The Jonathan Edwards Center at Yale University
Jonathan Edwards [1740], Writings on the Trinity, Grace, and Faith (WJE Online Vol. 21) , Ed. Sang Hyun Lee [word count] [jec-wjeo21].
"Controversies" Notebook: Justification
Taylor insists upon it, that our full and final justification is of works and not only of grace, and yet he allows that this final justification is spoken of in Scripture as being of grace, 2 Timothy 1:18 and Jude 21 (Taylor's Key, p. 176).Taylor, Paraphrase with Notes on the Epistle to the Romans, p. 176, on Romans 17: "It cannot be full and final Justification, or that Justification which gives an unalterable Right to eternal Life; because, in order to that, the Scripture always, and positively and clearly insists upon WORKS, doing the Will of God, or Obedience… True indeed, our full and final Justification is of Grace, 2 Timothy 1:18. Jude 21… But yet so of Grace, that it will be given only to them that overcome the Temptations of the World, and by patient Continuance in WELL-DOING seek for Glory, Honour and Immortality." But how does this consist with what the Apostle says, Romans 4:4, "Now to him that worketh the reward is not reckoned of grace, but of debt"; and Romans 11:6, "And if by grace, then it is no more of works: otherwise grace is no more grace. But if it be of works, then it is no more grace: otherwise work is no more work"? That final salvation is not of our own righteousness in the same manner as Taylor supposes our first justification, appears by what the Apostle says, Philippians 3:9, "And may be found in him, not having my own righteousness, which is of the law, but the righteousness which is of God through faith." Here faith and works of the law— or our own righteousness, which is of the law— are opposed just in the same manner by the same Apostle, as in those places which Taylor supposes to refer to our first justification; that by the righteousness of the law he don't mean the salvation which is of the law, as Taylor, but a moral righteousness consisting in blamelessness, as appears by his use of the like expression three verses before, where he is most evidently speaking of the same thing: "touching the righteousness which is of the law, blameless." This righteousness of the law, consisting in a blamelessness or conformity of his works to the law, is the thing which he speaks of in the Philippians 3:10–11, which were gain to him and which he esteemed loss for Christ, and which therefore he says in the Philippians 3:9 he would not "be found in." By "righteousness" and "works" the Apostle means the same thing, when speaking of the affair of justification and salvation, as is evident, Titus 3:5–7, "Not by works of righteousness which we have done, but according to his mercy he saved us… being justified by faith." And if by "works" and "righteousness" in this affair he means the same thing, then doubtless by "works of the law" and the "righteousness of the law" he also means the same thing. See Taylor's Key, p. 176.See preceding note. By the word "righteousness" in the New Testament is not meant salvation and deliverance. Matthew 3:15, "thus it becomest us to fulfill all righteousness." Matthew 21:32, "John came in the way of righteousness." Matthew 5:6, "Blessed are they that hunger and thirst after righteousness." Matthew 5:20, "except your righteousness exceed the righteousness of the scribes and Pharisees, ye shall in no case enter into the kingdom of heaven." Acts 10:35, "he that feareth God and worketh righteousness." Acts 24:25, "Paul reasoned of temperance, righteousness." Romans 2:26, "if the uncircumcised keep the righteousness of the law." Romans 3:5, "Now if our unrighteousness commend the righteousness of God." Romans 4:6, "to whom God imputeth righteousness without works." Romans 4:11, "That righteousness might be imputed to them." Romans 4:18, "as by the offense of one judgment came upon all men to condemnation; so by the righteousness of one the free gift came upon all men to justification of life." Romans 6:18, "Being made free from sin, ye become the servants of righteousness." Romans 6:13, "instruments of righteousness unto holiness." Romans 6:19, "yield your members servants to righteousness." Romans 6:20, "ye were free from righteousness." Romans 8:4, "That the righteousness of the law might be fulfilled in us." Romans 8:10, "the body is dead because of sin; but the Spirit is life because of righteousness." Romans 14:17, "the kingdom of God is righteousness, peace." 1 Corinthians 1:30, "who of God is made to us wisdom, righteousness, sanctification, and redemption." 1 Corinthians 15:34, "Awake to righteousness." 2 Corinthians 6:7, "armor of righteousness." 2 Corinthians 6:14, "what fellowship hath righteousness with unrighteousness?" 2 Corinthians 9:10, "increase the fruits of your righteousness." 2 Corinthians 11:15, "as the ministers of righteousness." Ephesians 6:14, "having on the breastplate of righteousness." Philippians 3:6, "touching the righteousness of the law, blameless." 1 Timothy 6:11, "follow after righteousness." 2 Timothy 2:22, "follow righteousness." Titus 3:5, "Not by works of righteousness." Hebrews 11:33, "through faith wrought righteousness." James 1:20, "the wrath of man worketh not the righteousness of God." James 3:18, "the fruit of righteousness is sown in peace." 2 Peter 2:5, "Noah, a preacher of righteousness." 1 John 2:29, "every one that doth righteousness is born of God." 1 John 3:7, "every one that doth righteousness is righteous, even as he is righteous." 1 John 3:10, "doth not righteousness is not of God." Revelation 19:8, "The fine linen is the righteousness of saints."
Matthew 5:10, "Blessed are they that are persecuted for righteousness' sake." 1 Peter 3:14, "if ye suffer for righteousness' sake, happy are ye." Luke 1:74–75, "serve him in righteousness and holiness." Acts 17:31, "he will judge the world in righteousness." Ephesians 4:24, "After God created in righteousness and true holiness." Ephesians 5:9, "the fruit of the Spirit is in all righteousness." 2 Timothy 3:16, "profitable for instruction in righteousness." Revelation 19:11, "in righteousness doth he judge and make war." Matthew 13:43, "Then shall the righteous shine." Matthew 9:13, "I am not come to call the righteous." So Mark 2:17, Luke 5:23. Matthew 23:28, "ye outwardly appear righteous." Matthew 23:29, "garnish the sepulchers of the righteous." Matthew 23:35, "on you may come all the righteous blood… the blood of righteous Abel." Matthew 25:37, "Then shall the righteous answer." Matthew 25:46, "but the righteous into life eternal." Luke 1:6, "they were both righteous before God." Luke 18:9, "trusted that they were righteous." John 7:24, "Judge righteous judgment." Romans 2:5, "revelation of the righteous judgment of God." Romans 3:10, "none righteous, no, not one." Romans 5:19, "By the obedience of one shall many be made righteous." 2 Timothy 4:8, "the Lord, the righteous judge." 2 Thessalonians 1:5, "manifest token of the righteous judgment of God." 2 Thessalonians 1:6, "a righteous thing with God to recompense tribulation." Hebrews 11:4, "Abel by faith obtained witness that he was righteous." 2 Peter 2:8, "vexed his righteous soul." 1 Peter 3:12, "the eyes of the Lord are over the righteous." 1 Peter 4:18, "if the righteous are scarcely saved." 1 John 2:1, "if any man sin, we have an advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous." 1 John 3:12, "his works were evil, and his brother's righteous." Revelation 16:5, "the angel of the waters say, Thou art righteous." Revelation 16:7, "righteous are thy judgments." Canticles 19:2. Revelation 22:11, "he that is righteous, let him be righteous still." Matthew 10:41, "that receiveth a righteous man in the name of a righteous man shall receive a righteous man's reward." Matthew 13:17, "many righteous men have desired to see those things." Luke 23:47, "Certainly this was a righteous man." Romans 5:7, "scarcely for a righteous man will one die." 1 Timothy 1:9, "the law was not made for a righteous man." 2 Peter 2:8, "for that righteous man dwelling among them." James 5:16, "The effectual fervent prayer of the righteous man availeth much." Titus 2:12, "live soberly, righteously." 1 Peter 2:23, "committeth himself to him that judgeth righteously." Texts where, in the original, the word is the same: Acts 4:19, "whether it be right in the sight of God." Matthew 20:4, "whatsoever is right, I will give thee." Matthew 20:7, "what is right, ye shall receive." Luke 12:57, "why even of your own selves judge ye not what is right." [Ephesians 6:1, ] "children, obey your parents for this is right."
Luke 2:25, "Simeon, a just man." Luke 23:50, "Joseph, a counselor, a just man." Matthew 13:41, "shall sever the wicked from among the just." [Mark 6:20, ] "knowing that he was a just man and a holy." Matthew 27:19, "Have nothing to do with that just man." Matthew 27:24, "I am free from the blood of this just person." Luke 1:17, "the disobedient to the wisdom of the just." Luke 14:14, "at the resurrection of the just." Luke 15:7, "than over ninety and nine just persons." Luke 20:20, "that should feign themselves just persons." John 5:30, "yet my judgment is just." Acts 10:22, "Cornelius was a just man." Acts 24:15, "there shall be a resurrection, both of the just and the unjust." Romans 2:13, "not the hearers of the law are just, but the doers of the law shall be justified." Romans 7:12, "the commandment is holy, and just." Colossians 4:1, "Masters, give yourMS: "their." servants that which is just." Titus 1:7–8, "a bishop must be just." Hebrews 12:23, "the spirits of just men made perfect." James 5:6, "Ye have condemned and killed the just." 1 Peter 3:18, "the just for the unjust." [2 Peter 2:7, ] "And delivered just Lot." Revelation 15:3, "just and true are thy ways." Acts 3:14, "ye denied the Holy One and the Just." Acts 7:52, "showed before the coming of the Just One." Acts 22:14, "know his will, and see that Just One." In an answerable manner, the words "unjust" and "unrighteous" are used in the New Testament, where the word in the Greek is from the same root. (Note these things above were observed before I received my Greek Concordance. Remember, and when leisure allows, examine the Greek Testament more fully by that Concordance. Look also in Trommius' Concordance of the Septuagint.Abraham Trommius, whose "Greek Concordance to the Old Testament in the Septuagint Version" JE lists in his "Catalogue of Reading," p. 14. Look also [at] the word Tzaddik and other words from the same root in the Hebrew Concordance. Also the word Διμη, and all its derivations, in my Greek Concordance.) 'TisThe following section is a precis for the essay below, "Of the Meaning of the Words 'Righteous,' 'Righteousness,' Etc. in the Old Testament." apparent, without looking in any concordance, that the words "righteous," "righteousness," etc. ordinarily signify virtue or moral rectitude; and perhaps is never used otherwise but as signifying moral rectitude, or with reference to it. 'Tis true, the mercy God exercises towards people is often in Scripture called his righteousness, on several accounts. 1. Very commonly, when God's mercy to his people is called his righteousness, that mercy of his is spoken of that is exercised in pleading their cause with their enemies, persecutors and unjust judges, as judging between them and the parties in contest with them, with respect to whom their cause is good and just, and 'tis the part of a righteous judge to vindicate them and condemn their enemies. 2. In other places where God's mercy is called his righteousness, there is plainly a reference to God's covenant, and his acting a just and faithful part in fulfilling his covenant obligations and gracious promises.See the last paragraph in Corol. 4, below, p. 353. 'Tis a part of justice or righteousness in two parties in covenant to be faithful to their covenant, and if either party is deceived by the treachery of the other, and so fails of that which he had a right to by covenant, he is unrighteously dealt with. 3. In God's mercy to his people being called his righteousness, there is doubtless reference to the righteousness of Christ as the ground of his mercy; for when his righteousness is imparted to a person, 'tis a part of justice to favor and reward him according to that righteousness. And sometimes the benefit received is called righteousness figuratively, putting the effect for the cause, or for the ground.See Corol. 2, below, p. 352. 4. Besides these things, it may be further observed that the word righteousness in Scripture is used not only to signify justice, as we understand the word in the strict sense, but for all moral perfection or virtue whatsoever— and so the righteousness of God is the same with the moral perfection of his virtue, wherein the glory and beauty of the divine nature does most properly consist— and to glorify, which is the special end of all God's works towards his church. But God's mercy and grace is a part of the moral perfection of God's nature; and indeed, the chief manifestation of God's moral perfection that he has made to angels and men is that great work of grace wrought out for his people, the work of redemption. This grace of God manifested to his church is beheld, admired and delighted in by true saints, not merely from self-love or as it concerns their interest, but primarily as glorious in itself and as that wherein does marvelously appear the beauty and glory of the divine nature: and as such it is celebrated by them in their praises in Scripture from time to time by the names of righteousness and Holiness. (Show those things more particularly at leisure.)JE apparently did, in the essay below entitled, "Of the Meaning of the Words 'Righteousness,' 'Righteous,' Etc. in the Old Testament." See parallels in the five corollaries (nn. 7–9, above). But however the words righteousness, etc. are used in the Old Testament, 'tis most apparent the Apostle don't use them in the sense that Taylor supposes. It is not so used in other cases, where the Apostle is not speaking of justification. But, above all, it would [be] unreasonable to suppose 'tis so used when the Apostle is speaking of righteousness with regard to a judicial or forensic proceeding; as Taylor confesses that, when the Apostle speaks of justification, he uses it as a forensic term, and alludes to the proceedings of courts of judicature. It would, I say, be especially unreasonable to suppose the Apostle uses the term thus in this case any other way than in its most proper sense, or to signify proper righteousness, or a standing morally right: for that is known to be the very end and design of judgment and trials in courts of judicature, to try who is righteous and who wicked, and so who is to be justified and who condemned. However the words justification and condemnation may be used in other cases, yet, to be sure, with regard to judicatories they are used for approving and accepting as righteous, or morally right, and disapproving and sentencing as wicked or criminal. And no people in the world would be so likely to understand those terms in this sense as the Romans (in his Epistle to whom he especially used these terms), who were a people most famous for their judicial laws, their courts of judicature, and the regularity of their judicial proceedings; and the city of Rome, above all places in the world the fountain and seat of those proceedings, which probably may be one reason of the Apostle's so much using these forensic terms in his Epistle to that people. There are many things make it exceeding plain that the Apostle don't, by the terms righteousness and justification, intend merely God's mercy and grant of favor and deliverance from a great calamity, and bringing into a state of great privilege. The Apostle in these places sets righteousness expressly in opposition to condemnation, sin, disobedience. He speaks of the justification of sinners, and with regard to works of righteousness. How plain is the meaning of the expression in that place, Romans 2:13, "not the hearers of the law are just before God, but the doers of the law shall be justified," where it plainly appears that to be justified is to be reputed and accepted as just before God. So Isaiah 53:11, "by his knowledge shall my righteous servant justify many." Jatzik Tzaddik: the union and relation of these two terms plainly show their meaning. Romans 5:19, "by the obedience of one many shall be made righteous." Romans 8:4, "That the righteousness of the law might be fulfilled in us, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit." 1 John 2:1, "if any man sin, we have an advocate with Father, Jesus Christ the righteous." Romans 5:18, "by the righteousness of one the free gift came upon all men to justification of life." The Apostle speaks of imputing righteousness without works [Romans 4:6]— how absurd is the expression "imputeth salvation," "reckoneth deliverance" and Romans 4:11, "that righteousness might be imputed to him also." I allow the distinction between the first and second justification, but then the second justification is no repetition of the first. Men are justified in the sense wherein they are at first, viz. a being accepted as righteous but once and forever; the second justification is declarative only. Concerning the grand DIFFERENCE between Calvinists and Arminians in this point, see the little long book in one of my drawers, pp. 1, etc. See ibid., pp. 3–5, concerning the law, works, righteousness, first and second covenant. Also pp. 8–9.MS Notebook, "The Doctrines of the [Word of God] Especially [Pertaining to the] Justice and Grace [of God] Explained and Defended" (also called the "Gazetteer Notebook"), pp. 1–2, in which JE considers several differences between evangelical and legal notions of justification and merit:
NATURAL FITNESS is not so properly a fitness of the subject to be in Christ as the fitness of God's act in looking on such an one as being in Christ. Faith is such a state or qualification of the subject that, things being ordered as they are in the redemption of Christ, gives opportunity for the Most High fitly to look on that subject as belonging to Christ, or being in him. The moral fitness in this case is not in the act of faith but in the act of God with respect to the believer. We are to distinguish between the merit of the object of God's favor, or a moral qualification of the object attracting that favor and recommending to it, and the natural fitness of such a determination of the act of God's goodness to an object with certain qualifications to answer some wise design of his own. CHAPTER.The following entries entitled "Chapter" and "Method" are part of JE's effort to outline a treatise on the subject of justification. Whether in this way of justification the freeness and riches of divine grace is not most manifiedArchaic for "made man-like"; see also below, p. 365, n. 3, for a similar use of the word. and exalted, and the obligation of the person justified most enhanced. CHAPTER. Which way tends most to promote holiness of life and is most contrary to the interest of sin and wickedness in the world. METHOD. Perhaps treat of the doctrine of Christ's satisfaction and righteousness, and the doctrine of justification, in one book. "As justification is either an accounting or declaring a person righteous, it looks to me a sort of contradiction in terms, to talk of being justified without a justifying righteousness." Rawlin, p. 19.Richard Rawlin, Christ the righteousness of his people; or, the doctrine of justification by faith in him (London, 1741; Edinburgh, 1797), p. 28. CHAPTER concerning the unchangeableness of a law requiring perfect obedience: Here insist on its being inconsistent with itself to suppose that there should be any law not requiring perfect obedience; the great inconsistencies they run into that suppose the contrary; and the inconsistency of it with the divine perfections, to suppose that God should not command perfect obedience, or, which is the same thing, that he should allow any moral evil. A perfectly holy God can give no other than a perfectly holy law. But if God's law allows of some moral evil, it would not be a perfectly holy law. The law is a revelation of God's will; but if it be so, it must forbid all sin: for God's will is against all sin, otherwise God is not perfectly holy. The Scripture speaks of the law that fallen man is under as perfectly pure and holy (Psalms 119 in many parts, and Psalms 19, and many other places in the Psalms). The gospel revelation and dispensation is so far from abating or destroying the perfection of the law, and bringing in an imperfect law instead of it, that it vastly increases our obligation to perfect obedience, and that a great many ways: [it] reveals more of God's worthiness to be obeyed; reveals more of God's infinite purity, his infinite hatred of sin, more of the hateful dreadful nature and consequences of sin; sets before us the brightest example of most perfect obedience, and that under the most affecting circumstances and the most obliging circumstances, circumstances most strongly obliging to imitation; sets forth the law far more than ever in its honorableness and worthiness of regard; lays us under infinitely greater obligations by God's goodness; reveals with abundantly greater clearness the spirituality of the law: it is a revelation of the spiritual world, 'tis all over spiritual, taking us off, above all foregoing revelation, from looking at things external to look at things spiritual. Therein in an especial manner is it required that man should serve in spirit and in truth. No scheme of divinity can be devised or imagined more contrary to the nature, genius and design of the gospel of Christ, than such a scheme as supposes that the strictness of the law is abated, and a law requiring less perfection introduced by Christ, in order to our being justified by our own virtue and obedience. Also, [insist on] the unreasonableness of supposing that God, because of man's sinfulness, has altered his law to make it better to agree with man's sinfulness. CHAPTER: THE REASONABLENESS OF THE DOCTRINE, OR ITS AGREEABLENESS TO THE NATURE [OF THINGS]. 1. The reasonableness of the doctrine of our being accepted not on the account of our own righteousness but the righteousness of Christ. 2. The reasonableness of our being looked on as interested in that righteousness of Christ by such a faith in him as has been described, or that this should be the only way of coming to an interest in that righteousness, or the only that should render it proper in God's sight that we should be supposed to belong to Christ. (Conclude thus:) Thus if we consider this great doctrine of Christianity most exactly, and trace the things appertaining to it in all their various connections and dependencies, even to the end, it will be found a doctrine most agreeable to and greatly confirmed by the highest principles of reason and nature. This is a scheme of things worthy of the Divine Being, greatly manifesting his wisdom and other perfections. I would inquire whether the law of nature, i.e. the nature and fitness of things, requires perfect virtue. If not, then what is virtue? The very definition of it, the nature of [it], even according to the most noted and, for ought I know, all Arminian divines, is overthrown, viz. that [virtue] is an agreeableness to the nature, truth, reason and fitness of things. If so, then the law of nature must require everything that the nature, truth, reason and fitness of things requires: for to say that the fitness of things don't require all that is agreeable to the fitness of thing, is a plain contradiction. But if so— that is, it requires all that is agreeable to fitness in every point— then it requires perfect virtue and holiness. Now I would inquire whether or no all mankind ben't under the obligations of the law of nature If any says no, Christians who are under the gospel are released from that law and are under a milder law; then I would inquire whether the heathen that never heard of the gospel, and the heathen that lived before Christ and the apostles preached the gospel abroad in the world, were not under the law of nature. I trust this will not be denied. The Apostle plainly teaches it, Romans 2:14–15, and Arminian writers generally allow and assert [it]. And then, lastly, I would ask whether Christians that are under the gospel have less of duty, less holiness, required of 'em than those that live in the grossest heathenish darkness, are not obliged to such perfection from high degrees of virtue as they. IMPUTATION. "God mercifully and graciously imputes and reckons [Christ's]JE's insertion where the original reads "it." righteousness to the soul in believing, and so we come, according to the tenor and constitution of the new covenant, to have a real and pleadable interest in it. Not that he reckons we have wrought it out in our own persons, so that the individual obedience and sufferings of Christ are judged to be our obedience and sufferings; this destroys the imputation of that which is done by another for us, and is not according to the judgment of truth: nor that he takes it from Christ, and transposes it into us, so that we become the seat and subject of it by way of inherency, and this righteousness an inherent quality in us; that is impossible in the nature of things. But the meaning is, that he graciously accepts it for our pardon and justification, as if we had personally wrought it out ourselves; and as it was performed in our room and stead, by a proper substitution of Christ to bear the guilt and punishment of our sins, as such he considers it in his law, and deals with us accordingly, and all the benefit and advantage of it, by the constitution of the new covenant, redound to us. This is what we mean by imputation." Rawlin on Justification.Rawlin, Christ the righteousness of his people, pp. 72–73. METHOD. First explain the nature of JUSTIFICATION, the Scripture notion of it, and then secondly the nature of FAITH. Explain this from the Scripture, then how 'tis BY FAITH.
