates the natural immortality of the soul.
And this is the whole truth, with regard to the _Mosaic_ history and
types; they hide it, in the same manner as the gospel hides it, that is,
not at all; and they fully prove it in the same manner as the gospel
proves it, by doctrines which necessarily require, and absolutely imply
it, in the first conception of them.
For the history of the creation and the fall of man, contains an
express covenant of a redemption, promised to _Adam_ and his fallen
posterity, in which a seed of the woman should do away the evil which
the serpent had brought into the human nature, that is, should restore
the first, lost, heavenly life to mankind.
But this covenant, and the immediate benefit of it, could neither
be wanted nor received, but by immortal creatures, that believed
themselves to have an immortality, which had lost that glory and
perfection which belonged to it at the first. Nor could such immortal
creatures have any power of entering into this covenant any other way,
than by an implicit faith in God. For it was a covenant of redemption,
or return of their first glory, without the least intimation of the
time, or age, when, or the means, or manner how it was to be brought
to pass. Therefore such a covenant, and such a faith, in the very
first conception of them, without the least reasoning or deduction,
absolutely imply, and necessarily require a full belief of a future
state.
And how could God better keep up a full sense of it, or more fix it
in the hearts of men, than by placing and fixing all their faith and
comfort, in a redemption certainly to come upon all the world, which
yet might not come, till half the world was dead?
Or how could mankind possibly give into this faith, had they had the
least doubt of the certainty of a life to come? For their faith in such
an expected redemption, could not be either more or less, than their
faith in a future state.
Therefore God’s requiring this faith of them, was in the highest
degree his requiring them to believe the ever-enduring life of their
souls. Consequently, in the first revelation of God to man, life and
immortality, as it means an ever-enduring state of the soul, was as
fully, and in the same degree brought to light, as in the revelation of
the gospel.
In the gospel it is proved, because an immortality of a heavenly life
is made known, purchased and given by Christ, which necessarily implies
an immortal nature in man, or he could not partake of it.
In the first revelation, it is equally proved, because a _redemption
to come_, that was to be obtained by an implicit faith, without any
knowledge of the time when it was to appear, whether before or after
many generations of men were dead and gone, necessarily implies a full
belief of a state belonging to man, that is beyond time, and the death
of the body.
This proof of the natural immortality of the soul, thus inseparable
from the first revelation of God, is so strong, that nothing need,
or hardly can be added to it. For how could God more fully assert
the immortality of our nature, than by requiring our faith in such a
redemption? Or how could man more strongly declare his full belief of,
such immortality, than by his faith in a redemption that had nothing to
do with time, or the life, or death of the body in this present world?
_Again_, The murder, or martyrdom of _Abel_, and the translation of
_Enoch_ into heaven, both recorded for the instruction of the people in
this very point, are two examples, and first fruits of the redemption
promised to _Adam_, and all mankind; two invincible proofs, that
this first covenant was a covenant of life and immortality, confirmed
to mankind by facts strong and convincing, like those of Christ’s
resurrection and ascension.
For immediately after a covenant of redemption was made, the first good
man after it, in the very beginning of the world, and the beginning of
his own life, after his first act of divine worship, and as soon as God
had declared his good pleasure in it, was slaughtered like a beast.
Now can there be a fuller demonstration, that the covenant of
redemption was for life and immortality in a future state? Otherwise
the first good man in the world lost all the benefit of God’s covenant,
merely because he was good; merely thro’ the devotion that he shewed
towards God, and the favour which God shewed towards him.
Therefore either _Abel_’s blood cries aloud the absolute certainty of a
future state, or _Abel_ must be said to have been undone, ruined, and
deprived of all good, purely because of a friendship discovered between
God and him.
This fact therefore, recorded by the Spirit of God assures all the
Mosaic generations, that another life belonged to _Abel_ and to them,
besides that which _Abel_ lost by his death. Does it not as directly,
declare this, as when Christ said, his _kingdom was not of this world_?
Does it not say the same thing, as when Christ said to his disciples,
_fear not them that can only kill the body_? The same thing, as the
voice from heaven, which cried, _blessed are the dead which die in the
Lord_?
_Again_, Another proof of the same force, is the translation of _Enoch_.
God saith by _Moses_, _Enoch walked with God, and was not, for God
took him_. Now, could any the most expressive form of words, have told
the ancient world with more certainty than this fact does, that God’s
covenant with man, was for a kingdom of heaven?
Our blessed Lord, when departing out of this world, saith to his
disciples, _I go to prepare a place for you, that where I am, there ye
may be also_. And does not _Enoch_’s translation say as much, as if he
had been sent again by God to say, _God has taken me from this world
into heaven, to make it manifest to you, that where I am gone, there
are ye to come also_.
Behold here the adorable goodness of God to the first and succeeding
ages of the world! These two great articles of faith, which are now
the comfort of the Christian world, namely, victory over death, and
ascension into heaven, had even then the utmost and most convincing
proof given to them by God.
The old world, from the first man, were all in a covenant of
redemption.――Life and immortality was both by doctrine and example,
made known to them, and nothing remained as a mystery or wisdom hidden
in God, to be revealed in the last times, but that one thing which
could not be manifested, till by its own actual existence it manifested
itself, namely, the wonderful process of Christ in our fallen nature.
By which process alone it was that all the faith, as well before as
after Christ, had all its efficacy.
Hence it is, that the faith and religion of the first world was in
substance, the very Christian faith and Christian religion, one and
the same way, and power of salvation; which oneness consists in this,
that _Christ, the same yesterday, to-day and for ever_, was the same
mediator between God and man from the beginning of the world, one and
the same power of life and salvation to murdered _Abel_, as to martyred
_Stephen_.
This faith from this original, was their peace with God thro’ Jesus
Christ, the very same faith of which Christ saith, _He that believeth
in me shall never die_. The same faith of which he again saith, _If any
man thirst, let him come unto me and drink; he that believeth in me,
out of his belly shall flow rivers of living water_.
That this was the catholic, saving faith, common to all the
♦patriarchal ages, we are assured by the Spirit of God in the epistles
to the _Corinthians_ and _Hebrews_, telling in express words, “They did
all eat the same spiritual meat, did all drink the same spiritual drink,
for they drank of that spiritual rock that followed them, and that rock
was Christ.”
♦ “patriarchial” replaced with “patriarchal”
Are we not told, that very same thing of the patriarchal generations,
which Christ said to those that believed in him, that by eating his
flesh, and drinking his blood, they have eternal life?
In the eleventh chapter of the epistle to the _Hebrews_, the same
spirit, speaking of the patriarchal ages, saith, “All these died in
faith, not having received the promises, but having seen them afar off,
and were perswaded of them, and embraced them, and confessed they were
strangers and pilgrims on earth,――who desired a better country, that is,
an heavenly.”
Bishop _Warburton_ is so out of humour with this whole chapter, thus
full of patriarchal light and glory, that he gives it the heathenish
name of the _Palladium of the cause_, which he had undertaken to
demolish. And he accordingly attacks it with a number of critical
inventions, that may as truly be called heathenish; for they are in
direct opposition to all Christian theology.
He will have it, that the faith set forth in this whole chapter, is
concerning a faith in the abstract, and not a specific faith in the
Messiah. An invention as little grounded in the gospel, as goodness
in the abstract, in opposition to specific goodness. Goodness in the
abstract, if it hath any meaning, is all goodness, and therefore must
have every species of goodness in it; so faith in the abstract, if it
hath any meaning, is all faith, and therefore must have every species
of faith in it.
His first reason, why this whole chapter is concerning a faith in the
abstract, and not a faith in the Messiah, is taken from that definition
of faith; “The substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things
not seen.”
And yet this very definition, if it had been intended to give the most
distinct idea of the nature of faith in the Messiah, could not have
been better expressed, for there is every thing in it that can fully
set forth that very faith. For if faith in a Messiah to come, must
be a faith in things hoped for, and a reliance upon the certainty of
things not seen; if this, and nothing but this, can be a true faith in
a Messiah to come, how could it be more directly pointed at, than by
making it to be _the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of
things not seen_?
For in this definition, not only the true object, but the true efficacy
of faith in the Messiah is set forth, in that it is made to be such a
real foretaste, and participation of things hoped for, and not seen, as
is justly called, the very substance and evidence of them.
