Page images

thought fit to be used that might signify also somewhat that must intervene in order to that satisfaction. It is certain the mere objective representation and consequent intuition of the most excellent (even the divine) glory, cannot satisfy a soul remaining disaffected and unsuitable thereunto. It can only satisfy, as, being represented; it forms the soul into the same image, and attempers it to itself, as if he had said " I expect hereafter to see the blessed face of God, and to be myself blessed or satisfied by his glory, at once appearing to me, and transfusing itself upon me.” In short therefore, I understand by that term, the glory of God as transforming, or as impressive of itself. If therefore, glory, the object of the soul's vision, shall by any be thought to be intended in it, I contend not; supposing only, that the object be taken not materially, or potentially only, for the thing visibly in itself considered; but formally, and in esse actuali objecti ; that is, as now, actually impressing itself, or as connoting such an impression upon the beholding soul; for so only is it productive of such a pleasure and satisfaction to it, as must ensue. As in this form of speech “such a man takes pleasure in knowledge.” It is evident knowledge must be taken there both objectively, for the things known; and subjectively, for the actual perception of the things; inasmuch as, apparently, both must concur to work him delight. So it will eppear, to any one that attentively considers it, glory must be taken in that passage, “We rejoice in hope of the glory of God.” Rom. 5. 2. It is divine glory both revealed and received; his exhibition and communication of it, according to his immensity; and our participation of it, according to our measure, that must concur to our eternal satisfaction. Herein the platonic adage hath evident truth in it; Voluptatis generatio est ex infiniti et finiti copulatione. Pleasure is here certainly made up of something finite and something infinite, meeting together. It is not (as the philosopher speaks) a Xwpisòv, but a xsnsóv Ti, not any thing separate from the soul, but something it pos. sesses, that can make it happy. It is not happy by an incommunicate happiness, nor glorious by an incommunicate glory. Indeed, the discovery of such a glory to an inglorious, unholy soul; must rather torment than satisfy. The future glory of saints is therefore called (Rom. 8. 18. sis mās, a glory to be revealed in them (or into them, as the word signifies,) And in the foregoing words, the apostle assures Christ's fellow-sufferers, that they shall be glorified together with him. Surely the notation of that word, the formal notion of glorification, cannot import so little as only to be a spectator of glory; it must signify a being made glorious.

Nor is the common and true maxim otherwise intelligible, that grace and glory differ only in degree. For certainly it could never enter into the mind of a sober man (though how dangerously some speak, that might possibly have been so if too much learn

[ocr errors][ocr errors]

ing hath not made them mad, will be animadverted in its place,) that objective glory, and grace in saints, were the same specific, much less the same numerical, thing. It is true, that Scripture often expresses the future blessedness, by vision of God. * But where that phrase is used to signify it alone, it is evident (as within the lower region of grace, words of knowledge do often imply affection, and correspondent impressions on the Soul) it must be understood of affective transformative vision, such as hath conformity to God most inseparably conjunct with it. And that we might understand so much, they are elsewhere both expressly mentioned together, as joint ingredients into a saint's blessedness; as in those words so full of clear and rich sense : "When he shall appear, we shall be like him : for we shall see him as he is.” Which text I take for a plain comment upon this : and methinks it should not easily be supposable, they should both speak so near the same words, and not intend the same sense. You have in both, the same season, “ when he shall appear, ” when I shall awake: the same subject the righteous person born of God (compare the close of the former chapter with the beginning of this); " and I in righteousness :” the same vision we shall see him as he is : “ I shall behold his face :" the same assimilation, “We shall be like him," I shall be satisfied with his likeness ; (concerning the oxétis or habitude this vision and assimilation mutually have to one another, there will be consideration had in its place). I therefore conceive neither of these notions of the divine likeness, do exclude the other. If it be inquired, which is principally meant? That need not to be determined: If the latter, it supposes the former; if the former, it infers the latter. Without the first, the other cannot be; without this other, the first cannot satisfy.

If any yet disagree to this interpretation of this text, let them afix the doctrine propounded from it, to that other last mentioned (which only hath not the express mention of a consequent satisfaction, as this hath; whence therefore, as being in this respect fuller, my thoughts were pitched upon this.) Only withal let it be considered, how much more easy it is, to imagine another sense, and suppose it possible, than to disprove this, or evince it impossible. How far probable it is, must be left to the judgment of the indifferent: with whom it may not be insignificant to add, that thus it hath been understood by interpreters (I might adventure to say the generality) of all sorts.


I. A summary proposal of the doctrine contained in this scripture: a distribu

tion of it into three distinct heads of discourse. . Fürst. The qualified subject. Secondly. The nature. Thirdly. The season of the blessedness here spoken of. II. The first of these taken into consideration, where the qualification, righteousness, is treated of. About which is shewn. First. What it is. Secondly. How it qualifies.

1. Now the foregoing sense of the words being supposed, it appears that the proper argument of this scripture is,—The blessedness of the righteous in the other life, consisting in the vision and participation of divine glory, with the satisfaction that resulteth thence. In which summary account of the doctrine here contained, three general heads of discourse offer themselves to our view :—The subject, the nature, and the season of this blessedness :--Or to whom it belongs,—wherein it consists, and when it shall be enjoyed.

II. We proceed to illustrate each of these.

First.We begin with the consideration of the subject, unto whom this blessedness appertains. And we find it expressed in the text, in these only words, “I; in righteousness;" which amounts to as much as, a righteous person as such. They represent to us the subject of this blessedness in its proper qualifications: wherein, our business is to consider his qualification, righteousness, under which notion only, he is concerned in the present discourse; and about which, two things are to be inquired : namely—what it imports, and-how it qualifies.