CONCLUSION. REASONABLENESS of the doctrine. 'Tis with inquiring into this doctrine of justification very much as it is in searching into the anatomy of the human body: the more critically, exactly and minutely men search into it, the more is to be seen of the manifold and wonderful wisdom of God in it; and yet we seem not to have come to the end, we seem to be but entering upon a view of the wise and marvelous disposition and contrivances of divine wisdom appertaining to it. Note MR. CHUBB supposes that JUSTIFICATION lies wholly in an act of acquirement;Chubb, A Collection of Tracts on Various Subjects, p. 111. and though he owns it is a law term, and is the act of a judge and has respect to a law or rule, yet he holds that Christian justification is wholly of grace and merciful goodness freely pardoning the guilty. OBJECTIONS which Mr. Rawlin mentions and answers against this doctrine are: that then we must be exempted from any obligation of performing any obedience; that then we are as righteous as Christ is; that then there will be no room for the pardon of sin; that then our righteousness being perfect, there must be no need of Christ's intercession; that our imputed obedience being perfect, there would have been no need of an atonement for sin; that the righteousness being performed by another must be his and can't be ours; and that in the James 2.Here JE summarizes a series of objections that Rawlin, in Christ the righteousness of his people, poses to the doctrine of justification by Christ's righteousness, pp. 239–52. Matthew 25:35–36. But as Mr. Rawlin says, the saints' answer, Matthew 25:37–39, shows plainly they were not what they had depended on for justification and acceptance with God.Rawlin, Christ the righteousness of his people, p. 249: "Another objection to this truth has been drawn from the manner, in which the good works of the saints are mentioned in that sentence of absolution which passes upon them in the process of the last day, Matthew 25:35, Matthew 25:36. But can any thing be more evident, than that the good works of the saints are not mentioned there as the causes of their justification and acceptance to eternal life? Nor do they themselves depend upon them for this purpose, as is plain from their reply, ver. Matthew 25:37, Matthew 25:38, Matthew 25:39. They speak as though themselves hardly knew that they had performed such good works." CHUBB OBJECTS that if we are justified by the imputed righteousness of Christ, then our justification is not of free grace. RECONCILIATION of the apostles JAMES AND PAUL: "James 2:21, "Was not Abraham our father justified by works?" "His works did not justify his person, but his faith; and so evidence his justification. And the Apostle himself gives us a plain key to this as his meaning, when he observes, James 2:23, that 'the scripture was fulfilled which saith, Abraham believed God, and it was imputed to him for righteousness.'" As in Turretin, de Concordia Pauli and Jacobi: "Nisi Apostalus intelligeret justificationem istam Abrahami ex operibus declarative quorsum diceret James 2:23, 'scripturam impletam suisse,' quum obtulit filium, 'quæ dicit Abrahamum credidisse Deo, et illi imputatum suisse ad justitiam.' Sane hoc absurdissime diceretur si de propie dicta justificatione intelligendum esset, quomodo enim impleta dicitur scriptura quæ loguitur de justificatione fidei, cum justificatus est ex operibus; sed commodissime exponitur de declaratione, quia fides seipsum probavit per opera, et tunc aparuit vere, et non hypocritice, Abrahamum Deo credidisse, eamque fidem ut vivam et efficacem illi non abs re imputatum suisse ad justitiam." "And agreeable hereto is what the Apostle says, James 2:22, that 'by works was faith made perfect.' Not that works add anything to the perfection of faith, but only evidence the soundness and sincerity of it; as the fruit adds nothing to the perfection of the root, but only shows the strength and vigor of it. And in this sense the word ετελειωδητελειται. is used, 2 Corinthians 12:9, 'my power is perfected in weakness'; that is, as Grotius remarks, is illustrated and shown to be perfect. And 1 John 2:5, 'whoso keepeth his word, in him is the love of God perfected'; i.e. fully evidenced and demonstrated to be in him. 'Non potest quis validius ostendere Dei amore se teneri.' Grotius in loc. So 1 John 4:12, 'God dwelleth in us, and his love is perfected in us'; 'vere ec reipsa comprebatus.' Beza in loc."This entire entry is taken from Rawlin, Christ the righteousness of his people, pp. 246, 247n, and 248n. The work by Francis Turretin from which Rawlin quotes is F. Turrettini… de satisfactione Christi disputationes… Adjectæ sunt ejusdem duæ disputationes; I. De Circulo Pontifico II. De concordia Jacobi & Pauli in articulo justificationis (3 vols. Geneva, 1680); the work by Hugo Grotius is Annotationes in Novum Testamentum; and by Theodore Beza, Jesus Christi Domini Nostri Novum Testamentum (Geneva, 1656 and sub. eds.). RIGHTEOUSNESS. Why God's mercy to his people is so often called by that name. See note on Ecclesiastes 8:5–6.In the "Blank Bible" note on Ecclesiastes 8:5–6, JE states that, just as judgments are rendered according to the "providential disposals" of God, "so God's mercy to his people is often called by the name of righteousness. Both mercies to God's chosen and executions of wrath on reprobates are acts of supreme Rector of the universe as moral governor… and all God's exercises of mercy to his covenant people are exercises of righteousness and truth, as they are in fulfillment of God's covenants, either made with Christ, or his people, or both."
OBJECTION from Deuteronomy 6:25, "And it shall BE OUR RIGHTEOUSNESS." See note on the place.The "Blank Bible" note on Deuteronomy 6:25 is a lengthy entry for which JE initially filled nearly all of MS p. 147 but then struck it through with a vertical line and began a revised entry. The portion of the note that JE refers to here begins at the bottom of the second column of p. 147 and continues on pp. 142 and 141. Doing God's commands, he states, shall be "righteousness unto us" insofar as "God will remember it." "'Tis not meant they shall be esteemed as the thing which properly merits or recommends to God's favor and a title to happiness, but that thing God shall as it were remember and set before his eyes in his providence as an evidence of our being righteous." OF THE MEANING OF THE WORDS "RIGHTEOUS," "RIGHTEOUSNESS," ETC. IN THE OLD TESTAMENT Having with great care and exactness examined the Old Testament with respect to the use of the word צָדַק and other words derived from that root, observing every place referred to in the Hebrew Concordance where any of those words are used, it manifestly appears that words of this sort are properly judicial or forensic terms, are evidently so in their original and most common signification. The word RIGHTEOUSNESS, צֶדֶק צְדָקָה, is manifestly most properly a forensic term used primarily to express things belonging to judgment or a judicial proceeding. 'Tis abundantly used with a plain reference to a judgment. So in Leviticus 19:15; Deuteronomy 1:16 and Deuteronomy 16:18–20; 2 Samuel 8:15; 1 Kings 10:9; 1 Chronicles 18:14; 2 Chronicles 9:8; Job 8:3, and Job 31:6, and Job 35:8–9, and Job 36:6; Psalms 7:8, and Psalms 9:4, Psalms 9:8, and Psalms 17:1–2, and Psalms 35:24, Psalms 35:27–28, and Psalms 50:6, and Psalms 58:1, [and] Psalms 72:1–3, and Psalms 89:14, and Psalms 96:13, and Psalms 97:6, and Psalms 98:9, and Psalms 99:4, and Psalms 103:6, and Psalms 119:40 compared with texts referred to in the margin;I.e. in the margin of the KJV. Psalms 119:62, Psalms 119:106, Psalms 119:160, Psalms 119:164; Proverbs 8:15–16, and Proverbs 16:12, and Proverbs 25:5, and Proverbs 31:9; Ecclesiastes 3:16 and Ecclesiastes 5:8; Isaiah 1:27, and Isaiah 5:7, Isaiah 5:23, and Isaiah 9:7, and Isaiah 11:4, and Isaiah 22:3, Isaiah 22:15, and Isaiah 23:5, and Isaiah 33:15, and Isaiah 60:17; Jeremiah 11:20 and Jeremiah 33:15; Ezekiel 45:9–10; Daniel 9:7; Amos 5:7 and Amos 6:12; Micah 7:9. And because these words are, in their original and proper signification, forensic and have reference [to a judgment], hence we find them so abundantly joined with the word "judgment" in the Old Testament, as in these places following: Genesis 18:18; Leviticus 19:35–36; Deuteronomy 33:21; 2 Samuel 8:15; 1 Kings 10:9; 1 Chronicles 18:14; 2 Chronicles 9:8; Job 8:3, and Job 29:14, and Job 37:23; Psalms 33:5, and Psalms 36:6, and Psalms 37:6, and Psalms 72:1–3, [and] Psalms 89:14, and Psalms 94:15, and Psalms 99:4, and Psalms 103:6, and Psalms 106:3, and Psalms 119:7, Psalms 119:39–40 compared with texts referred to in the margin, Psalms 119:75, and Psalms 143:11–12; Proverbs 1:3, and Proverbs 2:9, and Proverbs 8:20, and Proverbs 21:3; Isaiah 1:21, Isaiah 1:27, and Isaiah 5:7, Isaiah 5:16, and Isaiah 9:7, and Isaiah 16:5, and Isaiah 26:9, and Isaiah 28:17, and Isaiah 32:1, Isaiah 32:16, and Isaiah 33:5, Isaiah 33:15, and Isaiah 56:1, and Isaiah 59:14; Jeremiah 4:2, and Jeremiah 9:24, and Jeremiah 22:3, Jeremiah 22:15, and Jeremiah 23:5, and Jeremiah 33:15; Ezekiel 18:5, Ezekiel 18:19, Ezekiel 18:21, Ezekiel 18:27, and Ezekiel 33:14, Ezekiel 33:16, Ezekiel 33:19, and Ezekiel 45:9; Hosea 2:19; Amos 5:7, Amos 5:24, and Amos 6:12; Micah 7:9; Zephaniah 2:13. And so it [is] manifest the adjective צַדּיק, "just" or "righteous," is, in its original and most proper signification, a forensic [term] and has reference to a judgment. Sometimes 'tis used to express the rectitude or proper moral qualification of a judge, or one that defends the oppressed. Exodus 9:27 and Exodus 23:8; Deuteronomy 16:19; 2 Samuel 23:3; 2 Chronicles 12:6; Ezra 9:15; Nehemiah 9:33; Psalms 7:9 and Psalms 116:5 with context, and Psalms 119:137, and Psalms 125:3, and Psalms 129:4; Proverbs 21:15 and Proverbs 29:2; Jeremiah 12:1; Lamentations 3:18; Ezekiel 23:45; Daniel 9:14; Zephaniah 3:5; Zechariah 9:9. And 'tis abundantly used with a plain reference to a judgment, to signify the rectitude or good and right and approvable qualification of a person judged, or to be judged, or that others have a contest and controversy with, as in Genesis 18:25; Exodus 23:7 and Exodus 25:1; 1 Kings 2:32 and 1 Kings 8:32; 2 Kings 10:9; 2 Chronicles 6:23; Job 22:19 with context, and Job 27:17 with context, and Job 36:6–7; Psalms 1:5–6, and Psalms 5:12 with the foregoing verses, and Psalms 7:9, Psalms 7:11, and Psalms 11:3, Psalms 11:5, Psalms 11:7, and Psalms 31:18, and Psalms 37:17, Psalms 37:28–29, Psalms 37:39–40, and Psalms 52:6 with context, and Psalms 55:22, and Psalms 58:10–11, and Psalms 64:10, and Psalms 69:28, and Psalms 75:10 with context, and Psalms 92:12 with context, and Psalms 94:21, and Psalms 97:11–12 with context, and Psalms 140:14 with context, and Psalms 146:7–8; Proverbs 11:21, and Proverbs 17:15, Proverbs 17:26, and Proverbs 18:5, Proverbs 18:17, and Proverbs 24:24, and Proverbs 25:26, and Proverbs 29:7; Ecclesiastes 3:17 [and] Ecclesiastes 8:14; Isaiah 5:23, [and] Isaiah 29:21, and Isaiah 41:26 with context, and Isaiah 49:24; Jeremiah 20:12 and Jeremiah 23:5; Lamentations 4:13; Amos 2:6 and Amos 5:12; Habakkuk 1:13. And where those words Tzaddik and Tzedhek, etc. seem to be used only to signify moral good in general, yet, if we attend diligently to the manner in which the words are used, at least in many places they mean such a moral rectitude or goodness as will bear a trial in judgment. See Genesis 15:6 and Genesis 30:33; 1 Samuel 26:23; 2 Samuel 22:25; 1 Kings 3:6 [and] 1 Kings 8:32; 2 Chronicles 6:23; Job 8:6, and Job 12:4, and Job 17:9, and Job 32:1, and Job 33:26; Psalms 7:9, Psalms 7:11, and Psalms 11:5, Psalms 11:7, and Psalms 32:11, and Psalms 35:24; Isaiah 26:7, and Isaiah 48:1, and Isaiah 58:8; Ezekiel 14:14, Ezekiel 14:20 [and] Ezekiel 18:5, Ezekiel 18:9; and many other places.JE deletes: "That which is a very great confirmation that the word Tzedhek and others of a like derivation are, as used among the Hebrews, most primarily and properly judicial terms, or words that relate to judgment or some judicial proceeding, is that the Hebrew words that signify judgment, such as Mishpat and Dhin, are used just in the same manner and to signify very much the same things as the words Tzedhek, Tzedhakah and Tzidhkoth, and that abundantly in the Hebrew Bible."