_Again_, the Doctor appeals to the following words, as proof, that the
faith described in this chapter, is not a faith in the Messiah, “He
that cometh to God, must believe that he is, and that he is a rewarder
of all those that diligently seek him.” Which words contain neither
more nor less, than if it had been said, “He that cometh to God, must
believe that he is a fulfiller of his promises to all those that truly
believe in him, and them: for God cannot be considered as a rewarder of
mankind, in any other sense, than as he is a fulfiller of his promises
made to mankind in the covenant of a Messiah.” For God could not give,
nor man receive any rewards or blessings, but in and through the one
Mediator. Therefore to believe in God, as a rewarder, and blesser, is
the very truth, and reality of a right faith in the Messiah.
The Doctor has another proof, which he says, puts the matter out of all
doubt. In this chapter it is said, By faith _Rahab_ the harlot escaped,
by faith the _Israelites_ passed through the red sea, by faith the
walls of _Jericho_ fell down. “But was any of this, a faith in Jesus
the Messiah?”
Now not to rob this argumentation of any of its strength, it must be
allowed to proceed thus.
_Joshua_’s faith could not be in the Messiah, or the promises of God
made to his forefathers. But why so? Because by his faith the walls of
_Jericho_ fell down.
Just as theologically argued, as if it had been said, _Abel_’s faith
could not be a faith in the seed of the woman, promised to his parents;
because by his faith “he offered unto God a more acceptable sacrifice
than _Cain_.”
_Enoch_’s faith could not be in a Messiah to come, because by his faith
he was taken up to God.
_Abraham_’s faith could not be in the Messiah, because by his faith,
“He sojourned in a strange country, chose to dwell in tents, and looked
for a city that hath foundations, whose builder and maker is God.”
His faith could not be in a Messiah to come, because by his _faith he
offered up_ Isaac, _his only begotten son_.
Having set the Doctor’s argument in its best light, no more need be
said about the worth of it.
At last comes his invincible argument, which if it was as strong, as he
gives out, all that went before might have been spared.
“To evince it impossible, says the Doctor, that faith in the Messiah,
should be meant by the faith in this chapter, the apostle expressly
saith, that all those, to whom he assigns this faith, had not received
the promises; therefore they could not have faith in that, which was
never proposed to their faith. For how should they believe on him, of
whom they had not heard?”
Now if this argument has any good logic in it, it must follow, that no
one, whether patriarch or prophet, before, or after the law, ever had,
or could have faith in the Messiah, for all who died before the birth
of Christ, must have died without receiving the promises, which were
then first received, when good old _Simeon_ could sing, “Lord, now
lettest thou thy servant depart in peace, for mine eyes have seen thy
salvation.”
But St. _Paul_, speaking to the _Jews_, saith, “Behold, we declare unto
you glad tidings, how that the promise, which was made unto the fathers,
God hath fulfilled the same to us their children.”
Here, by the Spirit of God himself, is made known to us, the true
difference between receiving, and not receiving the promises. The
fathers, who could only see them afar off, are those who died without
receiving the promises, that is, without receiving the things promised.
And their children who lived to see the promises fulfilled, are they
that received the promises, that is, the things promised.
Farther, the Spirit of God saith, “all these died in the faith, not
having received the promises.”
But how could they die in this faith? It was for this only reason,
because they had not received the promises, that is, the things
promised. For if they had, they could not have died in faith, but in
the enjoyment of things promised.
The Doctor therefore has unluckily pitched upon that, as an argument
against the possibility of their faith in the Messiah, which is the
very reason, why they did die in the faith of him. For the holy Spirit
saith, they all died in the faith; and then the reason is added, why
they did, namely, because not having received the promises; therefore
their not having received the promises, is the reason why they died in
the faith of them. And their faith had this foundation, because they
had seen the things promised, as afar off, that is, long after their
own deaths, and therefore to be fulfilled, or made good in a future
life. Consequently, their faith was in a redemption to come in a life
after this; which surely may be affirmed to be a true faith in the
promised Messiah, or in all that, which had been promised, from the
first joyful notice, which God gave of him, _in a seed of the woman to
bruise the head of the serpent_. Which in gospel language is called,
_destroying the works of the devil_, and bringing all that to life
again, which died in _Adam_’s transgression.
It is added of these holy men dying in the faith of promises _seen
afar off_, that they were _perswaded of them, and embraced them, and
confessed they were strangers and pilgrims on the earth; now they that
say such things, plainly declare, that they seek a better country, that
is, an heavenly_.
What an extravagance is it therefore in the learned Doctor, to say,
_How should they believe in him of whom they have not heard_; as in
the least degree applicable to those saints of the old world? For their
faith was in promises made to them, but not fulfilled before their
deaths, which they beholding as afar off, died in the fullest faith and
expectation of a blessed life and heavenly country in virtue of them.
Therefore they believed in that, of which they had heard, they knew
what it was that they believed, _namely_, a redemption from all the
evil of their pilgrimage on earth, to a life in heaven.
Our blessed Lord said to the _Jews, Your father_ Abraham _rejoiced to
see my day, and he saw it, and was glad_. Surely then _Abraham_ had
faith in the Messiah, and yet he is numbered by the apostle amongst
those, who died not having received the promises.
But now, though _Abraham_’s rejoicing at the sight of that day, was a
sufficient proof, that his faith was in the Messiah, yet the _implicit_
faith of the more antient, patriarchal world in _that_, which they had
not seen, as _Abraham_ had, was as _right_ a faith in the Messiah, as
_Abraham_’s was. This point is determined, in the following words of
Christ. _Thomas, because thou hast seen me, thou hast believed: blessed
are they, which have not seen, and yet have believed._
This, and this alone, is the only real difference between the religion
of the faithful before, and after Christ. _Before Christ_, the living
faith, was in a Messiah to come in some wonderful, but unknown way.
By this faith, they stood under the blessed power of the _seed of the
woman_, and from generation to generation were kept in the one true
covenant of life, and union with God.
_After Christ_, the same living faith, rejoiced in a Messiah made known
by a miraculous birth, in the fallen human nature, redeeming it out of
every evil of life, of death, of sin and hell, till it was placed, as
God and man in one person, at the right hand of God in heaven.
Now when in process of time, the covenant of life between God and man,
had lost much of its effect, and the people of God had greatly fallen
away from the faith and piety of the first patriarchs, (perhaps not
more remarkably than the Christian world is fallen from the truth and
faith of the apostolic ages) it pleased God by _Moses_, to introduce
the descendents of the patriarchs into a new _covenant of care, and
protection over them_.
Which covenant was not a _new progressive state_ of that first one
true religion, that alone unites God and fallen man, nor given for
its own sake, or because of any intrinsic goodness in its washings
and purifications, but granted to the _hardness of their hearts_, as a
_temporal means_ of keeping a fallen people from falling farther under
the blindness and vanity of their earthly minds.
The first covenant was so perfect that nothing could be added to it,
but the manifestations of that which was promised in it. It was a
promise of life and redemption to mankind, to be fulfilled in and by
the seed of the woman. Now the promise, and the fulfilling of it, are
not (as in human matters) two _distant_, _separate_ things, that begin
at different times, nor can the one ever be without the other. They
both began together, and must exist together. The end, that is, the
fulfilling, grows out of the beginning, goes along with it, and has all
its efficacy from it; and the beginning, that is, the promise, is only
so much of the end.
That which Christ did, suffered, and obtained in our flesh, calling all
to turn to God, to deny themselves, to enter into the strictest union
with him, giving all divine graces, and yet only _according to their
faith in him_; that very same, the seed of the woman from the beginning
was always doing, yet solely _according to their faith in it_.
* The loss of _this faith_ in the first ages of mankind, gave birth to
that which is called the _heathen_, or _rational_ world; for they both
began together, and brought forth a race of people, full of blindness,
wickedness, and idolatry. For so far as they departed from faith, so
far they fell from God, under the dominion and government of their
reason, passions, and appetites. And thence began the kingdom of this
world, and the wisdom of this world, which ever must have full power
over every man, as soon as he ceases to live by faith.