1. What it imports. I take righteousness here to be opposed to wickedness in the foregoing verse (as was intimated before); and so understand it in an equal latitude, not of particular, but of universal righteousness. That is, not that particular virtue which inclines men to give every one their right (unless in that every one, you would include also the blessed God himself, the sovereign, common Lord of all) but a universal rectitude of heart and life, comprehending not only equity towards men, but piety towards God also. A conformity to the law in general, in its utmost extent, adequately opposite to sin (which is indeed of larger extent than wickedness; and in what different respects righteousness is commensurate to the one and the other, we shall see by and by) as that is, generally, said to be avquia, a transgression of the law. (1. John, 3, 4.) Among moralists, such

* 'Εν δε δικαιοσύνη συλλήβδην πάς αρετή εστι. Righteousness comprises every virtue.

a comprehensive notion of righteousness as is inclusive of all other virtues, is not unknown. But in Scripture, it is its much more ordinary acceptation. To give instances, were to suppose too much ignorance in the reader; and to enumerate the passages in which this term is taken in that extensive sense, were too great an unnecessary burden to the writer. It were indeed to transcribe a great part of the Bible. How familiar is the opposition of righteous and wicked, and righteous and sinners, in sacred language! And how fully co-extent righteousness is in the Scripture notion of it, to the whole law of God, that one passage sufficiently discovers; where it is said of Zacharias and Elizabeth, that they were both righteous before God, walking in all the commandments and ordinances of the Lord blameless. Luke 1. 5, 6. It is true indeed, that when the words godliness or holiness are in conjunction with this term, its significancy is divided and shared with them, so as that they signify, in that case, conformity to the will of God in the duties of the first table, and this is confined to those of the second : otherwise, being put alone, it signifies the whole duty of man, as the other expressions also do in the same case especially the latter of them.

As it seems not to be within the present design of the context to take notice of any imputed wickedness of the opposite sort of persons, other than what was really in them, and whereby they might be fitly characterized : so, I conceive, that imputed righteousness is not here meant, that is inherent in the person of the Mediator; but that which is truly subjected in a child of God, and descriptive of him. Nor must any think it strange, that all the requisites to our salvation, are not found together in one text of Scripture. The righteousness of him, whom we are to adore as made sin for us, that we might be made the righteousness of God in him ; hath a much higher sphere peculiar and appropriate to itself. This of which we now speak, in its own inferior and subordinate place, is necessary also to be both had and understood. It must be understood by viewing it in its rule, in conformity whereto it stands; which must needs be some law of God. There hath been a twofold law given by God to mankind, as the measure of a universal righteousness, the one made for innocent, the other for lapsed man; which are distinguished by the apostle under the names of the law of works, and the law of faith. Rom. 3. 27. It can never be possible, that any of the apostate sons of Adam should be denominated righteous by the former of these laws, the righteousness thereof consisting in a perfect and sinless obedience. The latter therefore is the only measure and rule of this righteousness, namely, the law of faith; or that of the gospel-revelation which contains and discovers our duty, what we are to be and do in order to our blessedness; being, as to the matter of it, the whole moral law, before appertaining to the covenant of works, attem

pered to the state of fallen sinners, by evangelical mitigations and indulgence, by the super-added precepts of repentance and faith in a Mediator, with all the oiher duty respecting the Mediator, as such; and clothed with a new form as it is now taken into the constitution of the covenant of grace. This rule, though it be in the whole of it capable of coming under one common notion, as being the standing, obliging law of Christ's mediatory kingdom ; yet according to the different matter of it, its obligations and annexed sanctions are different. As to its matter, it must be understood to require :

(1.) The mere being and sincerity of those gracious principles, with their essential acts (as there is opportunity ) expressed therein, in opposition to the nullity and insincerity of them.

(2.) All the possible degrees and improvments of such principles and acts, in opposition to any the least failure or defect. In the former respect, it measures the very essence of this righteousness, and enjoins what concerns the being of the righteous man as such. In the latter, it measures all the super-added degrees of this righteousness (which relations, where they have a mutable foundation, admit,) enjoining what concerns the persection of the righteous man. In the former respect, righteousness is opposed to wickedness, as in that of the Psalmist, I have kept the ways of the Lord, and have not wickedly departed from my God-therefore hath the Lord recompensed me according to my righteousness. (Ps. 18. 21. 24.) In the latter to sin, with which the apostle makes unrighteousness co-extent, in these words, If we say we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, &c. If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just to forgive us our sins, and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness. Accordingly are its sanctions divers. For wherein it enjoins the former of these, the essence of this righteousness, in opposision to a total absence thereof, it is constitutive of the terms of salvation, and obligeth under the penalty of eternal death. So are faith, repentance, love, subjection, &c. required : If ye believe not that I am he, ye shall die in your sins, He that believeth not, is condemned already.-The wrath of God abideth on him. (Joh. 8. 24. Chap. 3. 18, 36.)-If ye repent not, ye shall all likewise perish. Repent, that your sins may be blotted out.-Him hath God exalted to be a Prince and a Saviour to give repentance and remission of sins. (Luke 13. 3, 5. Act. 3. 19.c. 5. 31.) If any man love not the Lord Jesus Christ, let him be anathema maranatha. (1 Cor. 16. 22.) He that loveth father or mother more than me, is not worthy of me, &c. (Matt. 10. 27.) If any man come to me, and hate not his father and mother, and wife and children, and brethren and sisters, yea, and his own life also, (that is, as the former scripture expounds this, loves them not less than me,) he cannot be my disciple (Luke 14. 26.) that is while he remains in that temper of mind he now is of, he must

« PreviousContinue »