These words are used to signify any [thing] that is good relating to a judgment. They often signify the goodness or rectitude of the judge. It signifies the right or good qualification of the subject of judgment. It is used to signify the goodness of the law or rule of judgment, and sometimes the law itself is called righteousness, as Psalms 5:8. It is used to signify the rectitude or goodness of the judgment itself, or sentence. 'Tis used to signify a good cause, and sometimes a man's right, or what he can rightfully demand in judgment, as 2 Samuel 19:28; Nehemiah 2:20; Job 33:26; Psalms 4:1, and Psalms 18:20, Psalms 18:24, and Psalms 35:27; Proverbs 16:8; and Isaiah 5:23. And sometimes it is put for that reward which the good judge assigns to the good. So Deuteronomy 6:25 and Deuteronomy 24:13 compared with Deuteronomy 24:15; Psalms 24:5 [and] Psalms 112:9; Proverbs 8:18 and Proverbs 21:1, Proverbs 21:21; Isaiah 48:19 and Isaiah 54:17 and Isaiah 59:9; Hosea 10:12–13. Sometimes it is put for that in the person judged, to which the judge annexes the reward of righteousness, as Genesis 15:6, Psalms 106:31. See note on Deuteronomy 6:25.See above, n. 5. These words seem oftentimes to be putting much of the same signification as mercy and goodness, favor, etc., as in Judges 5:11; 1 Samuel 12:7; Psalms 22:31, and Psalms 36:5–6, Psalms 36:10, and Psalms 40:10–11, and Psalms 51:14, and Psalms 71:15, Psalms 71:19, and Psalms 88:12, and Psalms 103:17, and Psalms 111:3, [and] Psalms 145:7; Isaiah 51:5; Daniel 9:16; Micah 6:5; and other places. But then, if we carefully observe the places, the words have respect to such mercy or goodness as is exercised in protecting the innocent and righteous, and appearing to defend and save them from those that unjustly accused, condemned and oppressed them; in vindicating their rights against their injurious enemies that were stronger than they, and pleading of the cause of innocency and righteousness against such as opposed these things with a high hand. Because the moral rectitude and goodness of a judge in those days was supposed to consist very much in these things, as is very manifest all over the Old Testament, and by these texts following in particular, among innumerable others that might be mentioned: Deuteronomy 10:18; Psalms 68:5–6, [and] Psalms 72:2, and Psalms 82:2–4, and Psalms 140:12; Proverbs 31:8–9; Isaiah 1:17, Isaiah 1:23; Jeremiah 5:28, and Jeremiah 21:12, and Jeremiah 22:3, Jeremiah 22:15–16; Zechariah 7:9. Hence when a judge pleaded the cause of [the] widow and fatherless in the gate, and vindicated the poor and weak and defenseless from their oppressors, it was called their righteousness. Hence acts of mercy and compassion to the poor and afflicted came to be called his righteousness.
Now the church and people of God, in the Psalms and in the Prophets is abundantly spoken of as in an afflicted persecuted state, oppressed by their unrighteous enemies, by those that were stronger than they. Partly upon this account it probably is that "the poor" or "the afflicted" is an appellation or name by which the righteous are often called in the Old Testament. Therefore God's mercy and kindness towards his people is abundantly spoken [of] with regard to those exercises of it towards them, viz. his appearing as a righteous judge to plead the cause of his poor afflicted people, to vindicate them, to protect and deliver them. And 'tis with regard to these exercises of God's mercy towards them that [it] is called his righteousness: not with regard to any proper merit of theirs— far from it— but as it was in God the part of a holy, righteous and good judge thus to vindicate his people from their oppressors. And so God's acts of mercy and salvation towards his people under or after affliction and oppression are called by the name of his righteousness.JE deletes: "Hence it comes to pass that we so often find the words 'righteous' or 'righteousness' joined with such words as 'salvation,' 'redemption,' 'deliverance,' etc. as Judges 5:11, Psalms 31:1. Thus the word righteousness, when applied to God, often signifies the holy, right and excellent qualifications and acts of him who is the supreme Judge of men, appearing in vindicating his people from their oppressors. So when it is applied to men, or to God's people themselves, who are the objects of these acts of the judge, it often signifies the effect of these acts of the judge, even their vindication, deliverance, salvation and reward. Hence it comes to pass that we find the words righteousness, righteous, etc. are joined with salvation, redemption, deliverance, etc. as signifying the moral perfection of God manifested in saving his people from their oppressors and enemies, or the act of saving, or the liberty, victory, rest and happiness that is the fruit of it. As Psalms 24:5, and Psalms 31:1, and Psalms 40:10, and Psalms 56:1, and Psalms 65:5, and Psalms 71:2, Psalms 71:15, Psalms 71:23–24, and Psalms 85:9–11, and Psalms 98:2, and Psalms 119:123, and Psalms 143:11–12; Isaiah 1:27, and Isaiah 5:16, and Isaiah 45:8, Isaiah 45:17–19, and Isaiah 46:13, and Isaiah 51:6, Isaiah 51:8, and Isaiah 56:1, and Isaiah 54:14, and Isaiah 59:16–17, and Isaiah 61:10, and Isaiah 62:1, and Isaiah 63:1; Zechariah 9:9. With respect to the verb צָדַק, 'tis used in its various conjugations in a forensic sense, and very frequently with a plain reference to a judgment, agreeable to the use of the nouns of the same family. Thus in the following places, where it signifies to be righteous, 'tis with a plain reference to a judgment: Job 9:15, and Job 10:14–15, and Job 34:5; and Ezekiel 15:52. In Psalms 51:4, 'tis used for appearing just in the judgment, with respect to the judge. 'Tis sometimes used for doing justice to one in judgment (2 Samuel 15:4 and Psalms 82:3). Sometimes 'tis used for justifying, acquitting, vindicating or approving in judgment. Exodus 23:6–8; Deuteronomy 25:1; 1 Kings 8:32; 2 Chronicles 6:23; Job 4:17, and Job 9:2–3, and Job 11:3 with the following verses, and Job 13:18–19, and Job 25:4, and Job 40:8; Psalms 143:2; Proverbs 17:15; Isaiah 43:9, Isaiah 43:26, and Isaiah 50:8. Sometimes 'tis put for pleading, standing up for, or exhibiting evidence in favor of one in judgment, as Genesis 44:16, Ezekiel 16:51–52. In Job 9:19–20, 'tis used to signify the act of the person to be judged declaring himself righteous. What has been observed concerning the words Tzedhek, Tzedhakah, Tzaddik and Tzadhak, their being originally judicial or forensic, relating to a judgment or judicial proceeding, and even there where they seem to signify God's goodness, favor and saving mercy, and their salvation and reward, is greatly confirmed by this, that we find the words which signify judgment itself are abundantly used in the same manner as the words Tzedhek, etc. and to signify the same things. They seemed to [be] used as terms very synonymous. Thus the word טשְׂפָט, the word most commonly used to signify judgment in Scripture, is used as synonymous with Tzedhek to signify justice, righteousness and other things that Tzedhek is used to express, all over the Hebrew Bible, as appears in the places following: Genesis 18:19; Deuteronomy 17:9 [and] Deuteronomy 32:4, Deuteronomy 32:41; 2 Samuel 15:4; 1 Kings 3:11, 1 Kings 3:28 and 1 Kings 10:9; 1 Chronicles 18:14; 2 Chronicles 9:8; Job 19:17, and Job 29:14, and Job 34:4, Job 34:17, and Job 35:2, and Job 40:8; Psalms 25:9, [and] Psalms 33:5, and Psalms 37:28, Psalms 37:30, and Psalms 72:1, and Psalms 89:15, and Psalms 97:2, and Psalms 99:4, and Psalms 106:3, and Psalms 111:7, [and] Psalms 112:5, and Psalms 119:121, and Psalms 146:7; Proverbs 1:3, and Proverbs 2:8–9, and Proverbs 8:20, and Proverbs 12:5, and Proverbs 13:23, and Proverbs 16:8, and Proverbs 19:28, and Proverbs 21:3, Proverbs 21:7, Proverbs 21:15, and Proverbs 28:5, and Proverbs 29:4; Isaiah 1:17, Isaiah 1:21, and Isaiah 4:4, and Isaiah 5:7, Isaiah 5:16, and Isaiah 9:7, and Isaiah 16:5, and Isaiah 26:8, and Isaiah 30:18, and Isaiah 32:1, Isaiah 32:16, and Isaiah 33:5, and Isaiah 42:1, Isaiah 42:3–4, and Isaiah 56:1, and Isaiah 59:8–9, Isaiah 59:14–15, and Isaiah 61:8; Jeremiah 4:2, and Jeremiah 5:1, and Jeremiah 7:5, and Jeremiah 9:24, and Jeremiah 17:11, and Jeremiah 21:12, and Jeremiah 22:3, Jeremiah 22:13, Jeremiah 22:15, and Jeremiah 23:5, and Jeremiah 33:15; Ezekiel 18:5, Ezekiel 18:8, Ezekiel 18:19, Ezekiel 18:21, Ezekiel 18:27, and Ezekiel 22:29, and Ezekiel 33:14, Ezekiel 33:16, Ezekiel 33:19, and Ezekiel 45:9; Amos 5:15, Amos 5:24, and Amos 6:12; Micah 3:8–9 and Micah 6:8; Habakkuk 1:4; Zephaniah 2:3 and Zephaniah 3:5; and Malachi 2:15. So the word Mishpat is sometimes used to signify one's right or due or desert, just in the same manner as Tzedhek. Deuteronomy 18:3, and Deuteronomy 19:6, and Deuteronomy 21:17, Deuteronomy 21:22; Job 27:2 and Job 34:5–6; Psalms 9:4 and Psalms 17:2; Isaiah 10:2 and Isaiah 40:27; Jeremiah 26:11, Jeremiah 26:16 [and] Jeremiah 32:7–8; Lamentations 3:35. So the word דִינ, which properly signifies judgment, is in like manner used to signify one's right (Proverbs 31:5 and Isaiah 10:2). And inasmuch as a great part of the work of a judge was esteemed to be vindicating the injured, saving and delivering the poor, afflicted and oppressed, and this was esteemed to be that wherein the righteousness or goodness of a judge did very much consist: there, "to judge" was a word often used to signify to save or vindicate from oppressors and enemies; and the word judgment used to signify vindication, protection, salvation, just in the same manner, as has been already observed of the words Tzedhek and Tzedhakah. Thus we find in particular with respect to the verb שָׂפַט. 1 Samuel 24:15; 2 Samuel 18:19, 2 Samuel 18:31; Psalms 7-8, Psalms 10-11, and Psalms 10:18, and Psalms 26:1, and Psalms 35:24, and Psalms 43:1, and Psalms 72:4, and Psalms 82:3; Proverbs 29:14; Isaiah 1:17 and Isaiah 51:5; Jeremiah 5:28; and Lamentations 3:59. So it is with respect to the noun Mishpat. 'Tis often used to signify mercy, vindication, protection, redemption, etc., as the noun Tzedhek. Deuteronomy 10:18; Job 36:6; Psalms 7:6, [and] Psalms 35:2–3, and Psalms 36:6, [and] Psalms 37:6, and Psalms 48:11, and Psalms 72:2, and Psalms 101:1, and Psalms 103:6, and Psalms 119:39, Psalms 119:51–52, Psalms 119:62, Psalms 119:149, Psalms 119:175, and Psalms 140:12; Isaiah 1:27, and Isaiah 30:18, and Isaiah 59:11 Jeremiah 9:24, and Jeremiah 10:24, and Jeremiah 21:12, and Jeremiah 22:3, Jeremiah 22:15–16, and Jeremiah 30:11, and Jeremiah 46:28; Hosea 2:19. And, which is remarkable, 'tis thus not only with Shaphat and Mishpat, but 'tis just in the same manner with words of another family that signify judging and judge, as with the word דוּנ and others derived from it. They are used to signify protection and vindication and salvation in the same manner as the words Tzedhek, etc., which primarily signify righteousness. Thus the word Dhun (which properly signifies to judge) is often used to signify deliver, or vindicate, or show mercy to, or with a special respect to the deliverance or vindication or protection of the exposed or oppressed. So Genesis 30:6; Deuteronomy 32:36; 1 Samuel 24:15; Job 36:31; Psalms 7:8, and Psalms 54:1, and Psalms 72:2, and Psalms 135:14; Proverbs 31:9; Isaiah 4:13; Jeremiah 5:28, and Jeremiah 21:12, and Jeremiah 22:16, and Jeremiah 30:13. The word דיִנ (judgment) is used frequently to mean mercy, protection and deliverance, or has a special respect to these. Job 35:14; Psalms 68:6; Jeremiah 30:13; Psalms 76:8 and Psalms 140:12; Isaiah 10:2; Jeremiah 5:28 and Jeremiah 22:16. And the word דָיָנ (a judge) is used to signify a protector or deliverer (Psalms 68:5). THE REASON of such an use of terms of old in the days of the old testament, especially those ancient times whence the Hebrew language took its rise or received its perfection: The principal business of kings and rulers in those days (unless it was in the case of war) used to be judging their subjects, judicially determining complaints and controversies which arose between one and another. Their business was not to make laws. The world in general in those days had no other laws but the laws of nature and those rules of right and wrong that were either handed down by tradition from the first fathers of mankind or taught by eminent men that [had] extraordinary intercourse with heaven. As to the particular degrees and kinds of punishment that were to be inflicted for crimes, some of the greater crimes, such as murder, blasphemy and others, by common consent of all from the beginning, they were punished with death. As to others, they were led also by the common voice of reason and tradition to appoint stroke for stroke, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, etc. And as to others, they were left to the discretion of the judge, especially the supreme judge, who was the king, who in these things acted very arbitrarily and not by law. Hence judging came to be put for ruling in general in the Old Testament, as in 2 Kings 15:5; 2 Chronicles 1:11 and 2 Chronicles 26:21; Psalms 75:7; Daniel 9:12; and many other places. Mankind being naturally led to form their language from those things that were most visible and remarkable among them, and to be governed in their use of words by these things, hence words by which they expressed moral matters were, many of them, formed especially for the life of their courts of judicature, where such matters had their most remarkable and visible consideration and determination, and they borrowed most of their moral terms from those courts. Thus the words Tzedhek, Mishpat, etc. were originally forensic terms, but by degrees they at length expressed everything that was good and right by those terms, the words still retaining their forensic sense as their principal signification. And as the evil that mainly constrained all the families of the earth to appoint princes, magistrates and judges over 'em was the evil of oppression, the stronger oppressing the weaker, hence this was esteemed the main business of judges, and the doing of it thoroughly the main excellency of a judge; so this obtained the name of "righteousness," and those very words that signified judging were often used to signify protecting or saving the oppressed. Corol. 1. Hence the falseness of the opinion of those that deny the words justification and righteousness to be used as forensic terms by the apostles, but that some real change or inherent qualification was intended by these terms. As it is reasonable to suppose the apostles used the terms in the same manner in which they were commonly used amongst the Jews, among whom they were born and educated, and especially as may we suppose that they, when speaking of divine matters, would use language in the same manner in which God had used it in teaching the Jews the true religion, who were therein so vastly distinguished from all other nations. Corol. 2. Hence we learn how far Mr. Taylor is from having any reason to suppose that salvation, or saving mercy in general, is the principal meaning of the terms justification and righteousness in the apostolic writings quite departing from that which is most manifestly the original import and design and the main sense of the words among the people of God from the beginning: that they were used as forensic terms, in the very sense in which Calvinistic divines have generally supposed, and that when they are used to signify salvation, 'tis only metonymically putting the effect for the cause, viz. a right judgment between the oppressed and the oppressor. We have no more reason to suppose that the principal meaning of the words "justify" and "righteousness" is "save" and "salvation" in the apostles' writing, from the use of those words in the Old Testament, than we have to suppose that this is the chief meaning of the words "judge" and "judgment" as used by the apostles. For these words, as used in the Old Testament, do as often, yea, much more frequently signify "save" and "salvation" than the other. Corol. 3. Nothing can be argued against the doctrine of justification by Christ's righteousness alone received by faith, that when we read in the Old Testament of God's judging and saving his people mention is made of their righteousness, as such words of the Psalmist's, "judge me according to my righteousness" [Psalms 7:8]: for by righteousness in these places is only meant the goodness of their cause in the controversy they have with their enemies, and not the righteousness that primarily recommends to the approbation of him that judges between God and them. Their cause may be good in the controversy between them and their oppressors, and such as requires their acquittance and approbation by the strictest judge; and yet the case may be far otherwise as to their cause when God and they are the parties between whom the judgment is to be. And besides, where their sincere religion and morality is called their righteousness, and spoken of as such with regard to God's judgment, all that can be supposed to be meant by it, is that it is that religion and virtue that is of the right sort, and will appear to be so by the omniscient Judge that searches the heart in order to determine whether they are sincere and upright or no, or have virtue of the right sort according to the divine constitution God's people are now under. This is perfectly agreeable both [to] the language of Scripture and also to the Calvinists'MS: "Calvinistick." JE, Jr.'s emendation is followed. doctrine of justification, who suppose, as much as any other denomination of Christians, that there is such a thing as a religion and virtue which is of the right sort according to the particular and subordinate constitution we are under, which will be tried and approved as such by the great and omniscient Judge of the world. But it cannot at all be inferred from hence that anything inherent in them can be their justifying righteousness or that virtue which God accepts as that which primarily recommends 'em to his acceptance as the judge of the original, supreme, universal and everlasting rule of right and wrong, and great maintainer of rectitude and fitness and decorum in the universe, and of its highest and most general rule. Corol. 4. Neither can anything be inferred from God's appearing to favor and help his people, its being called God's righteousness, as though his favoring and saving them was in such a sense a mere act of righteousness or justice, that their virtue deserves it of him and that on this account it can't injustice be denied them. For as appears by what has been observed, all that is meant by it, is that these are acts which show God's moral excellency as a judge between them and their injurious enemies, judging rightly between them, in vindicating them from their injuriousness: which may be, and yet they not deserve the least favor from God by any of their virtue, though they deserve better treatment from those that injure them than that which they receive from them, or at least have never deserved so ill treatment from them. Whether the saints by their virtue deserve any favor from God or no, yet when God does the part of a judge, 'tis part of his justice as a judge to judge between them according to truth; and if he does so, he must condemn that party that is to blame in that controversy and vindicate and clear the party that suffers wrongfully. The judgment must imply in it that the suffering is wrongful or unjust, and so, in executing judgment according to truth, the sufferer must be delivered and vindicated and injurious party depressed and punished, and he that has the right of the cause repaired by being exalted and having the ascendant given him over his oppressor. 'Tis a confirmation that 'tis on this account that God's vindicating and saving his people is called his righteousness, viz. that his judgment herein is according to truth, inasmuch as we often find this righteousness of judgment joined with truth called by the name of truth, or true judgment, or judgment of truth. Isaiah 42:2 and Isaiah 59:14–15; Psalms 19:9 and Psalms 111:7; Jeremiah 5:1; Ezekiel 18:8; Zechariah 7:9 and Zechariah 8:16; Psalms 54:5; Isaiah 16:5 [and] Isaiah 59:14–15. And this further may be taken notice of here, viz. that, as was observed before, though the word righteousness be in its original and principal signification a forensic term, yet as moral terms in general were taken from courts of judgment, so the word righteousness came to express moral good in general; and particularly, God's faithfulness is often called his righteousness. And it is often found that when the Scripture speaks of God's mercy and favor and saving goodness by the name of God's righteousness, his covenant faithfulness is what is intended, as in Nehemiah 9:8; Psalms 40:10, and Psalms 88:11–12, [and] Psalms 103:17, and Psalms 111:3, and Psalms 119:40 compared with Psalms 119:25, Psalms 119:107, and Psalms 143:1; Isaiah 11:5. Truth is called righteousness (Psalms 52:3, Isaiah 45:23 and Isaiah 48:1). Corol. 5. The things which have been observed, explain in what sense 'tis promised in the end of Deuteronomy 6 that the obedience of Israel should be their righteousness Deuteronomy 6:25], consistent with the Calvinistic doctrine of justification; righteousness being there and in many other places intended to signify the reward which the good judge is to assign to themMS: "which is [-] the Good Judge assign to them." that are truly virtuous (see back, p. 347),I.e. the paragraph beginning "And sometimes it is put for that reward which the good judge assigns to the good." so that it no more clashes with the doctrine of justification by Christ's righteousness than any other promise of reward. NATURAL AND MORAL FITNESS. Observe particularly what seems to be the reasons why some Calvinists oppose this notion of being justified by faith as a natural fitness; what are things they seem to be afraid of as the inconvenience or hurtful consequences of such a doctrine; and how groundless their apprehensions are. QUESTION: WHEREIN DO THE TWO COVENANTS AGREE AS TO THE METHOD OF JUSTIFICATION, AND THE APPOINTED QUALIFICATION FOR IT?JE's marginal cue, "see back p. 155," refers to the preceding section on justification in the notebook (MS pp. 143–55). JE, Jr., numbered the present essay, which begins at the top of MS p. 202, "1361," so that it would be contiguous with the last entry of the "Miscellanies."Above the title, a copyist wrote, "This is copied as far as end of N VI but no farther in sheets 15–17." Here the following things may be observed (see "Miscellanies" no. 1030):"Miscellanies" no. 1030, "Covenants. Justification By Faith," discusses the similarities and differences between the covenants of works and faith (Works, 20, 367–69). I. Both covenants or constitutions are so ordered that holiness and a sincere and universal compliance and active conformity to God's nature and will, and that moral excellency that in itself is agreeable to God, amiable and beautiful in his eyes, are absolutely necessary to