* _Reasoning_ instead of faith, brought about the first dreadful change
in human nature, no less than a real death to God. And nothing but
faith instead of reasoning, can give any one fallen man power to become
again a son of God. Now to the end of the world, this will be the
unalterable difference between faith in God, and reasoning about the
things of God: they can never change their place, or effects; that
which they did to the first man, that they will do to the last.
* It _matters_ not, how much the _revelations_ and precepts of God are
increased, since the first single command given to _Adam_; for no more
is offered to our reasoning faculty by the whole bible, than by that
single precept. And the benefit of the whole bible is lost to us, as
soon as we reason about the nature and necessity of its commands, just
as the benefit of that first precept was lost in the same way.
_Hath God indeed said, ye shall not eat of every tree in the garden?_
This was the first essay, or beginning of reasoning with God. What it
was, and did then, that it will always be, and do. Its nature, and
fruits will never be any other, to the end of the world. And though
in these last ages, it hath passed through all schools of quibbling,
and is arrived at its utmost height of art, and precision of argument,
yet as to divine matters, it stands just where it stood, when it first
learnt that logic from the serpent, which improved the understanding
of _Eve_. And at this day, it can see no deeper into the things of God;
give no better judgment about them, than _that_ conclusion it at first
made, that _death_ could not be in the tree which was _so good for food,
so pleasant to behold, and to be desired for knowledge_.
In short, these two, faith and reasoning, have, and always will divide
all mankind, from the beginning to the end of the world, into two sorts
of men.
The faithful, thro’ every age, are of the seed of the woman, the
children of God, and heirs of redemption.
The reasoners are of the seed of the serpent, they are the Heathens
thro’ every age, and heirs of that confusion, which happened to the
first builders of the tower of _Babel_.
* To live by faith, is to be in covenant with God; to live by reasoning,
is to be in compact with ourselves, with our own vanity, and blindness.
* To live by faith, is to live with God in the spirit and power
of prayer, in self-denial, in contempt of the world, in divine
love, in foretastes of the world to come, in humility, in patience,
long-suffering, obedience, resignation, absolute dependence upon God,
with all that is temporal and earthly under our feet.
* To live by reasoning, is to be a prey of the old serpent, eating dust
with him, groveling in the mire of all earthly passions, devoured with
pride, imbittered with envy, tools and dupes to ourselves, tossed up
with false hopes, cast down with vain fears, slaves to all the good and
evil things of this world, to-day elated with learned praise, to-morrow
dejected at the loss of it; yet jogging on year after year, defining
words and ideas, dissecting doctrines and opinions, setting all
arguments and all objections upon their best legs, sifting and refining
all notions, conjectures, and criticisms, till death puts the same
full end to _all the wonders_ of the ideal fabric, that the cleansing
broom does to the wonders of the spider’s web, so artfully spun at the
expence of its own vitals.
* This is the unalterable difference between a life of _faith_, and a
life of _reasoning_ in the things of God; the former is from God, works
with God, and therefore all things are possible to it; the latter is
from the serpent, and therefore vain opinions, false judgments, errors
and delusions are inseparable from it.
Every scholar, every disputer of this world, nay every man, has
been where _Eve_ was, and has done what she did, when she sought for
_wisdom_ that did _not come_ from God. All libraries are a full proof
of the remaining power of the first sinful thirst after it: they
are full of a knowledge that comes not from God, but from the first
foundation of subtlety that opened her eyes. For as there cannot be any
goodness in man, but so far as the divine goodness works in him, so
there cannot be any divine truth, or knowledge in man, but so far as
God’s truth and knowledge works in him?
Indeed nothing but the one Spirit of Christ, living and working in man,
from the beginning to the end of the world, can possibly be the source
of any goodness, holiness, or redemption of man.
The scriptures abound with proof of this. What can be more decisive
than the following words? _If any man hath not the Spirit of Christ,
he is none of his. If Christ be not in you, ye are reprobates._ And
must not this be equally true of every man in the world? As true of
all men in the patriarchal as in the gospel ages? _If any man_, says
the apostle; therefore no regard is had to time or place, but where
there is _any man_, there this truth is affirmed of him by the apostle,
that unless he hath the Spirit of Christ he is none of his, but is
a reprobate. But if none can be Christ’s, but because they have his
Spirit living in them, and none can be God’s, but because they are
Christ’s, it follows that if Christ was not the Spirit and power of
_that_ first, universal covenant made by God with fallen _Adam_, if he
was not that which was meant by the _seed of the woman_, if his Spirit
was not from that time the real bruiser of the serpent’s head, both
_Adam_, and all his posterity, for much more than three thousand years
lived and died mere reprobates, and that, by an unavoidable necessity,
because they had not the Spirit of Christ living in them.
And now, my Lord, I think I have sufficiently proved not only my
two propositions, but also that the first covenant with _Adam_, by
the seed of the woman, was the one Christian means of salvation, so
wonderfully manifested by the whole process of Christ revealed in the
gospel. Therefore it is a truth of the utmost certainty, that from the
beginning of the world to the end of it, there never was, nor ever will
be any more, or any other, but one and the same true religion of the
gospel, which began with _Adam_ and _Eve_ thro’ Jesus Christ, the one
mediator and reconciler of God to man, who was as certainly the life,
strength, and salvation of the faithful in the old world, as he was in
after-times, when the Son of the Virgin _Mary, the way, the truth, and
the life_, to all that have faith in him.
And indeed a plurality of religions, or means of salvation, is as gross
an imagination as a plurality of gods, and can subsist upon no other
foundation.
A better religion necessarily supposes a better God, and a change
in religion a change in that God that makes it. A partial God,
with-holding the _one true power_ of salvation, till the last ages
of the world, is as atheistical as _Epicurus_’s god.
In sundry times, and in divers manners, it may please the wisdom of God,
to vary that which is only an outward help to the truth of religion;
but the inward spirit and truth of salvation, is as unvariable as God
himself.
The law therefore of _Moses_, as consisting of carnal ordinances,
not only _makes nothing perfect_, but brings nothing new into the one
covenant of redemption, but was only a temporary, provisional help,
_added because of transgressions, till the promised seed should come_;
that is, till the whole process of Christ, should in its last and
highest degree of evidence manifest itself in all its parts.
* _This law_ then no more belonged to the _true religion_ of the
Old Testament, than of the New, neither did it ever stand _between_
these two dispensations, as in their stead. No: it was merely on the
_outside_ of both, had only a temporary relation to the true religion,
either before or after Christ, but was no more a _part_, or _instead_
of them _for a time_, than the hand that stands by the road, directing
the traveller, is itself a part of the road, or instead of it.
Now, tho’ the reason of man ought not to pretend to fathom all the
depths of divine wisdom, in the whole of this _additional covenant_,
yet two ends of it are apparent.
_First_, To bring this corrupted people of _Israel_ into a new state of
such observances, as might preserve them from the gross superstitions
and idolatries to which they were too much inclined. And this, by
a _ritual_ of such condescensions to their carnal minds, as might
nevertheless be a school of restraints and discipline, full of such
purifications, types, and figures, as gave much spiritual light
and instruction, both backwards and forwards. Backwards, as truly
significative of their fallen state, daily memorials of their lost
purity and perfection: _forwards_, as variously pointing at _that
promised_ victory over the serpent, which had been the constant faith
and hope of their forefathers.
_Secondly_, That by a theocracy added to this ritual, which shewed
itself in a covenant of continual _care and protection_, openly
blessing their obedience, and punishing their rebellion, and working
all kinds of miracles in the overthrow of their enemies, not only they
themselves, but all the rest of the world, might be forced to see and
know, that there was no God, that had all power in heaven and on earth,
but the one God of _Israel_.
As to the _Israelites_ themselves, this temporal covenant was a great
instance of God’s goodness towards them. For they were thus called out
of idolatry, separated from the rest of the world, built into an holy
church of God, put under a most amazing theocracy, indulged for a time
with a ritual of carnal institutions, because of the hardness of their
hearts, which ritual was full of every instruction by doctrines, types,
figures and miracles, all shewing in the strongest manner, that they
were to be heirs of the heavenly promises made to their forefathers.