Page 202 of the "Controversies" notebook, which marks the beginning of the essay within the section on "Justification" entitled, "Question: Wherein Do the Two Covenants Agree as to the Method of Justification, and the Appointed Qualification for It?" Courtesy of Beinecke Rare Book and Manuscript Library, Yale University. God's acceptance of a man to eternal life: and that not only necessary to be reckoned to his account, but necessary to be inherent in the subject of justification, or to be in the person that shall be the subject of God's acceptance and favor; so necessary that 'tis utterly impossible for any to be in such a state of acceptance without such a qualification. And so [holiness] has properly a place in those conditional propositions declarations or promises that connect holiness with God's acceptance favor and salvation. And holiness of heart and practice is often mentioned as the proper evidence of God's favor, and the way to obtain the fruits of that favor. II. Not only is holiness and an active conformity to God's moral nature and will absolutely necessary in order to justification in the new constitution by Jesus Christ, as well as in the old; but such compliance or active conformity is as directly necessary. Sincere and universal holiness is as directly and effectually secured in the latter constitution as in the former, not only as it is so ordered in infinite wisdom that holiness shall always follow faith, and God will not give one without the other— the same spirit that works faith in Christ will also at the same time implant principles of holiness; and God has promised concerning all that truly believe in Christ that he will enable and incline 'em to be universally holy and will uphold them in a way of holiness to the end; and holiness is the natural consequence and fruit of faith— but also as the compliance of the whole soul with God's authority and his holy nature and will in all things is implied in the very nature, spirit and act of a true justifying faith, and that as properly and directly as in obedience, which was the condition of the first covenant though in another manner. It will appear to be thus whether we consider justifying faith as a receiving Christ in all his offices— and so in the office of a king— or only a cordial receiving him in the office of his priesthood and as our atonement and righteousness. A hearty receiving Christ thus does directly imply a consenting to, complying with and embracing God's holy nature, authority and will, and that a great many ways. First. In that assent there is in justifying faith is implied a holiness of taste and nature, a conformity of the heart and consent of the inclination to the holiness of God and Christ, and toMS: "of." JE, Jr., deleted the word and inserted "to." God's revealed will. For that true saving assent arises from a view of relish of the supreme beauty and amiableness there is in the holiness of these things.
Second. In order to an accepting a Savior from that misery that God has threatened to the wicked, there must be willingness with the whole heart to be delivered from that misery and to have such a deliverance from that misery as is offered. But a cordial willingness for this implies hatred of sin. For the misery sinners are exposed to consists very much in an unrestrained wickedness of disposition and with an unrestrained pride, self-exaltation, enmity against God, and the like. Therefore whoever is cordially willing to be delivered from this misery must be cordially willing to have such a disposition and will destroyed; and that implies an hatred of such a disposition and will: for they that entirely love and approve of such a disposition and will can't be entirely and with all their hearts willing that it should be destroyed. If sinners were cordially willing such an inclination should be destroyed, then their inclination would be entirely against their inclination; which would be a contradiction and directly against the thing supposed, which is that men are under the reigning power of such an inclination. Therefore, though no creature loves misery as such, yet the damned in hell can't properly be said to be willing to be delivered from their misery, at least with such a deliverance as is offered. They would be glad to be delivered by being turned to nothing, or to have a partial deliverance by being made blind and stupid, which is a partial annihilation. But these are not a proper deliverance. Deliverance implies the being of a subject delivered, and this subject's being brought out of the state delivered from into an opposite state. Now the damned in hell have no cordial willingness for this; their whole hearts don't and can't consent to be brought out of a state of pride and enmity (which is as an internal fire to torment them) into a state of humility and divine love, but as they love their wicked dispositions, so they love death. Third. In order to a cordial acceptance of God's offer of a Savior to deliver from so dreadful a punishment as he has sentenced sinners to, by his mediation and atonement, there must be a cordial submission to a sentence to such a punishment. There must be a conviction of the justice of the condemnation, otherwise the very offer of pretended grace in delivering from it must be looked upon as implying an injury and abuse. And there must also be a cordial submission to it. And that implies not merely a conviction of the justice of the punishment such as the damned will have, but a seeing the hatefulness of sin and an entire hatred and detestation of it. For though men may be convinced of the justice of the punishment without this, yet there will be no calm submission; there will not be what the Scripture calls an accepting "the punishment of their iniquity" without it [Leviticus 26:41]. And without this, there cannot be with the whole heart an acceptance of offered grace in a deliverance from the punishment. If the heart opposes and fights with God, and hates him for condemning to such a punishment, as the devils and damned do, the heart can't entirely accept the grace of God in a deliverance. Fourth. In order to a cordial accepting and embracing Jesus Christ as our priest, Mediator and surety, or Savior, in any sense, we must cordially accept and embrace the person of Christ. They cannot cordially receive Christ as he on whom they shall have their whole dependence in things that do above all others concern them, who don't entirely like, approve and accept Christ himself. But this men can't do if they don't see Christ's beauty and amiableness. But the amiableness of Christ consists in his moral excellency. But the seeing Christ's moral excellency, and liking and accepting him with the whole soul on this account, implies the whole soul's compliance with the holiness and moral excellency of God: for that is the same with Christ's moral excellency. Fifth. A person cannot fully and with all his heart approve of the atonement of Christ— at least as seeing the beauty of such a constitution— unless he has a true hatred of sin. For he can have no sense of any amiable suitableness in so great a thing's being done as Christ's offering up himself a sacrifice to God, so great and divinely excellent a person's coming into the world, in so mean a condition and so infinitely abasing himself under such ignominy and suffering, to make expiation for ours sins, unless he has a sense as it were of the infinite odiousness of sin as to require such an atonement. Sixth. A seeing the sufficiency of Christ as our high priest, the sufficiency of the sacrifice he offered us, and the sufficiency and acceptableness of his mediation and intercession, implies a seeing his divine beauty consisting in his moral excellency. And therefore a cordially approving of, accepting and adhering to Christ as a sufficient Mediator implies a renunciation of sin and a cordial adhering to and complying with God's moral excellency and holiness. Without a sense of the divine moral excellency of Christ and an entire embracing of it, the soul can't see [the] value of Christ's mediation, the value of his offering, the preciousness of his blood or merit of his obedience, and therefore no entire confidence in Christ's sacrifice. There can be no sense of the sweetness of that sweet savor of the offering Christ offered to God, without a spiritual sense to perceive the sweetness of such a savor. Seventh. In particular does a believing or trusting in the righteousness of Christ [imply a seeing of his divine excellency].Here JE, Jr.'s insert to complete the sentence is used. The excellency of his righteousness is the same thing as moral excellency, and none that see [not] the amiableness of holiness and righteousness can see it. And none, therefore, can with all their hearts embrace that righteousness as wrought out for them without loving righteousness and embracing righteousness as the qualification of their own hearts and practice. Eighth. A cordial acceptance of the happiness Christ procured, as well as salvation from such misery as he redeems us from, implies an embracing of holiness. For Christ procured a holy happiness, a happiness consisting in beholding the moral beauty and excellency of the Divine Being, and in being united to him and conformed to him, and serving and glorifying and pleasing him; so that embracing this happiness is renouncing sin and embracing holiness. Ninth. A cordial approbation of such a way of procuring salvation for [us], by doing things so vastly great, and being at such infinite expense to secure the sacredness of God's law and authority, and honor the majesty and preserve inviolable the rights of the lawgiver. The doing and suffering so much from a regard to holiness, lest the interests of that should be hurt in the least degree, and so much to bear testimony against sin and to discountenance, disgrace and destroy it, implies a cordial approbation and an exceeding esteem of those things which so much was done to preserve, honor and magnify, as altogether worthy to be thus regarded and magnified and treated as so infinitely precious. Tenth. Even a cordial acceptance of that rich and transcendent grace and love of God and Christ exercised and manifested in the salvation of Christ, implies a sight of the transcendent beauty of holiness and cordially embracing it. For he that truly and with all his heart embraces that glorious grace and love, sees the divine beauty of it as a moral perfection of God, or as that in which his moral excellency gloriously shines forth, and so approves and embraces it, and not merely as 'tis something that promotes his private interest. He that accepts God's grace appearing in the salvation of Christ only as related to his interest, don't sincerely and really accept anything that is divine. What he does comes to no more than accepting himself and approving of his own private interest, which is quite a different thing from cordially embracing that glorious attribute of God. But he that with all his heart embraces that divine grace and love which is manifested in Christ's salvation, must of necessity therein embrace all holiness: for he must entirely delight in such a thing, viz. love, and must desire to imitate that divine love manifested in Christ, to have it in his heart and to imitate it in his practice, to make returns of love for love, and so to love God and Christ and imitate his love to men. But such a love to God and man is the sum of all holiness in man. Eleventh. If we particularly consider what is the nature of trusting in Christ, or the thing principally intended by the phrase of "trusting in any person or thing," it will appear that it most directly implies a compliance with Christian practice. For the main thing signified by trusting any person or thing, is a person's venturing some interest in something that he does or puts in practice in an expectation of some benefit to be received from that person or thing. So the phrase, "trusting in Christ," in its main import, signifies a person's being brought fully to consent and determine to run the venture of complying with all the labor and difficulty of that adherence to Christ, and following him, which Christ calls us to in expectation of that benefit offered and exhibited in Christ, which shall countervail the damage. And "trusting in Christ for salvation" is a yielding to venture our whole interest, in forsaking all to cleave to and follow [Christ], in expectation that he will save [us], or that our interest and welfare shall not be lost but shall be advanced in our eternal salvation. This is the same thing as in the fullest manner to forsake all sin and renounce all the objects of lusts, and everything in the whole world that can tempt us to sin, in order to Christian holy practice. Corol. Though the receiving and submitting to Christ in his kingly office directly as such, or as this has a direct respect to the kingly office, is not that which justifies; yet this, as 'tis the proper exercise and expression of trusting in Christ for the benefits of his priesthood, does properly belong to that faith which is the most proper condition or qualification for justification. Twelfth. Even persevering holiness of life is implied in justifying faith, as the faith by which we are justified is persevering faith; and that, although believers are fully justified on the first act of faith. As has been observed elsewhere,Justification by Faith Alone, in Works, 19, 152 ff. the special concern which faith has in our justification, signified by the particle "by," is the influence this qualification has in the dispensations of God's wisdom towards mankind to look upon them as in Christ, who have this qualification through the NATURAL FITNESS of such an estimation or act of God arising from such a qualification. But this fitness lies in perseverance in faith. If it could be so that a man should cease to believe in Christ, and so should not continue to receive him and to be united in his heart to him, it would not be fit that he should continue to be looked upon as one with him; and that, although persons are fully justified and accepted as one with Christ on the first act of faith without waiting till a persevering faith has actually had existence. For it may influence before it has actual existence, because it has existence already implicitly and virtually. The first act of faith virtually implies a perseverance in faith, by virtue of its own nature and God's constitution considered jointly. In its own nature it implies a full consent to and compliance with a persevering adherence to Christ, and particularly in that act of trust, in that adventuring of all on Christ, mentioned under the last particular; and it not only consents to it, but it trusts in Christ to grant it. And such is the divine constitution in the covenant of grace, that they who thus by one act sincerely consent to a persevering faith and holiness, and trust in Christ for it, have it made sure to 'em. Thus a thorough virtue or compliance with God's holy nature and will is implied in everything that belongs to a true justifying faith, and that, whether we consider the things which appertain to the object of faith or to the principle and act of faith. There is nothing belonging to the object of faith that can be received cordially and with the whole heart without [this] thing:JE, Jr., deleted "thing" and inserted "holiness of heart." neither the person of the Savior, nor the happiness he has procured, nor salvation from that misery which he has procured our deliverance from, nor the method and means of his procuring this salvation; neither his atonement nor righteousness, nor his grace and love manifested in procuring our salvation by those means. And there is nothing which belongs to the act of a cordial reception of these things but what implies an hearty and thorough consent to and compliance with holiness: so does the assent that there [is] in it to the truth of the gospel; so does the consent of the inclination and will to Christ and his salvation; so does that encouragement, boldness, hope and expectation that there is in a true faith in Christ as a sufficient Savior; so does a seeking salvation of Christ and applying to him for it; so does that act of trust in Christ for salvation and happiness, in which we venture ourselves and our whole interest for the sake of the good we expect to enjoy in and by Christ. Now if we consider the things which have been mentioned, it will appear that there is implied in justifying faith as real, proper and direct a compliance of the man with holiness as in the terms of justification by the law; and that therefore such a compliance is as well secured in the covenant of grace as in the covenant of works. He that cordially accepts the gospel salvation complies with holiness and renounces sin as directly as he that yields to the law of God. All the difference is, in the one [he] complies with holiness in what he gives to God, in the other he complies with holiness in what he receives and accepts from God. In the one, holiness must be extant as an offering of ours to please and gratify God; in the other, holiness must also be extant as what we receive and accept of from God as the fruit of his free kindness and favor, to save and please us, and make us happy. In the one case, it must be extant as it is a giving ourselves an offering to God for God's sake. In the other case, it must be extant as our receiving God as offering himself to us for our sakes. Though it be true something is consequentially given to God, as pleasing to him, in our receiving God offering himself to us for our help and happiness, yet 'tis not under that notion or view that our receiving God is justifying in the constitution of grace; not as our giving ourselves to God in love to him as something precious to him, but our receiving him offering himself in love to us as something infinitely needful, valuable and sufficient for us. But now an embracing and adhering to [God], or seeking, receiving, accepting, and trusting in and depending upon God as offered in his moral excellency, goodness and sufficiency as our great good and our all in all, a supply of our infinite necessity [and] emptiness, and as our help and salvation from infinite misery, and our fullness for our only all-sufficient and infinite happiness, does as directly imply compliance with and conformity of heart to this divine moral good, as our offering ourselves to God in our moral excellency as an offering or gift grateful and valuable to him. It shows no more conformity of heart to God's moral excellency for us to give ourselves holy to God as the price of his favor and in order to procure our happiness, than with all our hearts to receive God offering himself in his holiness to us as the fruit of his free favor to us, and both as the price of our happiness and our happiness itself. It no more directly shows opposition of our hearts to sin, to avoid it, that we may avoid what is displeasing and hateful to God, and offer up ourselves a pure offering to God that may be pleasing to him and purchase the fruits of his love, than in cordially submitting to the hatred and infinite displeasure of God, and the fruits and testimonies of it in his infinitely dreadful condemnation; and so in cordially accepting salvation from that misery that consists in sin, and with all the heart accepting an infinitely great atonement for sin in a divine Mediator's suffering the infinitely terrible effects of God's displeasure for our sins. It as much shows the consent of our heart to righteousness, cordially to embrace the perfect and infinitely excellent righteousness of God wrought out for [us] as the price of God's favor, as to be willing to offer a perfect but infinitely inferior righteousness of our own as the price of that favor. It shows as true a compliance of the heart with God's glorious moral excellency, when we cordially embrace that moral excellency as exercised in infinite mercy and grace to us, bestowing himself on us, infinitely unworthy by reason of sin, as it does to yield to that moral excellency as appearing in the exercises of God's authority, demanding that we should give ourselves to him as infinitely worthy of us, by reason of his moral glory. A relinquishing all things and wholly denying ourselves to be holy as trusting in God as a Savior, does as effectually secure our holiness as our reserving ourselves only for God and holiness, to be devoted to him [as] a lawgiver. In proposing a cordial acceptance of and trusting in the gospel Savior and salvation as the terms of life, as effectual care is taken to promote and secure the interests of holiness, as in proposing the offering to God the work of righteousness as the term of it. For he that accepts the gospel Savior and salvation, accepts that which is more friendly to holiness and more opposite to sin than the mere legal constitution, as there is in it a far greater manifestation of the malignant dreadful nature and tendency of sin as manifested in the murder of the Son of God; and a greater evidence of the dreadful guilt of sin and God's great displeasure for it, in God's inflicting all the punishment of it on his dear Son; a greater manifestation of the sacredness of God's law and of the authority and majesty of the lawgiver in the regard Christ paid to these; and a greater manifestation of the value and excellency of holiness in the infinite self-denial Christ underwent rather than in the least degree to depart from perfect holiness; and [in] the testimony God the Father has given of his delight in holiness in the evidence of his great delight in his Son's virtue. And besides, divine holiness is exhibited to us in the gospel salvation