And as to the rest of the world, no particular message or messenger,
tho’ new risen from the dead, proclaims to them in so powerful a manner,
the vanity of their idols, the knowledge of the one true God of all
the world, as this remarkable body of people set up in the midst of
the world did. So that the law, tho’ nothing but a temporal covenant
of _outward care and protection_, was not only most divinely contrived
to preserve the faith of the first holy patriarchs, and guide them to
the time and manner of receiving the promises made to their fathers,
but it was all mercy to the rest of the world, being no less than
one continual, daily, miraculous call to them to receive blessing and
protection, life and salvation in the knowledge and worship of the one
true God of heaven and earth.
Now when the children of the patriarchs, were to be entered into this
new covenant, the utmost care was taken by the Spirit of God, that to
eyes that could see and ears that could hear, enough should be shewn
and said, to prevent all _carnal atheism_ to temporal and outward
things, and bring forth a spiritual _Israel_, full of that faith and
piety, in which their holy ancestors, as pilgrims on earth, had lived
and died devoted to God, in hope of everlasting redemption.
To this end _Moses_, tho’ bringing them under a ritual of bodily
washings and purifications, yet that they might use them only as
outward confessions and memorials of an inward spiritual pollution, and
as types and figures of their being to be delivered from it; is led by
the inspiration of God, not only to insert in the books of the law, the
most sublime doctrines and heavenly precepts of patriarchal holiness,
but to lay before them, for their daily instruction, a history of the
most deep and affecting truths: truths that had every thing in them
fitted to awaken and keep up that strong hope of an eternal redemption,
under the power of which, the holy patriarchs had overlooked every
thing in time for the sake of eternity.
I mean, the most wonderful history of the creation and curse of this
world, of the high origin of man and his dreadful fall from it, his
redemption and covenant of life restored in a seed of the woman, the
lives and deaths of the holy patriarchs, their patience under all
sufferings, their contempt of worldly advantages, their heavenly
visions, revelations and speeches from the invisible God, keeping them
thereby in an holy intercourse with the _invisible world_, full of
faith and hope of the good things of eternity.
To mention one or two of those great doctrines of _Moses_, which set
forth the original perfection and heavenly nature of man.
God said, _Let us make man in our own image and likeness_. Is not
this as high a doctrine of _immortality_, does it not give the same
instruction, raise the same hope, and call for all the same elevation
of the heart to God, as when St. _John_ saith, _Beloved, it does not
yet appear what we shall be; but we know that when he shall appear, we
shall be LIKE him_? Just the same truth, and fitted to have the same
effects, as when _Moses_ said, God made man in his own LIKENESS.
St. _Paul_ says, _God was in Christ, reconciling the world unto
himself_. A comfortable doctrine indeed, and full of hope of
immortality; yet only the same comfort and hope of immortality which
had been openly preached by _Moses_.
When _Moses_ bringeth in the Deity, as saying, _The seed of the woman
shall bruise the head of the serpent_; he preaches _that_ very same
gospel, and in the same manner which the apostle did. For his words
plainly teach, _that God was in the seed of the woman reconciling the
world unto himself_; as when St. _Paul_ says, _that God was in Christ
reconciling the world to himself_; the difference is nothing else, but
in two different names given to our Redeemer.
* Now tho’ _Moses_ was the first _recorder_ of the gospel salvation
in a written book, yet was he not the first _preacher_ of it. For it
was proclaimed in _Adam_’s day, from heaven, as the birth of Christ in
the flesh, in the days of Herod. For when God said, _The seed of the
woman shall bruise the head of the serpent_, the same good tidings
of salvation was _proclaimed from heaven_ by God himself, as when the
angel said to the shepherds, _Unto you is born this day in the city of
David, a Saviour, which is Christ the Lord_.
* But how can we know this? Only by God’s own teaching. For nothing can
be truly known of God by the creature, but that which God makes known
of himself.――So far as God operates in the creature, and manifests
himself in it, so far it truly knows, and _is taught of God_.――Any
other knowledge of God, however learned, high, or deep it may pretend
to be, is as vain and spurious as _that goodness_ which proceeds from
something else, than God’s good Spirit living in us.
* Genius, parts and literature, however set forth with wit and rhetoric,
have no affinity with divine knowledge; they can no more give it, than
the lust of the eyes and the pride of life can generate humility and
purity of heart. These accomplishments live and act in a sphere of
their own, and have no more power of taking to themselves any living
knowledge of God, than the art of painting to the life, can give the
power of _creating_ life.
* The blindness, and follies which have over-run both the antient and
modern world in matters of religion, are a full proof of the capital
doctrine of divine revelation, _namely_, that man (now the defaced
image of God) is so miserably changed and fallen from his first created
state, that nothing less than a new birth, can bring him again into the
region of divine _truth_.
And hence it is, that tho’ religion has its deepest ground in the
nature of man, tho’ God be _essentially_, present in the souls of all
men, yet from the fall of _Adam_ to the end of the world, it will be
an immutable truth, that _strait is the gate and narrow is the way that
leadeth_ unto divine knowledge; and none but the simple of heart, _the
poor in spirit_, or the real followers of Christ can find it.
* But it is time to have done. I shall only trouble your Lordship with
the few following remarks.――Dr. _Warburton_ says, “He has proved that
the doctrine of a future state of rewards and punishments is not to
be _found in_, nor did make a _part_ of the Mosaic dispensation.”¹ The
Mosaic dispensation means nothing else, but a _temporary_ ritual, and
a _temporary_ theocracy of worldly blessings and curses to support it.
These are its fixed bounds within which it is confined.――Therefore,
to prove that a state _beyond_ this world, was not to be _found in_,
nor did make a _part_ of a state, that is confined to this world, is
as easily and as vainly done, as to prove that the _garden of Eden_ is
not to be _found in_, nor makes a _part_ of a map that is confined to
_England_. And to infer _that_ the _Israelites_ therefore had no notion
of an immortality, because it was not a _part_ of their ritual, is no
better than to infer, that the people of _England_ can have no notion
of the garden of _Eden_, because nothing of it is to be seen in the
map of this island.――But tho’ not in the _ritual_, yet _Moses_ in other
parts of his books written for the instruction of those to whom he
gave the ritual, has given them the fullest notice and highest proof of
that _godlike_ and _immortal_ nature they received at their creation,
shewing them to be the children of the _patriarchal covenant_, heirs
of all the promises of eternal redemption made to their fathers from
the beginning of the world. Nay, the most heavenly doctrines and
precepts given by the apostles to the redeemed of Christ, as _heirs
of immortality_, are to be found in the books of _Moses_.
¹ D. L. Vol. II. page 474.
Dr. _Warburton_ takes much pains to get rid of the only true sense
of the following texts of _Moses_. Thus, _Let us make man in our
own image and likeness_. From these words, he says, _it is inferred,
that the soul is immaterial_. But he thinks _Moses intimated quite
another matter_. And so do I; for to intimate the _immateriality_ of
the soul, by saying, that man was made in the _image and likeness_ of
God, is quite short of the sense of the words: to say, that the soul
is _immaterial_, is saying no more, than that it is not a _circle_
or a piece of _clay_, it is saying nothing at all of it but only of
something that it is not. Therefore _Moses_ cannot be supposed to
intimate such a nothing as this, by the image and likeness of God.
But he asserts a much higher matter, namely, that being created in
the image of God, he was made a partaker of the divine nature, and
therefore had not only immortality, but the riches and perfections
of the Deity grounded and growing up. And this is the true ground of
our eternal happiness, that is, of that _eternal increase_ of union,
perfection and glory, which the redeemed soul will find in God; it
is because the image of God, being as a seed sown into it at its
_creation_, it will to all eternity, after his admission into heaven,
open more and more its divine nature, and spring forth in new and
farther fruits of _glory_, _beatitude_ and _union_ with God.
Every thing that is endless, numberless in the depth of eternity,
is endless and numberless in the silence of the soul; what _seeing_
is, what _hearing_, _feeling_, &c. are in their boundless variety,
and ever increasing newness of delights in eternity, these, with
all their wonders, are the innate birthright and sure inheritance of
every immortal godly soul. And on the other hand, the same boundless,
numberless depth and growth of every tormenting, painful, frightful
sensation, will open itself in every soul, _that_ has lost its God,
and is left to its own immortal life within itself.
Vain therefore, is that principle published to the world, by a
celebrated philosopher of the last century, that the soul in its _first
created state_, is a mere _rasa tabula_, or _blank paper_. A fiction,
that is contradicted by all that we know of every created thing in
nature.
For every creature of this world, animate or inanimate, is in its
degree, a _microcosm_ of all the powers, that are in the great world,
of which it is a part. And nothing through all this universe, has in
its essence, only the nature of a _rasa tabula_, or blank paper, but
is in its kind, full of the riches, and powers of all outward nature.
In like manner must it be with the eternal world; every thing which
comes from it, must be in its degree, a _microcosm_ of all the powers
and glories of eternity.
Let it be said, that the _matter of this world_, was in its first
created state, free from all extension, solidity and parts, and this
would be as grave a saying, and as much founded in nature, as the _rasa
tabula_ of the soul: say again, that by degrees it got a materiality of
length, breadth and parts, from _without_, and this would be no greater
a wonder, than that a soul, created inwardly destitute of any principle
of knowledge, should from outward causes grow up into a profound
philosopher. _Again_, say that the soul was at first, but a _blank
paper_, till the organs of the body began to act upon it; and may not
the enemies of religion, as justly say, that it must be the same blank
paper again at the last, when the body shall be broken off from it?
If therefore the _Essay upon human understanding_ (which the Doctor
calls the most original book that ever was published) has produced
a metaphysicks, in many points dangerous to religion, and greatly
serviceable to false, and superficial reasoning, it is not to be
wondered at, since so eminent an error, is the fundamental principle
on which it proceeds.
But to return to the Doctor: he says, “The divine image and likeness
must consist in something that is peculiar to man,――that the two things
_peculiar_ to man, are his shape, and his reason; that it cannot be in
his shape, therefore it must be in his reason.”¹
¹ Page 554.
The divine image and likeness cannot consist in something that is
peculiar to man. It might as well consist in his shape, as in his
faculty of making _syllogisms_; but on the contrary, it must consist in
that, and only that, which is, peculiar to God. Nor could man possibly
be created in the image and likeness of God, unless something peculiar
to God, had been the divine glory and perfection of his creaturely life.
For the creaturely life, and all that is peculiar to it, is at the
utmost distance from God, and can only have a likeness to that, which
is to be found in creatures.――God dwelling in a supernatural way in
the creature, is the only possible image of God that can be in it. The
fallen angels have every thing _that_ was creaturely _left_ in them,
but they are horrible devils, because they have lost their supernatural
image of God, which dwelt in them at their creation. They have still
reason, craft and subtlety; but because they have nothing, but what is
peculiar to the creature, they are all rage, torment and misery.
The Doctor therefore, instead of appealing to two things in man, his
shape and his reason, as his true distinction from beasts, should have
said, by the authority of _Moses_, that only one thing was peculiar
to man, as his glorious distinction both from fallen angels, and
terrestrial animals, and _that_ one thing is, his being created in the
image and likeness of God. As to his outward shape, considered only as
different from other animals, there is but little distinction in it;
because they are as different in shape from one another, as man is from
them all. And if man at his creation had had no higher a guest within
him, than his reason, his shape would have been little better, than
that of a fox, or a serpent. For reason, when not under the government
of a higher principle, is that same craft, and cunning, _that_ is
visible in variety of beasts; and is for the most part, as earthly
an instrument of mischievous passions, and lusts in man, as it is
in beasts. And what is more, it must be so, till it comes under the
government of _that_, which was the _image and likeness_ of God, in
the first creation of man.
* What is the difference between reason in St. _Paul_, a _Spinosa_, a
_Hobbes_, or a _Bolingbroke_? None at all, or no other than in their
outward shape. Therefore if reason be the divine image and likeness
of God in man, a _Hobbes_ and a _Bolingbroke_, had as much of it as
St. _Paul_. And a man that is all his life long reasoning himself into
atheism, and the wisdom of living according to his own lusts, must be
allowed to give daily proof of his having the image and likeness of God,
very powerfully manifested in him.
The Doctor’s great proof, that reason is the image and likeness of
God, is because _Moses_ immediately adds, _Let them rule over the fish
of the sea, and over the fowls of heaven, and over the beasts of the
earth_. “For what, says he, could invest man with this dominion _de
facto_, as well as _de jure_, but his reason?”¹
¹ D. L. page 554.
Our blessed Lord, at leaving the world, saith, “These signs shall
follow them that believe; in my name, they shall cast out devils, they
shall speak with new tongues, they shall take up serpents, and if they
drink any deadly thing, it shall not hurt them.” Now let it be asked,
_what could invest the believers in Christ with this dominion_ de facto,
_as well as_ de jure, _but their reason_? Both this question, and the
solution of it, is just as sound, and theological as the Doctor’s.
For it was not any thing of their own, but solely the name, that is,
power of Christ dwelling, and operating in them, that invested them
with the dominion over devils, serpents, diseases, and all outward
deadly, or hurtful things. Now _that_ which gave this power, to the
believers in Christ, was _that very same_, which gave to the first
perfect man, a _power of ruling_ over all the creatures of this world,
and of living in full superiority and dominion over all that was, or
could be hurtful, and deadly, in fire, or water, heat or cold, or any
elementary things. So _that Adam_ whilst standing in his first state of
glory, and power, had the same reason to say of all _that_ he was, and
did, that which St. _Paul_ said, yet _not I, but Christ that liveth in
me_.
And how the Doctor came to think of any other power, as the _ability_
of man to _rule_ over the creatures, is very strange, since the gospel
has so plainly told him, _that they only are the children of God, who
are led by the Spirit of God_. If therefore the first man, created in
the image and likeness of God, may be supposed by his creation, to have
been a child of God, then sure is it, that he had the _Spirit of God_,
living and working in him. And that surely may be allowed to have been
his _true_ and his only qualification, to have and exercise a dominion
over the rest of the creation.
The Doctor, in order to find out _that_ image, and likeness of God
in man, of which _Moses_ writes, looks into the constitution of that
_two-legged_ animal, who is the _disputer of the world_. As likely to
succeed, as if in order to find out _that paradise_, of which _Moses_
writes, he should search for it in the _hundreds_ of _Essex_, or in the
_wilds_ of _Kent_.
For _Moses_, to prevent the folly of looking for the divine image in
any thing, that is _natural_ to the _present_ state of man, has given
us assurance, that _this first_ man, created in the image of God, died
the very day that he did eat of the forbidden tree. And that nothing
of this divine man remained but terrors within, and such a figure of
himself, as filled him with shame and confusion.
And a greater than _Moses_ has told us, _that_ man, in his present
_natural state_, is so dead to that first divine glory, that he has no
possibility of entering into the kingdom of God till he is born again
from above. This sufficiently shews _that_ he who will find out in what
the image of God in man consisted, must as the apostle saith, _walk by
faith and not by sight_.
The next text of _Moses_, which the Doctor miserably injures, is thus
quoted by him, “The Lord God formed man of the dust of the ground, and
breathed into him the breath of life, and man became a living soul;
that is, say the objectors, had an immortal soul.”
Who the objectors are, I know not; but the truth of the text requires
us to say, that therefore man had a divine and godlike soul, a true
offspring of the divine nature. Because the breath or Spirit of
the holy triune God, was that breath by which he was made a living
soul.――And therefore the riches of this first life in man, were the
riches of the divine nature manifesting itself in the soul.
But the Doctor will have it, that only an unlearned _English_ reader,
can collect any thing to be divine in the soul, from the words
of _Moses_, as not knowing that what is translated a living soul,
signifies, in the original, only a living animal. But this, every
_English_ reader may know to be a vain criticism; for no stress is laid
upon the expression, a living soul, no more than if it had been said,
a living animal. But the full proof of the divine greatness of the
human soul, lies solely in this, that the breath or spirit of the holy
Trinity was breathed into it, and was that which made it to be a living
soul, and therefore the life that arose in it, was the life of God in
the soul.
The Doctor thus comments upon the words of the text. “God, the great
plastic artist, is here represented, as making and shaping out a figure
of earth and clay, which he afterwards animates or inspires with life.