in a far more endearing light than in the law; God's moral excellency therein so much appears in the riches of his grace towards us. That righteousness which is set forth as our great example, which is infinitely more transcendent, wonderful and amiable than would have been the righteousness of the law performed by us in our own names, is the righteousness by which we are saved. The method of justification in the constitution of grace in Christ tends more to promote holiness than the mere legal constitution, as it tends more to promote humility and self-diffidence, which lays the best foundation for a stable holiness; and it tends to prevent pride and self-sufficience, which greatly exposes to all sin. These two ways of showing respect to God are represented in the different conduct of Mary and Martha which we have an account of in the Luke 10:38 to the end. Martha was concerned to make a feast for Christ, to give to him liberally Mary sat at his feet to hear his word, and showed her respect by receiving from [Christ]; her method was most approved as most becoming the gospel. III. A consent to or compliance with God's moral perfection in both these kinds or ways— both that which is the condition of justification by mere law and that which is the term of the covenant of grace— I say, holiness in both these is in compliance with God's Word, or God's mind and will made known by his voice; and therefore both are in Scripture called obedience. Both are an obeying or yielding to the voice of the Lord. The former is an obeying or yielding to the voice of mere authority demanding a due and just offering to be made from us to God. The latter is obeying the voice of God's grace in making an offer of a great benefit to us, calling and inviting of us to accept of it. The former is an obeying the voice of a supreme Lord and absolute sovereign and creditor demanding that we give ourselves to him as what is his due. The latter is yielding to the voice [of] a friend and benefactor, an heavenly Father and Savior, offering supplies, provision, subsistence, life and salvation to a poor beggar, one maimed, halt and blind, wrethedArchaic for "twisted, contorted." and miserable; [to] the voice of one that offers himself as a spiritual husband, wooing and inviting us to accept him with his infinite love and all that he is and has for our relief and immense happiness, instead of demanding that we should give ourselves to him as our absolute Lord. Here see what I have written concerning the Ten Commandments containing the covenant of grace, "Miscellanies" no. 1353.The reference is to a section of "Miscellanies" no. 1353, "The Two Dispensations Compared, That Under Moses and That Under Christ," entitled "The Ten Commandments Contained Not Only the Covenant of Works but the Covenant of Grace," which extends from MS p. 900, col. 2, to p. 903, col. 1. IV. The expressions of that holiness which is implied in the conditions of both covenants or qualifications for justification, according to each constitution, in the acts, exercises and practice of the person to be justified, are materially and substantially the same, though they differ in form: the one being as receiving from God, the other in rendering to him; and are also circumstantially different, by reason of the different manner in which God now exhibits himself, the different relation and different acts and effects of his perfections, etc. in which he now appears. Yet the holiness being substantially the same, hence the word or voice of God that directs them and is their rule is substantially the same. The precepts, calls or directions that direct them are the same in matter and substance. They are the same commands delivered in a different manner: as the terms of the legal covenant, they were delivered with thunder and lightning; as the terms of the new covenant, 'tis with the sweet voice of the love of God. V. That God hath so ordered the covenant of grace that it should agree with a mere covenant of works [in] that respect, that in the latter, justification is always connected with holiness in the person justified, and that so strictly, and should be so implied in the special qualification for justification, arises from the holiness of God and from his love to holiness and hatred of sin; or, in other words, from his delight in the beauty of holiness and his abhorrence of the deformity of sin. It arises from this, that God has so ordered that a holy qualification should be the condition of justification in the way of justification by Christ as well as in the way of justification by mere law. Because God was holy, and delighted in holiness and hated sin, therefore he would appoint no way of justification but such as tended to promote holiness. It was from God's love to holiness and hatred of sin that God would appoint no savior but a holy Savior, no salvation but a holy salvation, and no way of salvation but a holy way, and would order everything pertaining to the salvation he bestows so as to manifyArchaic for "make man-like." and encourage and promote holiness, and discountenance and discourage sin. And therefore, God's hatred of sin and love to holiness is a good evidence that unholy persons can't be interested in this salvation, and that none but those that are sincerely holy can be God's favorites: for if it were [so], that would show that the way of salvation was an unholy way, and that would not consist with the infinite holiness of him that appointed this way, and his infinite delight in holiness and hatred of sin. And therefore 'tis no wonder that these things should be implied in many parts of the Scripture— viz. that God, being holy and delighting in holiness and hating iniquity, none but the truly and sincerely holy can be interested in his pardon, favor and salvation— and yet this not be in the least inconsistent with the great doctrine of free justification by faith without works of the law, and not as by our righteousness, as I have explained: viz. God's esteeming faith in Christ, or our cordial receiving him and his salvation as a fit qualification, in such as he shall look upon as interested in that Savior and salvation, not at all on the account of the moral value of the believer considered as in himself, but only on the account of the natural fitness of such a thing as active union and willing acceptance in rational volitive agents in order to their being accounted united and interested.JE deletes: "God's delight in holiness and hatred of sin may be a reason why he insists upon it that no moral fitness be against a person's redemption as interested in Christ, and yet not admit a person for the sake of a positive moral fitness for that state. If sinners were wicked and without sincere holiness, moral fitness would be against their redemption, because it would be a direct encouraging sin, which is a morally unfit thing." We must distinguish between the moral fitness of God's own act in justifying and the moral fitness of the subject of justification for that privilege, or any kind [of] merit or moral value recommending to it. God may insist on things being so ordered that no unholy person be interested in Christ and his salvation, or that none be admitted that have not sincere holiness, because his own act in doing otherwise would be morally unfit— it would not be a holy act, as such an act would be to countenance and encourage sin— and because his holiness makes him delight in doing holy acts; and his insisting on holiness may be a morally fit and holy act, and what he may delight in on that account, and this be very consistent with his not justifying the believer or admitting him to an interest in Christ on account of the value of his moral excellency recommending to it. God's having respect to holiness and moral beauty as what he seeks and as an effect he intends to accomplish and aims at as his end in contriving of the method for the justification of the sinner, is a quite different thing from his having respect to it as already effected by another and already extant in the subject of justification, as the ground of his act in bestowing the benefit, as the purchase of the benefit. God's making holiness his end in justifying a sinner, or in contriving a method of justification, is no manner of evidence of his justifying him for the value of his holiness, or the value of his person consisting in his holiness, recommending him to such a benefit, any more than his creating a being out of nothing in order to such an end. In which case, the merit or moral value of the subject of creation can't be the ground or price of the benefit of creation, because the subject has as yet no being and therefore can have [no] moral value to purchase such a benefit. VI. Men are rewarded for the loveliness of their righteousness now, as under the first covenant, only with this difference: that then they should have been rewarded as in themselves, now as in Christ. Though it be entirely without any regard to a moral fitness or value of the believer that he is admitted to an interest in Christ and his righteousness, yet after [he] is interested in these, then consequentially on such a relation and interest, the believer's holiness, taken with his freedom from guilt which he already has, and also with his relation to Christ, who has in himself so great a moral value: I say, the believer's holiness, viewed in these circumstances, is looked upon as a beauty and excellency having in it a great moral value in the sight of God, recommending to great favor and complacence and infinite rewards, and is a secondary recommendation to and worthiness of that eternal life and happiness which Christ has promised to bestow on believers in heaven. Christ's own righteousness is the primary and fundamental absolute worthiness and recommendation; the believer's inherent holiness is a secondary, dependent and derivative worthiness. VII. It is true now, under the new covenant, that every virtue and grace of God's Spirit, and all true obedience and holy practice, does, by virtue of God's promise, give a right or title to pardon and God's favor, and all the happy consequences and fruits of it, and all the blessings dependent on it. For God very often, both in the Old Testament and New, promises those things not only to faith but to the fruits and concomitants of faith, which are the distinguishing signs and marks of it; and therefore, the having these fruits and marks gives a title by virtue of God's promise, as well as faith: for what God promises, he obliges himself to fulfill. Those who have God's promises, have a title to the thing promised. If a divine promise be annexed to a qualification that is the fruit or mark of faith, then a title to the thing promised is annexed to it; and the [faith that]JE, Jr.'s insert. produced that fruit or mark mentioned in the promise, is a sufficient ground for a claim of the promised benefit, let what will have been the motives and inducements on which it pleased God to make such promises. He may annex promises to those things, and yet they not be the things that in his eyes are the primary inducement to him to bestow such benefits, nor be regarded as the price of the benefits. The things whose value recommends them, and whose value induces him to receive them to such favor, may be entirely diverse. And not only [so], but those things may not be the qualifications wherein the proper capacity and natural fitness for the benefit consists. But it may be because God knows they always attend that qualification wherein the proper capacity consists, so that evermore where one is, the other is, and where one is not, the other is not, they being the fruits and sure and distinguishing marks of it. If the case be [so], no damage or inconvenience can arise in connecting those things and the benefit together by promise, any more than in thus connecting the benefit to the qualification, which is the proper price of the benefit, or that wherein the proper capacity and natural fitness for it does primarily consist. VIII. Though now, under the constitution of grace, Christ's righteousness alone is the primary and fundamental absolute worthiness and moral recommendation of fallen man to God's favor and eternal salvation, and faith alone be the qualification by which they are admitted to an interest in Christ and his righteousness— and that not as a moral value recommending to it but only as a natural fitness that renders God's act wise in esteeming them in Christ— yet under all constitutions, that which condemns and exposes to eternal destruction is sin, and that as a moral unfitness for life and happiness, and a moral fitness, worthiness and most proper desert of misery, as having a deformity and demerit of which eternal destruction is the proper compensation. THE THINGS WHEREIN THE WAY OF JUSTIFICATION BY MERE LAW AND THAT BY GRACE THROUGH CHRIST DIFFER AS TO THE QUALIFICATION OF THE SUBJECT THAT PRIMARILY ENTITLES HIM TO JUSTIFICATIONA later copyist wrote above the title: "This is copied in sheets 17–18." I. The primary qualification in the former is the righteousness or moral goodness itself on the account of the value of which, in God's sight, the person is justified. The qualification in the latter way gives a person a title to justification not at all on the account of its moral value in the sight of God, but only on the account of the relation it has to a righteousness wrought out by another, wherein that value consists, on the account of which God bestows such a privilege. In the former, the qualification prevails because it is itself the value or price for which God justifies. In the latter, it prevails only because it has such a relation to the value or price for which God justifies. II. In the former way, the qualification in the person to be justified gives an interest in the benefit of justification more directly and immediately than in the latter. The very next benefit which the qualification gives the person in the former way is justification, or acceptance as a person directly recommended and immediately entitled to God's everlasting favor and eternal life. In the latter way, the next benefit which the inherent qualification brings the person to is not justification or acceptance to eternal life itself, but an interest in Christ, a being looked upon as in him, united and belonging to him who has a valuable righteousness; and consequentially on this, and in the second step, that benefit is obtained of being interested in that acceptance to eternal favor and life, which is the reward of hisJE, Jr., deleted this word and inserted "Christ's" to clarify the reference. righteousness. The next or immediate benefit in the former case is justification itself. The next benefit in the latter case is an interest in him by whom justification comes. III. The way in which the two diverse inherent qualifications interest the subject in their respective next and immediate benefits is not the same. The way in which the qualification appointed in the former way (viz. man's own righteousness) interests in the next benefit, which is justification itself, is by recommending to it through its own intrinsic moral value. The way in which the qualification appointed in the latter way, even faith in Christ, interests in its next immediate benefit, even an interest in Christ, is not on account of any moral value of faith in the sight of God, but only on account of a proper capacity which it implies for such a benefit. God don't want a price or value to purchase, or beauty to recommend to the benefit, as things are established in the constitution of free grace in Christ; but he insists on a proper capacity to receive, so that there should be a natural agreement between the qualification and capacity of the subject and the benefit that he is to be the subject of, that they may well consist together, and not be in nature repugnant one to another. IV. The ways in which the different qualifications in the two ways of justification interest the subject in their respective next and immediate benefits, are not only diverse but opposite: that is, that relation or respect, which the qualification appointed in the way of gospel grace (even faith in Christ) has to the benefit— which relation is the thing that renders it a proper qualification for that benefit— is in some respect opposite to that relation or respect which the qualification appointed in the mere legal constitution (viz. our own righteousness) has to the benefit to be received, which renders that a proper qualification for the benefit. That which renders men's own perfect righteousness the qualification in the legal way a proper qualification for the benefit, is that, by that, men offer a proper value to God for it. But the relation that faith bears to the benefit is not respected in the affair as giving anything to God, but only as receiving from God. The former is as it were offering a price for the benefit. The latter is as it were offering the prayer of a beggar, or exhibiting to God that in the heart of which prayer is the expression. The one is coming with money, as one that has an estate and fullness of his own to answer God's righteous demands; the other is to come as a poor man, empty and needy, seeking, depending and receiving from God, as answering the free offer and invitation of infinite grace. Dr. Goodwin's Works, vol. 1, Pt. 2, p. 287: "As the whole of salvation is a mere free gift of grace, so is faith a mere receiver. For if there be anything given by grace, and grace be acknowledged [by] the giver, you must have something that must receive, and in receiving must give all back again to grace, and that is nothing else but faith… It was a speech of the ancients that faith only is the apprehending and receiving principle, takes all in God would not that grace should save us by that which should return something to him, but by that which should be only a receiver."The Works of Thomas Goodwin (5 vols. London, 1681–1704), 1, Pt. 2, p. 287. The quote appears in the second part of An Exposition of the Epistle to the Ephesians, Sermon XXI, on Ephesians 2:8–10. V. From these things which have been already mentioned, there arises this other difference: that although the inherent qualification for justification implies real sincere holiness in the way of gospel grace as well as in the legal way, yet the qualification now may be without perfect holiness. If the use and influence of the inherent qualification were the same in our justification, perfect holiness must be requisite still. The use of the inherent qualification in justification, in the first way, is directly to recommend the person in whom it [is], as thereby being a person of moral value, properly recommending him to acceptance as the subject of eternal life. 'Tis plain, in order to this, the holiness must be perfect, because if there be any sin, this is an infinite evil, brings an infinite odiousness and demerit on the person, that all the holiness he can have can in no measure be any balance for; so but that still the person, on the whole, must be looked upon as without any moral value or amiableness, yea, on the contrary, as being infinitely odious. But in the way of gospel grace, the use and influence of the inherent qualification is quite diverse. It is not at all to recommend to any benefit as a moral value of the subject in the sight of God, but only a natural fitness or proper and suitable capacity for it, which may be as [God] has constituted things in Christ without any moral value or preciousness of the subject; and although the person, taken as he is, all things in him being estimated together, is wholly odious and ill-deserving, ungodly and guilty in the sight of God. And thus God justifies the ungodly (Romans 4:5). And though God in his wisdom and holiness would by no means appoint any method of justification but such as tends to promote holiness, yet this may be done if the condition of Justification implies only sincere holiness, that aims and earnestly desires and seeks increase of holiness to perfection as much as is possible, and in the best manner that can be, under man's present circumstances; and indeed, in the end, tends to bring man to a far higher degree of holiness than the legal way of justification by the value of his own perfect righteousness. VI. The method of justification by gospel grace differs from the other with regard to the imperfection of holiness implied in the condition, in another respect: and that is, that a person is justified on one act of faith, and so on the first holy act. In the legal way, justification is not obtained till a man has actually persevered in holiness through an appointed time of probation, and so his holiness is finished and perfect in that respect. But in the way of the gospel, a person is justified before holiness is thus finished, yea, he is justified in the very beginnings of the person's holiness, or as soon as ever his holiness is begun, in the very first point or first step of his holy course; and that, however perseverance in holiness is taken into the account, or he be justified in some sense by persevering holiness in the manner that was before observed. Though it be so, yet God don't wait till the perseverance of faith has actually existed, the same being made sure in the very first act of faith as though it had existed. But it is not thus in the legal method of justification. VII. Yea, there is this further great difference: that in the method of justification by the gospel, a person is justified before he has any habitual holiness, or any holiness as an established principle of action— not before there has been one act of sincere holiness, an act from the bottom of the heart and with the whole soul— yet the establishing holiness as an abiding principle of spiritual life and action is consequent on justification, as has been shown elsewhere.Justification by Faith Alone, in Works, 19, 167–68. And in this sense, again, God justifies the ungodly as he justifies persons without any habitual holiness. VIII. Justification is so far from being consequent on habitual holiness and actual perseverance in it now, as in the way by the law, that both actual perseverance and habitual holiness are benefits that are the fruits of that act of faith by which persons are first justified. They are some of the benefits received, and that God is trusted in for, by that act of faith.