He breathed into this statue the breath of life, and the lump of clay
became a living creature.”
Had this elegant and most graphical description been only found in
some minor poet, or school declamation, it might have been overlooked;
but in a prose treatise of divinity, it ought not to pass uncensured.
I know of nothing that can equal it, unless it be supposed that some
ingenious anthropomorphite, reading these words, _and the Lord God
did unto Adam and Eve make coats of skins, and cloathed them_; should
thus describe the matter, “Here, God, the great artist, is represented,
as having the skins of beasts before him, and with his divine hands,
cutting, shaping and joining them together in forms of garments, fitted
to the size and distinction of the first man and his wife.”
I may defy any one to shew, that this comment does not pay as great
a regard to the _letter_, and do as much honour to the sense of this
scripture, as the Doctor’s doth to the other text.
The sacred text, _God formed man_ of the dust of _the ground, and
breathed into him the breath of life_, is a short and full declaration
of a most important truth, namely, that man was brought into being,
_in a twofold nature_, having the nature of this outward world, and the
nature of heaven; the former signified by his being formed of the dust
of the ground, the _latter_, by the breath of God breathed into him.
To be formed out of the dust of the ground, is the same thing, as if
it had been said, that he was formed out of all the _riches_, _powers_,
and _virtues_ that are in this whole visible world. For every property
of nature is hidden in the earth. And man, so far as he was designed to
be a creature of this outward world, is therefore said to be formed out
of the earth, because the earth is not only the treasure-house of all
that is in outward nature, but is the _mother_ of all the three other
elements. And as all things of this world, whether animate or inanimate,
are from the earth as their mother, so in the earth is there every
power and blessing of life, to sustain every thing _that_ has its body
from it; as appears by that fruitful power, which is continually giving
forth itself in all kinds of vegetable food, _fitted_ to the wants of
every living creature.
* What therefore can it be called, but a most deplorable blindness
in learned reason, to consider man as making his first entrance into
paradise in no _better a state than that of dust and clay_, formed into
a dead lumpish figure of a man, for this reason, because he was said to
be formed out of the dust of the ground? Blindness indeed! when it is
so evident, _that_ even now, after the curse is in the earth, yet every
thing, even the poorest _weed_ that comes out of the dust of the ground,
is in a much higher state, and enters into this world with a degree of
life from its mother _the_ earth.――Had the Doctor never seen, or heard
of any other things formed out of the earth, but such as our potters,
and dealers in clay can make out of it, there might have been some
sort of excuse for his _Adam_ of dead clay formed out of the earth. But
when every day of his life has shewn him that almost infinite variety,
powers, virtues and wonders in the kingdom of vegetables, all coming
out of the earth, and nourished by it; when the scripture has told him
_that_ the beasts and cattle of all kinds were formed out of the earth,
and their flesh and blood from it, and their daily sustenance from
its fruitful womb: it is strange to a degree of astonishment, that he
should hold, _that_ out of this _rich_ earth, when in its paradisical
state, when man, the glory of the creation, was formed out of it, and
God the former, nothing would come forth, but a dead lump of clay in
the figure of a man.
_Again_, What a total disregard has the Doctor here shewn to the very
letter of scripture? The text saith, _God formed man out of the dust
of the ground_, nothing else is ascribed to God, as his work in this
matter; but the Doctor adds quite another matter as the work of God,
namely, shaping and forming lumpish clay into a dead figure of a man.
And then follows another fiction equally against the letter of
scripture. For he says, that AFTERWARDS, God, breathed life into it.
But in the scripture account, there is not a syllable of any first,
or afterwards.――Two things are spoken of the birth of man, and as they
cannot be spoken both at once, so one must come after the other in the
relation of them. The scripture mentions them as two distinct things;
and the reason of mentioning them thus distinctly, is not to teach us,
they were done at two different times, the one first, and the other
afterwards, but to give us the assurance, that man came into the world
in a twofold nature, the one from the heavenly breath of God, and the
other from this visible world.
But the union of these two natures in the formation of man, was owing
to one, and the same operation of God.――There is no sooner, or later,
in the beginning of the soul, and of the body: the beginning of one, is
the beginning of the other.
To suppose that man was made a dead image, and afterwards had life
breathed into it, is no better philosophy, than to suppose, that God
first created the vegetable creature, and afterwards added a vegetable
life to it; that he first created the globe of the sun, and afterwards
added heat and light to it.
_God said, Let the earth bring forth the living creature._ What a folly
to suppose, that the creature, and its life, are two separate things,
that the one came first, and the other afterwards? No better, than
supposing, that a circle and its roundness, are two separate things,
that first comes forth the figure, and afterwards its roundness.
But the general design of the D. L. is to establish this most horrible
doctrine, that _Moses_ designedly and industriously secreted from God’s
chosen people, all thought of any eternal relation that they had with
God; which is the same as saying, that he designedly suppressed the one
only possible foundation of true religion. For the immortality of the
human nature, is the only ground of homage and regard to an invisible
and eternal God. And unless man was by nature essentially related to
God, and the eternal world, it would have been as unreasonable for the
God of the eternal world to call man to an heavenly adoration of him,
as to bid earthly flesh and blood _be_, and _do_ that which angels are,
and do in heaven. Therefore the first notice from an eternal God, given
to man of a religious homage due to him, and the bare capacity of man
to embrace such notice, is the greatest proofs that man has something
of the eternal God in him. For as nothing can hunger, but that which by
nature both wants and has a capacity to eat; so nothing can receive a
religion relating to the eternal God, but that which has within itself,
both a want and capacity to partake of the eternal world. And had not
man an eternal spirit in him, as an offspring of the eternal God, he
could no more want to have any intercourse with the eternal world, than
a fish can want to be out of the water. Nor could any taught adoration
of the one eternal God enter any further into his heart, or be of more
use to him, than so much religion taught to a parrot. For man being,
or believing himself to be, as merely a creature of this world, as the
parrot is, could no more regard any thing, but what his earthly nature
has a fondness for, than the parrot doth. _Let us eat and drink for
to-morrow we die_, would be the highest and truest philosophy, if there
is no more of a divine life, or heavenly nature in man, than in the
chattering sparrow. In this case, worldly craft, whether in a fox or
a man, is the highest use of its natural powers. For if the earthly
life is equally _the all_ of both, earthly wisdom must be _equally_ the
perfection of them both. For it can no more be the duty of an earthly
creature to be heavenly minded, than of a celestial creature to be
carnally minded.
If therefore the _Israelites_ under _Moses_, were by him directed to
consider themselves merely as creatures of this world, having nothing
to enjoy, or hope for, but the good things of this life, it must be
said he did all that well could be done, to make them an _earthly_,
_covetous_, _rapacious_, _stiff-necked_ and _brutal_ people. And all
the complaints which the prophets have brought against them, on that
account, ought to have been made only against _Moses_ himself, and
the religion that was set up by him. For a religion only offering, and
wholly confining people to earthly enjoyments, may surely be said, not
only to make, but even require them to be wholly sensual and earthly
minded. And every hearty believer of such a religion, is by his very
faith called upon, to make the most that he can, of the _lust of the
flesh, the lust of the eyes, and the pride of life_.
* _Moses_ saith, “Hear, _O Israel_, the Lord our God is one Lord;
and thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all
thy soul, and with all thy strength.” Now these _Israelites_ looking
backwards to God’s covenant of redemption, made with their forefathers,
of which they were the undoubted heirs; and forwards to this new
covenant of a new theocracy, added, as God’s peculiar mercy to them
in this life, to keep them to himself, to support them under their
afflictions, and to arm them with patience in waiting for that eternal
redemption, in the faith of which, their ancestors had died so full
of joy and comfort: in this double view of their state under God,
which _Moses_ had so fully set before _them_, and with the strongest
injunctions to be daily teaching them to their children, they had the
highest reason to rejoice in God, and to love him with all their heart
and soul and strength.