QUESTION: IN WHAT SENSE DID THE SAINTS UNDER THE OLD TESTAMENT BELIEVE IN CHRIST TO JUSTIFICATION?JE, Jr., numbered this essay "1362," to make it contiguous with the "Miscellanies." A later copyist wrote above the title, "this is copied in sheets 3–8." I answer, especially with respect to the church of God under the Mosaic dispensation, in the following positions: I. The person that in Jeremiah 2:2 and in many other places is spoken of as espousing that people Israel to himself, and that went before them in the wilderness, and brought 'em into Canaan, and dwelt amongst them in the Holy of Holies in the tabernacle and temple, was the Son of God, as is most manifest by that, that he is often called the "angel of the Lord," "the angel of God's presence," "the messenger of the covenant," etc. II. It was plainly and fully revealed to the church of Israel that this person was a different person from him in heaven that sustained the dignity and maintained the rights of the Godhead, and acted as first and head and chief in the affairs of God's kingdom; and that this person, that had espoused the church of Israel to himself and dwelt amongst them as their spiritual husband, acted under him as a messenger from him. And as this was sufficiently revealed to that people, so the church of Israel all along understood it. These things are very apparent throughout the Old Testament. It was very plainly and expressly [revealed]JE, Jr.'s insert. in Exodus 23:20–24, "Behold, I send an Angel before thee, to keep thee in the way, and to bring thee into the place which I have prepared. Beware of him, and obey his voice, and provoke him not; for my name is in him. But if thou wilt indeed obey his voice, and do all that I speak; then I will be an enemy unto thine enemies, and an adversary unto thine adversaries. For mine Angel shall go before thee, to bring thee unto the Amorites," etc. Here God reveals that he would commit the care of that congregation to a person that he calls his "angel" or "messenger," in whom was his name or nature; his name, JEHOVAH, by which name God had a little before so solemnly revealed himself to that people by. And he signifies to 'em that this person should have the charge of the people, and should go before 'em as their captain, and bring 'em into the land of the Amorites, etc. (see notes on the place)."Blank Bible" note on Exodus 23:20–23 begins with a reference to "Notes on Scripture" no. 63 and then reads: "God says of this Angel, 'My name is in him.'" JE writes that God had revealed to Israel his name, "I AM THAT I AM." From this sequence JE concludes that when God "says 'My name is in him,' they could naturally understand no other than that name that he had lately revealed himself by." Thus Israel understood that "God's nature was in him." See also Works of Jonathan Edwards, 15, Notes on Scripture, ed. Stephen J. Stein (New Haven, Yale Univ. Press, 1998), 68. And Moses and the people seem to have understood the matter. And therefore afterwards, when this angel appeared to Joshua with a sword drawn in his hand, Joshua 5:13, though at first he did [not] know who he was, yet when once he told him that he was the captain of the Lord's host, Joshua seems to have understood him to be this Angel, and therefore fell on his face. And the Angel teaches Joshua to pay him divine respect by taking off his shoes, because the ground was holy, as Moses was commanded when Jehovah appeared to him at the bush. And this person, that thus had the charge of that church and had so united himself to them, was all along spoken of as a distinct person from him in heaven that acted as first in matters pertaining to the divine government, and was so understood. It is very plain in Ecclesiastes 5, at the beginning: "Keep thy foot when thou goest to the house of God… neither say before the angel, it was an error." The same is manifest, because it is plain that that person that went before 'em in a cloud of glory in the wilderness, and took up his abode among them in a cloud of glory in the temple, was known among them by such names as the "angel of God's presence" (Isaiah 63:9), and the angel of the covenant (Malachi 3:1), who dwelt over the ark that is called the ark of the covenant, that contained the tables that were called the tables of the covenant. What was written on those tables is called the covenant and the book of the law; laid up beside the ark was the book of the covenant. As the ark was the repository for the keeping of the covenant, so the angel that always dwelled upon it in a cloud of glory was the angel of the covenant, or the angel that had the charge and keeping of the covenant. He that went before the children of Israel in the wilderness is called the angel of the Lord (Exodus 14:19), and was so called all along by the nation of the Jews, even till Stephen's time (Acts 7:38). By which the children of Israel must most naturally understand a distinct person from him that was first in the order of acting in the God [head]. And they must no less naturally under [stand] that it was the same person dwelt in the cloud of glory in the tabernacle, that before had gone before 'em in a cloud of glory; for indeed, 'tis represented as being the same cloud. For when the tabernacle was built, the very same pillar of cloud and fire, that had before gone before 'em, came and rested on the tabernacle and took up its abode there, the same glory of the Lord that used to appear in the cloudy pillar (Exodus 40:34 to the end). And though this cloud, and the glory of the Lord in it, afterwards did not cover or fill the whole tabernacle, but only abode in the Holy of Holies, yet it would be unreasonable to imagine that the children of Israel did not esteem it the same glory of the Lord, or a symbol of the presence of the same divine person, that ordinarily dwelt in the Holy of Holies, which had at first filled the whole tabernacle. The same things might be observed concerning the temple, when that was built. See 1 Kings 8:10–12, 2 Chronicles 5:13–14, and 2 Chronicles 7:1–3. It probably was constantly the notion of the Jewish nation that the person that dwelt in the temple and sometimes shone in a visible glory there was a distinct person from the first in the Godhead. And the evangelist John seems to speak the commonest sense of the people when he, referring to the vision Isaiah had of the glory of the Lord filling the temple (Isaiah 6:1, etc.), speaks of the person whose glory he saw as the person of the Son of God and the Messiah (John 12:41). This same person by whom God appeared to the people in the wilderness and in the temple, manifesting himself to their view, is called "the angel of the Lord in Zechariah 12:8. "The house of David shall be as God, as the angel of the Lord before them"; Liphnehem, "before their face" or "in their view." By this angel of the Lord, though he is called "God," must needs to [be] understood a distinct person from him that acts as first in order. See the manifest distinction made between Jehovah sending, and Jehovah sent and dwelling in the midst of the people, Zechariah 2:8–9, Zechariah 2:11 and Zechariah 4:9. These, with many other things in the Old Testament, do sufficiently evince that the Jewish nation had a notion of a distinction of persons in the Godhead, which they probably derived from the ancient patriarchs, the first fathers of mankind, from whom many among the heathen in various parts of the world derived their notion of a triplicity in the Godhead. And there are so frequent and so plain intimations of a distinction of persons in the written revelation which the Jews had, that it could not be otherwise than that they must have such a notion. Many of these intimations are much plainer in the Hebrew language than in the translation. Here— to omit the expressions in some of the first chapters of Genesis, and others in other places like them, and the name Elohim, which is plural, which when applied to the true God is often joined with plural verbs and adjectives— there are some places where the Son of God is spoken in particular as distinct from the Father, as the Lord on earth, or the God of Israel, distinct from Jehovah acting as first and most original in heaven. So Genesis 19:24, "The Lord rained upon Sodom and upon Gomorrah brimstone and fire from the Lord out of heaven." And Hosea 1:7, "But I will [have] mercy upon the house of Judah, and will save them by the Lord their God, and I will not save them by bow, nor by sword, nor by battle, by horses nor by horsemen." Psalms 45:6–7, "Thy throne, O God, is forever and ever: the scepter of thy kingdom is a right scepter. Thou lovest righteousness, and hatest wickedness: therefore God, thy God, hath anointed thee with the oil of gladness above thy fellows." Daniel 9:17, "Now therefore, O our God, hear the prayer of thy servant, and his supplications, and cause thy face to shine upon thy sanctuary that is desolate, for the Lord's sake." Psalms 110:1, "The Lord said unto my Lord, Sit thou on my right hand," etc. The Seventy Interpreters, in translating "the Holy One of Israel," sometimes use the plural number (see "Miscellanies" no. 1249)."Miscellanies" no. 1249, "Trinity," cites the cry of the cherubim in Isaiah 6:3, "Holy, holy, holy," to show "that the Jews of old understood that there were several persons in the Godhead"; the entry also includes the reference here to the Septuagint. 'Tis evident also by the Targums, and other ancient writings of the Jews, that the Jews of old had a notion of a distinction of persons in the Godhead. However, the. modern Jews, out of opposition and enmity to Christianity, do strenuously deny it. Here see Bp. Kidder, Demonstration, Pt. III, pp. 81–83, and 94–97, and so on to p. 116. See concerning the authors of the Targums, ibid., p. 107.Richard Kidder, A Demonstration of the Messias. In Which the Truth of the Christian Religion is Proved, against all the Enemies thereof; but especially against the Jews (2nd corr. ed., London, 1726). JE refers first to Pt. III, ch. IV, "That the Christian's doctrine of the Holy Trinity is no sufficient bar to the Jew's embracing the Christian religion." In pp. 81–83, Kidder maintains that "though this doctrine [the Trinity] is not plainly revealed in the old Testament; yet there are even there fair intimations of it," citing places which "intimate some kind of plurality" (e.g. Genesis 1:26) and others which "intimate a trinity" (e.g. Numbers 6:24–26). Pp. 94–97 appear in ch. V, "The testimony of Philo the Jew, concerning the Holy Trinity, and the λογος." In these pages Kidder considers where Philo provides a mystical interpretation of the cherubims and flaming sword of Genesis 3:24: "'That to the truly one God there were two supreme and primary powers belonging, Goodness and Power. And by Goodness all things were made, and were governed by Power. That there was still a third as a conciliator in the midst of the two former, viz. the Word. That by this Word, God is both a governor and good, and that the cherubims are symbols of these two powers of government and goodness, and the flaming sword of the Word.'" From pp. 94 to 106, Kidder continues his discussion of Philo's understanding of the Logos or Word, and on pp. 106–09 considers the "Chaldee Paraphrasts, who are authors of great esteem among the Jews" in order to show that they also represent the Logos as "a divine person, or God himself." At p. 110 begins ch. VI, "Some objections against what hath been said before," such as that Philo derived his information chiefly from a Plato, heathen writer, and therefore is suspect (pp. 111–13); and that intimations of the Trinity in Jewish writings may be a "novel doctrine." This second person, who went before the people in the wilderness and conversed with them and their fathers, and afterwards dwelt on the mercy seat and often appeared to eminent men, was called by various names of old. Sometimes he was called "the angel of the Lord," "the angel of God's face" or "presence," "the messenger of the covenant"; sometimes "the face of the Lord" or "the presence of the Lord," as when God says, "My presence" (or "my face") "shall go with you" (Exodus 33:14). He is called "the word of God." 2 Samuel 7:21, "For thy word's sake, and according to thine own heart, hast thou done all these great things, to make thy servant know them." See the opinion of the ancient Jews concerning the "word of God" as a divine person, Bp. Kidder's Demonstration, Pt. III, pp. 93–116. See "Miscellanies," no. 1256.On Kidder, Demonstration, Pt. HI, pp. 93–116, see preceding note. In pp. 93–94 Kidder considers Philo's opinion that man is made not in "the image of the supreme God and Father of all things, but of his Word or logos, who is the second God." "For first, he doth distinguish between the person of the Father, and the λογος, whom he elsewhere calls the Son: And secondly, he doth expressly affirm this λογος, or Son to be God." This person was often called the "name of the Lord" (wherein possibly there is some reference to that place where God says, "my name is in him" [Exodus 23:21]). Thus we often read of the place that God chose to place his name there, i.e. to place there the shechinah, which was the symbol of the presence of this angel of the Lord, that had God's name in him. Where we read in our translation, "I will put" (or "place") "my name there," in the original it is, "I will cause my name to inhabit there," plainly speaking of God's name as a person; and sometimes it is so rendered by our translators, as Deuteronomy 12:11. "Then there shall be a place that the Lord your God shall choose to cause his name to dwell there." So the temple is spoken of as an house built for God's name, 1 Chronicles 22:8 and 1 Chronicles 28:3, and 2 Chronicles 6:8–9 and 2 Chronicles 20:9; Jeremiah 48:17; Psalms 5:11 and Psalms 91:14; Isaiah 52:6; 1 Kings 8:43; 2 Chronicles 6:3. And in Psalms 74:7, the temple is called "the dwelling place" of God's name. This name of God, that dwelt in the Holy of Holies, is many ways spoken of as a person. It is spoken of as the object of worship; of knowledge (Micah 6:9, "[the] man of wisdom shall knowKJV: "see." thy name"); of fear (Malachi 4:2); of love; of desire (Isaiah 26:8, Psalms 5:11); of seeking or prayer (Psalms 83:6); and of sanctifying (Isaiah 29:3);JE's reference here is uncertain. Following the reference to Isaiah 29:3, he interlineated the phrase, "giving glory to," but did not complete the thought. of trust and waiting (Psalms 52:9, and many other places). So we read of blaspheming God's name. 'Tis spoken of as hearing and answering prayer, accepting offerings, remembering with mercy, sending help from the sanctuary, and defending and saving his people. Psalms 20:1–3, "The Lord hear thee in the day of trouble; the name of the God of Jacob defend thee; and send thee help from the sanctuary, and strengthen thee out of Zion; remember all thy offerings, and accept thy burnt sacrifice." Psalms 54:1, "Save me by thy name." 'Tis spoken of as approaching or drawing near to his people. Psalms 75:1, "that thy name is near thy wondrous works declare"; i.e. near to his people, dwelling with them and not forsaking them, as appears by the words with which they are introduced and by what follows in the Psalm. Divine attributes are ascribed to this name: as power (Jeremiah 10:6, "For there is none like thee, O Lord; thou art great, and thy name is great in might"); anger (Isaiah 30:27, "Behold, the name of the Lord cometh from afar, burning with his anger, and the burden thereof is heavy: his lips are full of indignation, and his tongue as a devouring fire"). In which place, God's name is evidently spoken of as a person; it has not only the personal attribute of anger, but makes progress, comes and as it were travels from afar, having his lips "full of indignation and his tongue a devouring fire." Van Mastricht speaks of it as a common saying among the Hebrews concerning God's name, הוא ושמו שמו הוא, "He himself is his name, and his name is himself."The van Mastricht reference is to Theoretico-practica Theologia (Utrecht, 1699), II, iv, "De Nominibus Dei," p. 89, col. 1: "Quantum ad locum Psal. xliv. verba ejus immediate præcedentia, victoria, istas, ad ipsum Jehovam referunt: per te hostes nostros feriemus. Nec Judæos latet, πολυδρυλλητον suum, הוא ושמו שמו הוא, ipse homen suum, & nomen suum ipse." Philo the Jew speaks of the Messiah under the appellation of "the name of God." "In his allegories," he speaks of him as "the WORD, the NAME of God, the maker of the world, the great instrument of God whereby he made the world." See Leslie to the Jews, p. 93. See also Bp. Kidder's Demonstration, [Pt. II], p. 103c.[Charles Leslie], A Short and Easie Method with the Jews. Wherein the Certainty of the Christian Religion is Demonstrated with Infallible Proof from the Four Rules made use of against the Deists… (2nd ed. London, 1709), p. 93. The passage reads: "In his Allegories, he calls the Word, the Name of God, and the Maker of the World, or the great Instrument of God, whereby He made the World, the same as our Gospel John 1:3." Leslie goes on to cite Jewish writers who make distinctions between persons in the Godhead. God, to prevent the Jews having any notion of two Gods, and to lead 'em to conceive of the infinitely near relation between that person that more immediately dwelt among them and the first person in the Godhead, as being in him and as having one nature and substance, called him his "name," as properly according to the infant capacity of the church in that day, signifying the relation that there is between him and his idea. When the Scripture speaks of God's name as placed in the temple, there is an allusion rather to a written abiding name than a name pronounced by a vanishing sound. For a written name only is capable of being properly placed or fixed to remain in a place. And therefore, this fixing of God's name is expressed by recording his name (Exodus 20:24). A written name stands as a representation of him whose name it is, and therein is like an image. So Christ is the Father's representation and express image and character, as the expression is in the original of Hebrews 1:3. "The brightness of his glory, and the characterKJV: "express image." of his person." In the temple there was as it were the image and character of God, which was also called his name. This same person, that is so called, appeared in the shechinah in the temple, and is called the "brightness of God's glory." As now 'tis frequently the manner of representing of God on paper and in books not by a picture, as other things are represented, but by the characters of God's name, and particularly the Hebrew characters of the name יהוה, with beams of an effulgent glory about it.See the frontispiece to Works, 11, reproducing a plate from Francis Quarles' Emblems (1693), which illustrates JE's description. It may be further observed that the word "name" is sometimes put for posterity, by which a person was represented and kept in remembrance. See Deuteronomy 25:7, Ruth 4:5, and Isaiah 66:22. Which may show another reason why this divine person is called the name of the Lord, he being his own and only natural Son. Another name by which this person was called in the Old Testament, not much unlike that which was last insisted on, was the GLORY OF THE LORD. Exodus 29:43, "And there will I meet with the children of Israel, and the tabernacle shall be sanctified by my glory." So we often read of the Lord descending on Mt. Sinai and filling the tabernacle and temple. The mercy seat where this person dwelt is called the throne of his glory. Jeremiah 14:21, "Do not abhor us, for thy name's sake, do not disgrace the throne of thy glory." There God's "NAME" and his "GLORY" are the same. So again, Isaiah 59:19, "They shall fear the name of the Lord from the west, and his glory from the rising of the sun." 1 Samuel 2:8, "Thou shalt make them inherit the throne of glory," which is equivalent to that promise of Christ, Revelation 3:21, he shall "sit with me in my throne." 1 Samuel 4:21, "The glory is departed from Israel: for the ark of God is taken." Psalms 78:61, "And delivered his strength into captivity, and his glory into the enemy's hand." Psalms 85:9, "Surely his salvation is nigh unto them that fear him; that glory may dwell in our land." God's glory passed by Moses in the Mount (Exodus 33:22). The temple where the person dwelt that we are speaking of is called the house of God's glory (Isaiah 60:7). The temple was the dwelling place of the glory of the Lord, as of the name of the Lord (Ezekiel 3:12). In Isaiah 3:8, the people are said to have provoked the eyes of God's glory, plainly speaking of the glory of the Lord as a person.The preceding sentence is a later interlineation by JE. In the book of Ezekiel, [we] read of the glory of the Lord ascending from and descending into the temple (Ezekiel 8:4, and Ezekiel 9:3, and Ezekiel 10:18–19, and Ezekiel 11:22, and Ezekiel 43:2). God the Father dwelt in heaven, but his glory dwelt on earth. Psalms 57:5, "Be thou exalted, O God, above the heavens; and thy glory above all the earth." We have the same again in Psalms 108:5. So this person is called God's "honor." Psalms 26:8, "Lord I have loved the habitation of thine house and the place where thine honor dwells." In the original it is, "in the place of the tabernacle of thine honor."The preceding sentence is a later interlineation by JE. It will not seem so strange that the divine Logos or Mind should be called his "name" and his "glory" and "honor," if we duly consider the nature of the language of the Jews, and of the phraseology in use among them. Sometimes even the mind or soul of man seems to be called his name and his honor. Genesis 49:6, "O my soul, come not thou into their secret; unto their assembly, mine honor, be not thou united," where "honor" seems to be the same as "soul." Ecclesiastes 6:4, "For he cometh in with vanity, and departeth in darkness, and his name shall be covered with darkness," where "name" seems to be put for the departed soul. (See note on the place.)"Blank Bible" note on Ecclesiastes 6:4, in part: "As that Logos and Wisdom of God and divine Mind that dwelt in the temple was called God's name, so the mind of man is called his name." JE then refers to his notes on Ecclesiastes 7:1 and Genesis 23:4. 'Tis true those phrases, "the name of the Lord" and "the glory of the Lord" and "God's honor," as used in the Old Testament, are not to be taken only in a personal sense. By the glory and honor of God was sometimes meant the shechinah, or the person that manifested himself in it; and sometimes thereby was meant a great and honorable fame. The same may be observed also of God's name. But these two meanings of these phrases are near akin; as one's name or glory is that by which one's excellency is manifested, shines abroad and is made known, so Christ, who is the essential glory of God and is that word, idea or essential character by which he is known to himself and his glory shines in his own eyes. Another name by which this person was called was the "strength of the Lord." GLORY and STRENGTH were sometimes uses as synonymous phrases. Thus "the sun's going forth in his strength" [Judges 5:31] is the same as the sun's going forth in his glory or brightness. Bright beams are in Scripture used as a symbol of strength, as horns were. Therefore horns and bright beams are the same word in the Hebrew. Habakkuk 3:4, "And his brightness was as the light; he had horns coming out of his hand: and there was the hiding of his power." Thus Moses, because his face shone, is painted with horns. The same person is called both God's glory and his strength, as dwelling on the ark. Psalms 78:61, "And delivered his strength into captivity, and his glory into the enemy's hand," speaking of the captivity of the ark when taken by the Philistines. The ark is called the ark of God's strength (2 Chronicles 6:41 and Psalms 132:8). The same person that is called God's name is also called his strength in Psalms 54:1. "Save me by thy name, and judge me by thy strength." And as God's name and glory dwelt in that which was called the cloud of glory in the Holy of Holies, so in Psalms 68:34–35, "His excellency is over Israel, and his strength is in the clouds. O God, thou art terrible out of thy holy places." (It must be remembered that this Psalm was penned on occasion of carrying the ark into Zion.) The same person is called God's strength. Isaiah 27:5, "Let him take hold of my strength," and Psalms 105:4, "Seek the Lord, and his strength: seek his face evermore." So 1 Chronicles 16:11. In Daniel 11:31, the temple is called "the sanctuary of strength." So in the New Testament, Christ is called "the power of God"[1 Corinthians 1:24]. The same is sometimes called the "arm of the Lord." Isaiah 51:9, "Awake, awake, put on thy strength, O arm of the Lord." Isaiah 53:1, "To whom hath the arm of the Lord been revealed?" Isaiah 40:10, "His arm shall rule for him: behold, his reward is with him, and his work before him." Isaiah 62:8, "The Lord hath sworn by his right hand, by the arm of his strength." So he is called "the rock," "the rock of ages," etc. (Isaiah 26:4). So he is called "the excellency of the Lord" and "the beauty of the Lord," as in that, Psalms 68, which was on occasion of placing the ark in the Holy of Holies in Zion. Psalms 68:34, "His strength is over Israel, and his excellency in the clouds."KJV: "his excellency is over Israel, and his strength is in the clouds." This excellency and strength here mentioned are the same with strength and beauty, mentioned, Psalms 96:6, "Strength and beauty are in his sanctuary." Psalms 90:17, "Let the beauty of the Lord our God be upon us." Isaiah 4:2, "The branch of the Lord shall be beauty and glory." This person in Daniel is called "Michael" (Daniel 10:13, Daniel 10:21 and Daniel 12:1). III. One of the names by which that divine person, that was with the Jews in the wilderness and that dwelt with them in the land of Canaan, was known among them, was "the son of God." There was a divine person that was known among them by that name, as appears by Proverbs 30:4, "what is his name, and what is his son's name, if thou canst tell?" This person, it was evident, was not the first person in the deity, or he that acted as first in the affairs of God's kingdom. And seeing it so plainly appears from what has been already observed, that there was another person noted among the Jews as the messenger or angel of that first person, the angel of his presence, one that had his name, form or nature in him and was called his glory, excellency and beauty, without doubt he was the person that was called "the son of God." This angel of God's presence, in whom was his nature, form and glory, had been wont from time to time to appear in a glorious visible form, in the form of a man beautiful and very illustrious. He did so amongst the Jews, to Ezekiel, Isaiah, Manoah, Joshua, Moses, the seventy elders and others. So he did to the ancient patriarchs, to Abraham, Isaac and Jacob. And so probably he had done to Noah and other holy men that [were]JE, Jr.'s insert. the first fathers of the world of mankind, in those days when there was no written revelation. This person that thus appeared in the form of a man with ineffable beauty, was so known among the Jews and the ancient patriarchs and progenitors of nations, that it was famed among the heathen nations from those; so that they had a tradition of the Son of God appearing in a glorious form of man, as they had many other things about God— his attributes, and works, and persons of the Trinity— from the Israelites and ancient patriarchs. And therefore, when Nebuchadnezzar saw a person with Shadrach, Meshach and Abednego in the burning fiery furnace in such a visible form, he at once supposed it to be this person that he had heard of, that used thus to appear; and therefore he says the form of the fourth is like to [the] Son of God [Daniel 3:25]. Though the Jews had not so clear a revelation of the eternal generation of the angel of the covenant as we now have, yet they being taught that he had the nature, form and glory of God, and that he proceeded from God, and looking on that bright glory in which he was wont to appear in the cloud as the image and representation of God— not that which was most original in the deity, which they conceived of as dwelling in heaven, but as coming from him as an emanation of his glory, which no man could see and live— and an image of it to dwell on earth for mortals to behold: they, according to the manner in which they used the word "son" in their language, were naturally led to call it "the son of God." They and other oriental nations, it seems, called whatsoever person appeared on earth having divine glory and representing the majesty and beauty of the Divine Being, and being an image of him, "the son of God." The Jews called a very wicked man "the son of wickedness" and "the son of Belial"; a valiant man (2 Chronicles 28:6), "the son of valor"; a very afflicted person, "the son of affliction" (Proverbs 31:5). Anointed ones are called "sons of oil" (Zechariah 4:15). The apostles, who were powerful in their preaching, are called "sons of thunder." And they that were remarkably fitted to administer comfort were called "sons of consolation." And earthly rulers in Israel are called "gods" and "sons of the Most High." And created angels, who sometimes appeared in great brightness and majesty, are called "sons of God." How, then, can we suppose any other than [that] they should call that angel of God's presence, that divine person who had the name, glory and beauty of Jehovah in him, and has his image and nature, and was in the most eminent manner set by God as his king in the holy hill of Zion, and was truly vested with divine authority: I say, how could it be otherwise than that they should call this person (which, as has been proved, they conceived as a distinct person from the first person in the Godhead), the Son of God. 'Tis evident by Philo that the Jews esteemed that angel that God appointed over them as the image and Son of God. See Bp. Kidder's Demonstration, Pt. III, pp. 102c, 103c, d, 104b, 105c, d.Kidder, Demonstration, Pt. III, p. 102c, quotes Philo: "'Setling over them the right Word, the first begotten Son, who takes upon him the care of his holy flock, as the vicegerent of this great king, as 'tis written (Exodus 23:23) I will send mine angel before thee, &c.'" P. 103c continues from Philo: "'For if we are not fit to be esteemed the children of God; yet we may be of him, who is his ETERNAL Image, and most holy WORD. For the most ancient WORD is the image of GOD.'" On p. 104b Kidder paraphrases Philo's discussion of the high priest's breastplate, which "was a type of the divine λογος, or divine Word," implying "the necessity of a more perfect advocate with the Father than the Jewish high-priest could be, viz. The Son of God himself, the great anti-type of that breast-plate." And on p. 105c-d Philo again is quoted, this time on Zechariah 6:12. The Greek word for "Branch" "imports the rise of the sun," and Philo's "word's are to this purpose.… This would be a new sort of appellation, if the words were to be understood of a man consisting of body and soul. But if we understand it of that incorporeal being, who bears the image of God, that appellation doth fitly belong to him: For the Father of beings was for the rising of this his most ancient Son, whom he otherwise calls his first-born: And he being born, imitating his father's ways, he formed such species as were agreeable to the archetypal exemplars of his father's, which he had seen."
'Tis evident that it was a received opinion among the Jews unto Christ's time that the person that was the Son of God was a divine [person], was God, or had the nature and authority of God. John 5:17–18, "But Jesus answered them, My Father worketh hitherto, and I work. Therefore the Jews sought the more to kill him, because he not only had broken the sabbath, but said also that God was his Father, making himself equal with God." And John 10:33–36, "For a good work we stone thee not; but for blasphemy; because that thou, being a man, makest thyself God. Jesus answered them, Is it not written in your law, I said, Ye are gods? If he called them gods, unto whom the word of God came, and the scripture cannot be broken; say ye of him, whom the Father hath sanctified, and sent into the world, Thou blasphemest; because I said, I am the Son of God?" And John 19:7, "The Jews answered him, We have a law, and by our law he ought to the, because he made himself the Son of God." IV. The church of Israel understood that this person which has been spoken of had united himself to them in the strictest union, and had espoused them and become their spiritual head and husband, and had most nearly interested himself in their affairs. That solemn covenant transaction, which was between this person and the congregation, is represented as their espousals. And how often and abundantly is the relation and union which was between them and that divine person that dwelt among them, compared to that which is between husband and wife. And there is, or should be, a peculiar mutual delight between husband and wife. So it was understood to be between the angel of the covenant that dwelt in the temple and the church of God. Malachi 3:1, "and the Lord, whom ye seek, shall suddenly come into his temple, even the messenger of the covenant, whom ye delight in: behold, he shall come, saith the Lord God." And [as]JE, Jr.'s insert. persons in a marriage relation were each other's desire, the desire of their eyes, so this divine person was called the "desire" of his church; as in that, Malachi 3:1, "The Lord whom ye seek" (or "desire," as it might have been rendered). And when it is foretold that not only the nation of the Jews should be espoused to Christ, but all nations of the world without distinction, 'tis expressed by this, that he should be "the desire of all nations" (Haggai 2:7). This person's setting his heart on the children of men, choosing them before the foundation of the world to a spouse for himself, is expressed by his "delights" being "with the sons of men." Proverbs 8:30–31, "Then was I by him, as one brought up with him: and I was daily his delight, rejoicing always before him; rejoicing in the habitable part of his earth; and my delights were with the sons of men." And his receiving Israel again to be his espoused people after they had been cast off, is expressed, that she should be called Hephzibah, i.e. "my delight is in her." Isaiah 62:4, "Thou shalt no more be termed Forsaken; neither shall thy land be any more termed Desolate: but thou shalt be called Hephzibah, and thy land Beulah: for the Lord delighteth in thee, and thy land shall be married." This person's strictly uniting himself with that people, setting his affection upon them and interesting himself peculiarly in their welfare, is elegantly set forth in Isaiah 63:8. "For he said, Surely they are my people, children that will not lie: so he was their Savior. In all their affliction he was afflicted, and the angel of his presence saved them: in his love and in his pity he redeemed them; he bare them, and carried them all the days of old." V. The church of Israel had it plainly signified to 'em that God, the first person in the deity, had committed them to the care and charge of this angel of his presence, that he had set him over them to be in a peculiar manner their protector, guide and Savior, and head of their communication and supplies, and God's people trusted in him as such. That God thus set him over them was signified with sufficient plainness in that, Exodus 23:20, "Behold, I send an Angel before thee, to keep thee in the way, and to bring thee unto the place which I have prepared." He is called "the Strength of Israel" (1 Samuel 15:29), and "the Rock of Israel." 2 Samuel 23:3, "The Rock of Israel spake by me." Isaiah 30:29, "as when one goeth with a pipe to come unto the mountain of the Lord, to the RockKJV: "mighty One." of Israel." So he is called a Rock absolutely (Deuteronomy 32:4), their Rock (Deuteronomy 32:18, Deuteronomy 32:30), "our Rock" (Deuteronomy 32:31), the Rock of their salvation Deuteronomy 32:15]. By such names we see that he is called abundantly in the book of Psalms and elsewhere. So he is often called their Redeemer and their Savior, their fortress, their habitation, their shield. And so he [is] called "the Shepherd of Israel." Psalms 80:1, "Give ear, O Shepherd of Israel, thou that leadest Joseph like a flock; thou that dwellest between the cherubims, shine forth." Every nation had their gods to their protectors and saviors, their tutelar deities; and therefore the heathen nations were reproached with [that], that their gods could not save them. They are very often compared with the true God in that respect, viz. their insufficiency for that end for which they were chosen and trusted in, viz. to be a defense, a rock, to be saviors of those that worshipped them. Deuteronomy 32:31, "their rock is not as our Rock, even our enemies themselves being judges." See 1 Samuel 12:20–21; Isaiah 43:1, Isaiah 43:3, Isaiah 43:10–15, and Isaiah 44:5–6, Isaiah 44:17, Isaiah 44:21–24, and Isaiah 45:15–17, Isaiah 45:20–25, and Isaiah 46:1–4, Isaiah 46:7, Isaiah 46:13; Hosea 13:4; Isaiah 49:26, and Isaiah 60:16, and Isaiah 63:8; Psalms 106:21; Deuteronomy 20:4; Jeremiah 2:28 and Jeremiah 3:23; Psalms 3:8; Jonah 2:8–9; Isaiah 25:9; 2 Samuel 7:21–24; 1 Chronicles 17:19–22; Psalms 78:35; Isaiah 41:14, and Isaiah 54:5, and Isaiah 47:4, and Isaiah 48:17. The writers of the Jewish Targums speak of that divine person, whom they called "the Word of the Lord," as the strength, the Redeemer, of God's people. Bp. Kidder's Demonstration, Pt. III, p. 107.In pp. 106–07 of Demonstration, Pt. III, Kidder considers the Chaldee Paraphrasts, including Onkelos, who rendered Genesis 15:1, "I am thy shield," as "My word is thy strength," and Genesis 15:6, "He believed in the Lord," as "He believed in the word of the Lord." "The other Paraphrasts," Kidder continues on p. 107, "speak agreeably to Onkelos in this matter." The several tutelar deities of the nations were called "princes" of those nations. Thus we read of the "prince of Persia" and the "prince of Grecia." But Michael was the prince of Israel. Daniel 10:13, "But the prince of the kingdom of Persia withstood me one and twenty days: and lo, Michael, the first of the chief princes" (so it might be rendered) "came to help me." Daniel 10:20–21, "Then said he, Knowest thou wherefore I am come unto thee? and now will I return to fight with the prince of Persia: and when I am gone forth, lo, the prince of Grecia will come. But I will show thee that which is noted in the scripture of truth: and there is none that holdeth with me in these things, but MICHAEL YOUR PRICE." And ch Daniel 12:1, "And at that time shall MICHAEL stand up, the great prince that STANDETH FOR THE CHILDREN OF THY PEOPLE." Philo calls the Word "the Son of God," "the first begotten Word," "the most ancient angel," "the archangel," "the eternal Image," "the most holy Word." Bp. Kidder's Demonstration, Pt. III, p. 103c, d.For Kidder, Demonstration, Pt. III, p. 103c-d, see above, p. 377, n. 1, and p. 382, n. 9. VI. The people of Israel could not but understand that this person was transcendently dear to God, i.e. to the first person in the deity. It that has been observed already [as] sufficiently manifest that he was, in a peculiar and in the most eminent and transcendent manner, the Son of God; and if they looked upon him so, they must suppose [him] to be answerably beloved of him. His being called the angel of God's presence, or face, led them naturally to conceive that he was, above all others, near to God and as it were in the bosom of his Father. And his being called the glory, honor, excellency and beauty of God would naturally lead them to that thought that he was the object of God's highest delight and complacence. Besides that, he is spoken of as one that was known to be peculiarly beloved of God. Psalms 47:4, "He shall choose our inheritance for us, the excellency of Jacob whom he loved." 