But to suppose that _Moses_, designedly secreting from them, the
knowledge of that eternal relation they had to God, on which the hopes
of their forefathers were founded, and on which he himself was made
able to chuse the afflictions of Christ, has something very shocking
in it. For if _Moses_ was so good a man, because he had faith in the
eternal redemption promised from the beginning, can there be more
cruelty, than in supposing him, designing by his religious system,
wholly to obliterate all thought and remembrance of God’s unchangeable
covenant of life, and extinguish all sense and hope of a redemption to
come? To what purpose is it to say to such a people, shut up in earthly
hopes, “Thou shalt love the one God of heaven with all thy heart?” For
if he had succeeded in his design, fixed them in the belief, that they
had no treasure but in this world, we have Christ’s word for it, that
the affections of their hearts could go no where else, saying, as an
eternal truth, _that where our treasure is, there must be the heart
also_. So that in this case, no love of God, and therefore no other
divine virtue, could have any place in those who conformed to the
design of _Moses_.
The Doctor, with some indignation, tries to evade this unavoidable
consequence. “The true foundation of morality is the will of God. But
is not the distinction between right and wrong, perpetually enforced
by the law of _Moses_ on this principle? This then is the spring of all
virtue, and to give it the greatest efficacy, the love and fear of God
is there incessantly inculcated. But how does a long or short existence,
a life here, or elsewhere, affect at all the practice of virtue so
founded?”¹
¹ _D. L._ page 587.
All this is quite beside the point, and leaves the _Jews_ under the
same incapacity of every divine virtue, as has been above asserted. For
a short or long existence, is here never thought of, as a reason, why
we should, or should not be morally good. For duration, considered in
itself, whether short or long, is only a natural consequence of _that
kind_ of life, which the creature hath. For, such as is its _internal_
nature, such is the good, and evil _that_ belongs to it, without any
regard to its longer or shorter duration.
Now it is the internal nature of man, not considered as short, but as
wholly earthly, and created for only _earthly goods_, _that_ is the
reason, why such a kind of life is incapable of any divine virtue,
and cannot possibly have any other love, affections or tempers, but
such as are confined to this world: and also, why every kind of envy,
greediness, craft, and contrivance how to get the most of every earthly
thing, must govern every man, that has only the earthly nature in him,
as unavoidably, as they govern birds, and beasts. And to tell such a
people of a goodness, to which their earthly nature does not lead them,
as it leads every other animal to _that_ which it likes, is as vain, as
to preach to the sparks, not to fly upwards. Nor can a nature, wholly
earthly, any more sin by coveting only earthly things, than the _lion_
sins, by having all his heart set upon his prey.
But the Doctor has a maxim, by which he proves, that the _Jews_, though
wholly confined to earthly hopes, and enjoyments, yet might and ought
to have been heavenly minded, _namely_, because _the true foundation
of morality, is the will of God_. And yet this very maxim is itself
a sufficient proof, than an earthly people, created only for earthly
goods, are by the very will of God, directed to be earthly minded. For
the will of God, in every creature, is manifested by _that kind_ of
nature, which it hath only from God. Therefore earthly creatures, by
being earthly minded, pay as full obedience to the will of God, as pure
heavenly spirits by their being heavenly minded. Therefore if man is
only an animal of this world, by the will of God, distinguished only
from other creatures, by superior skill, subtlety, and contrivances,
(as they are from one another) he neither is, nor can be, under any
other law, relating to his good and evil, but that which is the law of
all other animals, that have all their good and evil from this world.
And as it is as good in the wolf, to be ravening, as in the lamb to
be harmless, because they both follow their created nature; so if man
is as merely a creature of this world, as they are, when he, by his
superior subtlety, in order to make the most of his worldly life,
either feigns the innocence of the lamb, or puts on the ravening wolf,
he follows his nature, as they do theirs, and is just as good and as
bad as they are. And to tell such a man of the beauty of holiness, or
call him to the denial of his own will, for this reason, because the
true foundation of virtue, is the will of God, would be to as much
purpose, as if you was only to require him never to sleep any more,
because holy angels never sleep in heaven. For what can a creature that
can have no good, all its life, but that which is like the good of milk
and honey, have to do with any divine virtue?――If therefore _Moses_
designedly, fixed the _Israelites_ in a belief, that they had no good
to hope for, but that which flesh and blood could find in earthly
things, they were by him taken out of the sphere of every virtue, that
can be called godly or divine, and could have no fear of God, but like
that, which they might have towards him, or the giants, nor any love of
God, but that which they had to their bellies.
Farther, that the Doctor has not entered into any right conception
of the subject, he is upon, is plain from his asking, “But how does a
short or long existence, a life here, or elsewhere, at all affect the
practice of virtue so founded?”――It just so much affects it, as place,
or space affects the existence of bodies. They are not brought forth by
place or space, but they could have no existence but in place or space.
And thus it is, that duration affects the practice of all divine virtue,
it could have no possibility of existence, but in a nature incapable
of dying.――Corruptibility, and divine goodness, are as impossible to
be united, as life and death.――Death may as well exert the functions of
life, as a mortal creature breathe heavenly tempers and affections. For
though the duration of the creature is not the ground, or reason of any
divine virtue, yet no creature can be capable of it, but that, which by
the divinity of its birth, is born immortal.
What an inconsistency, to say of a creature of a short existence,
or whose life is vanishing away, that its true father is in heaven,
and that it ought therefore “to be perfect as its heavenly Father
is perfect?” Can that which is daily tending to non-existence, be
daily growing up in the perfection of God, or that which is always
approaching towards death, be a child of the ever-living God? As well
might it be said of the mushroom, that it has the angels in heaven for
its brethren, as of man, beginning to exist to-day, and ending his
existence to-morrow, that he is a child of his everlasting Father in
heaven.
There are some other egregious errors which I intended to have remarked,
but I am already got beyond the proper bounds of a letter.――But holy
_David_’s case, I cannot but mention, as sufficient to have deterred
the Doctor from an hypothesis, which has obliged him to place this
sweet finger of _Israel_ amongst those, who had not the least thought
of any eternal relation to God. This holy _David_, the type of Christ,
“who knew that God had sworn with an oath, that out of the fruit of
his loins, he would raise up Christ to sit on his throne:” this great
prophet, who foretold the resurrection of Christ, _that his soul was
not left in hell, neither did his flesh see corruption_; this _David_,
thus deep in the counsels of God, and acquainted with the great article
of the resurrection, this spiritual, typical, prophesying _David_, is,
for the sake of the Doctor’s project, crowded amongst those, who were
not allowed to have any other relation to God, or any thing else to
hope from him, or thank him for, but the blessings of a temporal life,
till death had put the same end, to all of _David_, as it did to those
few sheep, that he once kept. And what is still worse, the same _David_
is made the most zealous preacher of the folly of fearing, or hoping
for any thing after death: and is appealed to by the Doctor, and his
assistant, as giving the most full evidence against all happiness,
but that of this life, and represented in his divine transports, as
setting forth the wisdom of believing that the life of man ends like
that of rotten sheep, in a death _that_ brings him into the dark land
of forgetfulness; singing gloriously, “the dead praise not the Lord,
neither any that go down into silence. In death there is no remembrance
of thee: in the grave, who shall give thee thanks?”
Thus it is, that _David_, by these gentlemen is made a preacher against
a future state; not considering that such infidelity would have been
worse in _David_ than it possibly can be in any modern infidel. But
the truth is, the holy prophet in all passages of this kind, is only
calling upon God for the continuance and full manifestation of the
blessings of _that_ temporal theocracy, which could only be given
by God, or received by man whilst he was on this side death. And the
_darkness_, _silence_, or _insensibility_ affirmed of death, has no
relation to a _total end_ of life and sensibility, but solely to an end
of all _enjoyment_, of the blessings promised by the divine theocracy.
_David_, as _son_ of _Abraham_, _Isaac_ and _Jacob_, had their faith
and piety, and such his psalms are full of heavenly devotion, and
flaming with divine love. But _David_, as a _son_ of the covenant
made with _Moses_, was also an heir of the temporal blessings of the
theocracy; and in this capacity, had a right to say, _Why do the wicked
prosper? Wilt thou shew thy wonders in the grave?_ That is, canst thou
give thy promised temporal blessings, when death has taken away all
possibility of receiving them?
But if it could be supposed, that _David_ by the foregoing expressions,
meant to give up the promises of eternal redemption made to all his
forefathers, and called the world to look for no more but what they
could get in this vale of misery; what excuse can be made for the
Christian church, which from first to last, has made such heathenish
songs a part of the gospel service? For in this case, these psalms may
be justly esteemed prophane, as having a more direct tendency to beget
and fix infidelity in the hearts of men, than the hymns of the Heathen
poets.
I must yet add a word, upon the Doctor’s most theological account of
man’s first ability to speak articulate words.
“In judging, says he, only from the _nature of things_, one should be
apt to embrace the opinion of _Diodorus Siculus_, that first the men
lived for some time in woods and caves, after the manner of beasts,
uttering only _confused sounds_.”¹ And yet it is hardly possible for a
man to make a judgment more contrary to the nature of things. For does
not the nature of almost all animals, beasts and birds shew us, that
they have a natural untaught language, not consisting of _confused
sounds_, but distinct by an articulate difference and intelligible to
every one of the same species? If therefore the nature of things will
allow us to suppose, that man was created as perfect in his kind as
the animals were in theirs, then it will oblige us to affirm, that the
first of mankind had from nature, an untaught language, as suitable to
the ends of their creation, as distinct and intelligible to themselves,
as that of birds or beasts is to them in their several kinds. Now
it must not be said that the Doctor has adopted the whole opinion of
_Diodorus_, tho’ so highly (as he thinks) conformable to the nature of
things; for he has given up that of man’s living _in woods and caves_,
and has only chosen to stand by that which is much the worst part of
it, namely, his natural inability to utter any thing _but confused
sounds_.――However, to make amends for all this poverty of speech, in
which man was brought forth by God; the Doctor has a conjecture, how it
soon came to be better with him. In scripture, says he, “we find that
God taught the first man religion, and can we think he would not at the
same time teach him language? Again, when God created man he made woman
for his companion, but the only means of enjoying that benefit was the
use of speech. Can we believe that he would leave them to get out of
the _forlorn condition of brutality_ as they could?”²――Shocking and
even blasphemous words! For little short can it be of that, to say,
that man, created in the image and likeness of God, was created in
a _forlorn condition of brutality_? Can any infidel more despise and
ridicule all that is said both in the Old and New Testament, concerning
man’s creation, his high birth and destination, his fall and redemption,
than is here done?
¹ D. L. Vol. II. page 81.
² D. L. ibid.
In the scripture we are told, that man in the first, perfect state of
his creation, came forth a living image and likeness of the all-perfect
God; that he came forth in this exalted state of perfection, above
all other animals of this world, in order to be a lord and ruler over
them. Can there be a more open ridicule made of all this, than to
hold, that this first glorious image of God came forth in a _forlorn
brutal condition_, unable to utter any thing, but _confused sounds_?
Or what can be more unbecoming a Christian Doctor, than to espouse
such a paltry notion from the authority of a pagan _Greek_, in full
contradiction to all that _Moses_, Christ and his apostles have said
of the first heavenly nature, divine birth and glorious prerogative of
man? What a mockery is here made of the whole Christian system, which
supposes man to have fallen from such a high degree of heavenly union
with God, that nothing less than the birth of the Son of God in fallen
man, could restore him to that perfection which he had at first? What a
folly to talk of the fall of man, if he came out of the hands of God in
a forlorn condition of brutality?
But the Doctor comes now to his full proof, that man had at first no
articulate speech, and that he was actually taught it afterwards by God;
“God brought every beast of the field, and every fowl of the air unto
_Adam_, to see what he would call them.”
And yet, so unlucky is the Doctor, that no words can give a higher
proof, that _Adam_ had not only an articulate speech, but in such a
degree of perfection, as none of his natural sons, not the whole tribe
of linguists, critics, and grammarians, ever had, or can possibly
have. For if it could be supposed, that any man was a hundred times
more knowing than the Doctor is, in what he calls his _enigmatic_,
_curiologic_, _hierogliphic_, _emblematic_, _symbolic_ profundities,
yet if all the beasts of the field, and all the fowls of the air,
were to be brought before him to be distinguished from one another,
by articulate sounds of his voice, even such a man would be as unequal
to the task, as a _Tom Thumb_. And of all the absurdities, _that_ ever
were heard of, surely none can equal that, of supposing, that _Adam_
had not articulate speech, but had it to learn at a time, when he was
called to the exercise of the highest perfection of language, namely,
to distinguish such an infinite number of creatures, by different
articulate sounds of his voice. It is like supposing, that a man whose
eyes had no natural power of distinguishing one thing from another,
should on that account, have all the creatures in the world, brought
before him, that he might describe every difference in form, and figure,
that belonged to them.
The Doctor has by strength of genius, and great industry, amassed
together no small heap of learned decisions of points, doctrines,
as well Heathenish, as Christian, much the greatest part of which,
the Christian reader will find himself obliged to drive out of his
thoughts, as soon as he can in good earnest say, _What must I do to be
saved?_――This collection of decisions, he calls his _projected defence
of Christianity_, which if it was such, Christianity must have been but
poorly provided for its support by the four gospels. I shall make no
doubt of his intending, what he says by them. But a project in defence
of Christianity, is not more promising, than a trap to catch humility.
The nature of things allows no more of the one, than of the other. To
be a defender of Christianity, is to be a defender of Christ, but none
can defend him in any other degree, than so far as he is his follower.
To be with Christ, is _to walk as he walked_, and he _that_ is not so
with him, is _against him_.
There are two ways of embracing Christianity, the one is as a _sinner_,
the other as a _scholar_; the former is the way taught by Christ
and his apostles, the latter is the invention of men, fallen from
the Christian life under the power of natural reason, and verbal
learning.――Now these two ways are not to be considered, as only the one
better than the other, but in such a difference, as right and wrong,
true and false, bear to one another. For there is no possibility of
taking one step in Christianity, but as a sinner, for it has no errand
but to the sinner, has no relief but for sin, and nothing can receive
it, but the heart wounded, and wearied with the burden of its own
sin. All the gospel is but a foreign tale, a dead letter to the most
logically learned man in the world, who does not feel in the depth of
his soul, that all the reasonableness, and excellency of gospel truth,
lies in that fund of sin, impurity, and corrupt tempers, which are
inseparable from him, till he is born again. And if the Doctor, in his
application to the Deists, had pressed home this affecting truth, which
stands at the door of every man’s heart, and is the only ground of
Christian redemption, he had shewn a better care and concern for their
souls, and had done more to awaken them out of their infidelity, than
by all that wit and satyr in his dedication of his book to them. For
like begets like; love and seriousness in the speaker, beget love
and seriousness in the hearer; and he that has no earnestness towards
unbelievers, but that of perswading them not to lose their share of the
love and mercy of God in Christ Jesus, towards helpless fallen men, can
only do it, in the spirit and language of that love and goodness, in
whose arms, he longs to see them embraced.
But as no man ever came to Christ, but because he was weary, and heavy
laden with the burden of his own natural disorder, and wanted rest to
his soul, so nothing can help men to find the necessity of coming to
Christ, but that which helps him to find and feel a misery of sin and
corruption, which in some, the care and pleasures of this life, and in
others the happiness of finding themselves wits, and polite scholars,
never suffered them to feel before.
Our Lord’s parable of the _prodigal_ son, contains the whole matter
between God and fallen man. It relates nothing particular to this, or
that person, but sets forth the strict truth of every man’s state, with
regard to his heavenly Father. For every son of _Adam_ has every thing
in him, that is said of that prodigal; he has lost his first state, is
wandered as far from his heavenly Father and country, has abused and
wasted his Father’s blessings, and is that very poor swineherd, craving
husks in a land of famine, instead of living in the glory of his
Father’s family; and of every reader of that parable, it may be justly
said, _Thou art the man_. And no son of _Adam_, do what he will, can
possibly come out of the poverty, shame, and misery of his fallen state,
♦till he finds and feels, and confesses from the bottom of his heart,
all that which the penitent prodigal found, felt and confessed.
♦ “tell” replaced with “till”
I should have had much uneasiness, my Lord, in exposing so many gross
errors both in the matter, and manner of the Doctor’s books, did not
my heart bear me witness, that no want of good-will, or due respect
towards him, but solely a regard to that which ought only to be
regarded, has directed my pen.
The End of the SIXTH VOLUME.