'Tis doubtless the same person, who here is called the excellency of Jacob, who is elsewhere called the excellency and beauty and glory of the Lord, and the glory of Israel, as when it was said "the glory is departed from Israel." The gods and saviors and tutelar deities of the several nations are represented as the portion and inheritance which God has given the nations. Deuteronomy 4:19, "and when thou seest the sun, and the moon, and the stars, even all the host of heaven, shouldst be driven to worship them, and serve them, which the Lord thy God hath divided unto all nations under the whole heaven"; i.e. God had given each one their particular gods as their portion or inheritance. But as for Israel, God had not divided to them any such kind of tutelar deity for their portion. Deuteronomy 29:26, "For they went and served other gods, and worshipped them, whom they knew not, and whom he had not dividedKJV: "given." unto them." So it is in the original. God [had] chosen a better inheritance for them, even the excellency of Jacob, whom he loved. The temple was sometimes called, it seems, "the excellency of Jacob" (Amos 6:8). But it seems to be only derivatively, as it is also sometimes called "the beauty of holiness" and, as the ark was called, "the glory." But that which was eminently the glory and excellency of Israel, was that divine person who dwelt in the temple over the ark. VII. The saints in Israel looked on this person as their Mediator, through whom they had acceptance with God in heaven and the forgiveness of their sins, and trusted in him as such. Here see what Rabbi Menachem says of coming to God through the shechinah, in Synopsis, on Psalms 17:15.See Matthew Poole, Synopsis criticorum (4 pts. in 5 vols. London, 1669–76), II, col. 637, esp. II. 5–8: "R. Menachem ad Levit. 10. hæc habet, Nemo venire potest coram celsissimo & benedicto Rege sine Shecinah, (quod est Divina Majestas Dei in Christo;) ideóque dicitur, [nempe hoc loco,] In justitia videbo faciem tuam." This was a natural consequence of those things which have been already mentioned. Seeing they looked upon [it] that he had so espoused them and united himself to them, and so interested himself in their affairs, that he esteemed their affairs his own, and was appointed of God to be their tutelar deity, their head, husband, captain and Redeemer, and had with a most peculiar affection undertaken this, and was also God's own Son, above all others near to him, a person transcendently dear to him, whom he took the most peculiar delight and complacency in as his glory and beauty: it was natural for them to place their confidence in him and trust in him as the Mediator by which such poor, weak, worthless, sinful, miserable and helpless creatures might have access to God, who had his throne in the heavens and acted and held the supreme place in the government of the world, and by whom they were recommended to his acceptance and favor; and so when their minds were oppressed with a sense of guilt, and under all their straits and difficulties,JE, Jr., inserts: "it was natural for them." to have the refuge of their souls in him. As this Michael was thus their prince, appointed to be their protector and Savior, and that had so espoused them, and as he was that great prince that stood for them, agreeable to Daniel 12:1, it was natural for them to look upon it that he was one that stood for them with God as well as with men. The nations in general had that notion concerning their respective tutelar deities, that they were their mediators with the supreme God. "The necessity of a mediator between God and man was a general notion" that all mankind went into from the beginning, and all nations worshipped their particular national deities and images that dwelt among them as mediators. See Prideaux's Connection, vol. 1, pp. 249–51.Humphrey Prideaux, The Old and New Testament connected in the history of the Jews and neighbouring nations (2 vols. London, 1716–18; 9th ed., 4 vols. London, 1725), 1, 249–51, Pt. I, Bk. III, where Prideaux has a discussion of two sects in the ancient world, the Sabians and the Magians, and of the development of the notion of a need for a mediatior between God and humans. The children of Israel had no images, but they had the name of the Lord in the shechinah. This they supposed to be the image and character of the invisible God, the brightness of his glory. The people were led to conceive that it was for the sake of him that was called God's name, that heI.e. God the Father. caused to dwell in his temple, in the place that he chose, that he accepted and blessed them, from many things which God had said to 'em; particularly by that, Exodus 20:24, "in all places where I record my name I will come unto thee, and I will bless thee." And when God did more expressly reveal his appointment of this angel of his presence to be their head, guide and protector, it was intimated as though their acceptance with God depended on their adherence to this person. Exodus 23:20–22, "Behold, I send an Angel before thee… If thou shalt indeed obey his voice, and do all that I speak; then I will be an enemy unto thine enemies, and an adversary unto thine adversaries." That implies that they should be his peculiar favorites. And that the saints trusted in this person that was called the Lord, and the name of the Lord, the word of the law, the strength of the Lord, etc. appears by their prayers, in which they desire to be heard and accepted and pardoned for his sake. Thus Daniel, after the most humble and penitent confession of his sins, says, Daniel 9:17, "Now therefore, O our God, hear the prayer of thy servant, and his supplications, and cause thy face to shine upon thy sanctuary that is desolate, FOR THE LORD'S SAKE." So David, Psalms 31:3, "for thy NAME'S SAKE lead me, and guide me." Psalms 25:11, "For thy NAME'S SAKE, pardon mine iniquity; for it is great." And Psalms 79:9, "Help us, O God of our salvation, for the glory of thy name: and deliver us, and purge away our sins, for thy NAME'S SAKE." Psalms 109:21, "But do thou for me O God the Lord for thy NAME'S SAKE." And Psalms 143:11, "Quicken me, O Lord, for thy NAME'S SAKE." Jeremiah 14:7–8, "O Lord, though our iniquities testify against us, do thou it for thy name's sake: for our backslidings are many; we have sinned against thee. O the hope of Israel, and the savior thereof in time of trouble, why shouldst thou be as a stranger that turneth aside to tarry for a night?" And Jeremiah 14:21, "Do not abhor us, for thy name's sake, do not disgrace the throne of thy GLORY"; i.e. God's mercy seat in the temple, where God's name or glory dwelt. And agreeable to the prayers of God's people were their prophecies,JE, Jr., changed the word to "professions." and what they declared from time to time. 2 Samuel 7:21, "For thy WORD'S SAKE, and according to thine own heart, hast thou done all these great things." Psalms 23:3, "He restoreth my soul: he leadeth in the paths of righteousness for his NAME'S SAKE." Psalms 106:8, "Nevertheless he saved them for his NAME'S SAKE." Agreeable to this also are what God declares from time to time. Isaiah 48:9, JE cites Isaiah 43:25 but quotes Isaiah 48:9. The former passage, which he may also have meant to quote as a proof text, reads, "I, even I, am he that blotteth out thy transgressions for mine own sake, and will not remember thy sins." "For my name's sake will I defer mine anger." 1 Samuel 12:22, "For the Lord will not forsake his people for his great name's sake." Because God saved his people by this person, and for his sake, therefore he says, Hosea 1:7, "I will have mercy upon the house of Judah, and will save them by the Lord their God, and I will not save them by bow, nor by sword, nor by battle, by horses, nor by horsemen." That it was for the sake of that angel of God's presence that loved, pitied and redeemed them out of Egypt, that God forgave the sins of his people, and in remembrance of him and from respect to him showed them mercy notwithstanding their great sins, seems to be plainly signified in Isaiah 63:9–12. "The angel of his presence saved them: in his love and his pity he redeemed them; and he bare them, and carried them all the days of old. But they rebelled, and vexed his holy Spirit: therefore he was turned to be their enemy, and fought against them. Then he remembered the days of old, Moses, and his people, saying, Where is he that brought them up out of the sea with the shepherd of his flock? where is he that put his holy Spirit upon them? That led them by the right hand of Moses with his glorious arm, dividing the water before them," etc. Here God is represented as though, after his wrath, he recollected the great love and pity of that divine person that was their redeemer, and so began to relent. Philo speaks of the Word, the Son of God, and that Angel, spoken of, Exodus 23:23, as the most perfect advocate, by whom was obtained an amnesty of sins and supply of grace and good things, and the true high priest. See Bp. Kidder, [Demonstration], Pt. III, pp. 102c, 104b, and 105.For Kidder, Demonstration, pp. 102c, 104b, see above, p. 382, n. 9. P. 105a–b quotes Philo calling the Logos "divine," "the light, the high-priest, the image of GOD, whom we ought to imitate." In commenting on Leviticus 4:3, Philo states, "The true high-priest, and he who is not falsely so called, is free from sins. Such an high-priest became us, who is holy, harmless, undefiled, separate from sinners, &c." On p. 105c-d, see ibid. This person, agreeable to his office of mediator, thus did as it were cover the nakedness and deformity of the people, and recommended them by his excellency and beauty. He is called "the excellency of Jacob" in the place forementioned, Psalms 47:4; and Amos 8:7, "The Lord hath sworn by the excellency of Jacob." Philo speaks of the Logos, or Word of God, as a middle person standing between God and the creatures, "a supplicant intercessor for mortals with the immortal." Bp. Kidder's Demonstration, Pt. III, p. 106a. The authors of the Jewish Targums speak of the Word of God as that which God looks upon, and for the sake of which he has respect to, the people and will not abhor them. See Kidder's Demonstration, Pt. HI, p. 107a, b, c.In Pt. III, p. 106a of his Demonstration, Kidder considers Philo's comments on the mediatorship and intercession of the Logos: "And what we shall find, that even here he speaks very comfortably to the style of the new Testament. He tells us that the λογος, or Word, had this granted him by his father, that he should stand… in the midst, between GOD and his creatures: That is, A supplicant intercessor for mortals with the immortal, a legate of the ruler to his subjects." On p. 107, speaking of the Jewish Targums, Kidder cites Onkelos who interprets Leviticus 26:9, "I will have respect unto you," as "I will look upon you in my Word"; and for Leviticus 26:11, "I will set my tabernacle amongst you, and my soul shall not abhor you," Onkelos turns "my soul" into "my Word, which must be understood of the… divine Word." On p. 107a–c, also see above, p. 385, n. 3. The people of God trusted in this person to save them from all things that they feared, both from the wrath of God and the wrath of man. Psalms 54:1, "Save me by thy NAME, judge me by thy STRENGTH." Proverbs 18:10, "The NAME of the Lord is a strong tower: the righteous runneth into it, and is safe." And trusting in this person was directed to as the way for sinners to obtain peace and reconciliation with God. Isaiah 27:5, "Or let him take hold of MY STRENGTH, that he may make peace with me; and he shall make peace with me."
VIII. The saints in Israel were led to that apprehension, that their prayers and all the sacrifices which were offered in the temple were accepted, and that God was reconciled to those [that]JE, Jr.'s insert. worshipped and made their offerings there, as though atonement were made and a sweet savor offered. Not on account of the value of their offerings as in themselves, but through that person called God's name who dwelt there as their Mediator, and through his worthiness. 'Tis manifest that God did not expect that his people should bring their sacrifices there with any apprehension that they were acceptable to him [on their]JE, Jr.'s insert. own account, or could make any atonement for their sins through their own virtue or value. For they that had such notions are often reproved in the Old Testament, and it is from time to time spoken of by God as unreasonable and very absurd; as Psalms 50:7, etc., Isaiah 1:11, etc., Psalms 51:16–17, Hosea 6:6, Micah 6:6–8, Psalms 40:6, Jeremiah 7:22–23, Isaiah 66:1–3, Jeremiah 6:20, 1 Samuel 15:22, Ecclesiastes 5:1, Deuteronomy 10:12–14 compared with Psalms 50:7, etc. As, therefore, they that were truly wise among the people did not trust in their sacrifices as though they could recommend them or make atonement for them through any virtue or value at all in them, yet they must conceive from the institution, and what is so abundantly said in the law of Moses of the design of their institution, that some way or other atonement, reconciliation and forgiveness, and acceptance to favor were [to] be obtained in that way of offering sacrifices. And they were evidently led to conceive that it was some way through the love, worthiness and mediation of the angel of the covenant that had espoused them and was appointed to be their head and Redeemer, and as such dwelt in the temple, and was called the name of the Lord. There are many things that show this: First. In its being often expressly required and insisted on that all their sacrifices and offerings should be brought to the place that God should choose to cause his name to dwell there, in order to their being accepted. Deuteronomy 12:5–7, Deuteronomy 12:11, Deuteronomy 12:14; Deuteronomy 14:23–24, Deuteronomy 14:26; Deuteronomy 15:19–20; Deuteronomy 16:2, Deuteronomy 16:6–7. Second. It was revealed that God would be ready to accept their sacrifices and offerings in that place, and that his eyes and his heart should be towards that place because God had placed his name there. Exodus 20:24, "An altar of earth thou shalt make unto me, and shalt sacrifice thereon thy burnt offerings, and thy peace offerings, thy sheep, and thine oxen: in all places where I record my name I will come unto thee, and I will bless thee. 1 Kings 8:29, "That thine eyes and thine heart may be open towards this house night and day, even toward the place of which thou hast said, My name shall be there: that thou mayst hearken to the prayer which thy servant shall make towards this place." And 1 Kings 9:3, "And the Lord said unto him, I have heard thy prayer and thy supplication, that thou hast made before me: I have hallowed this house, which thou hast built, to put my name there forever; and mine eyes and my heart shall be there perpetually." 2 Chronicles 7:12, "I have chosen this place to myself for an house of sacrifice." 2 Chronicles 7:15–16, "Now mine eyes shall be open, and mine ears attent unto the prayer that is made in this place. For now have I chosen and sanctified this house, that my name may be there forever: and mine eyes and my heart shall be there perpetually." Third. It was revealed that when God's people had sinned against him and brought on themselves the divine displeasure, and sought mercy, that in order to their obtaining forgiveness of their sins and favor with God, it was requisite that they should have respect to that place where God's name dwelt, and should come before the Lord that dwelt there. 1 Kings 8:30, "when they shall pray towards this place: and hear in heaven thy dwelling place: and when thou hearest, forgive." 1 Kings 8:33–34, "When thy people Israel be smitten down before the enemy, because they have sinned against thee, and shall turn again unto thee, and confess thy name, and pray, and make supplication unto thee in this house: then hear thou in heaven, and forgive the sin of thy people Israel," etc. 1 Kings 8:35–36, "When heaven is shut up… because they have sinned against thee; if they pray towards this place," etc., "then hear thou in heaven, and forgive the sin of thy servants, and of thy people Israel," etc. So 1 Kings 8:38–39, "and spread forth his hands towards this house: then hear thou in heaven thy dwelling place, and forgive," etc. 1 Kings 8:44–45, "If thy people pray towards the house that I have built for thy name: then hear thou in heaven," etc. So 1 Kings 8:48–49. Thus to obtain forgiveness of sin and favor with God, their hearts must be to the place where God's name dwelt; which shows that it was through God's name that reconciliation and acceptance was obtained.The remainder of the paragraph is a later addition by JE. And the grand reason given for these things, is that God's name was in that house. This was understood by the people and is very expressly signified in Jehosophat's prayer. 2 Chronicles 20:8–9, "and have built thee a sanctuary therein for thy name, saying, If, when evil cometh upon us, as the sword, judgment, or pestilence, or famine, we stand before this house, and in thy presence (for thy NAME is in this house), then thou wilt hear and help."
Fourth. What does abundantly confirm what was last observed is this: that when they prayed towards the place where God's name dwelt, it is signified that in order to their obtaining reconciliation, they must have the respect of their hearts to God's name that was there, and acknowledge their dependence on that, and the sufficiency and glory of that; which is manifest by 1 Kings 8:33–34 of that chapter [1 Kings 8]: "…shall turn again to thee, and confess thy name, and pray, and make supplication unto thee in this house: then hear thou in heaven, and forgive." So 1 Kings 8:35–36, "if they pray towards this place, and confess thy name… then hear thou in heaven, and forgive." Confessing God's name doubtless signifies as much as acknowledging and being sensible of dependence on God's name, and its glory and sufficiency, and trusting in it; as 'tis said, "The name of the Lord is a strong tower: the righteous runneth into it, and is safe" [Proverbs 18:10]. This is confirmed by many places, where the same original word is used. Psalms 122:4, 1 Chronicles 16:8, Psalms 105:1, Isaiah 12:4, Genesis 49:8, Daniel 9:4, Job 40:14. Fifth. What led the people to conceive that the prevalence of their sacrifice, in order to atonement or propitiation, was entirely through the worthiness and mediation of that divine person that appeared above the mercy seat in the Holy of Holies, was the name which God gave the mercy seat and by which he always called it, viz. כַפרֶֹח of which English "mercy seat" is no proper translation. It properly signifies "a propitiary," or "the instrument of atonement," or place where atonement is made, as does the Greek word by which it is called in the Septuagint, and by the Apostle in his Epistle to the Hebrews, ιλαστηριον [Hebrews 9:5]. We find that Christ himself is called ιλαστηριον in Romans 3:25. This signified that whatever was done with the sacrifices at the altar in the court of the temple, and whatever was done in the holy place at the altar of incense, it was by virtue of what was there in the Holy of Holies, over the covering of the ark, that the sacrifices were of any avail, and that atonement was truly made. And our translation of it, "a mercy seat," suggests a wrong idea to us, as though God was represented as having his seat there in the temple over the ark, as accepting the sacrifices and forgiving sins. Whereas this is not agreeable to Scripture representations. The propitiatory is rather represented as the place where atonement was made, and the sacrifice effectually offered, than the place where it was accepted and favor granted. Heaven is constantly represented as being [the] throne of God, andConjecture for a word heavily struck through by JE, Jr. where he sat to hear the prayers and accept the offerings that were made. Thus how often is this repeated by Solomon in 1 Kings 8, when he prays that God would hear, accept and forgive those that should pray towards the temple where God had placed his name: "then hear thou in heaven, thy dwelling place," says he (1 Kings 8:30, 1 Kings 8:32, 1 Kings 8:34, 1 Kings 8:36, 1 Kings 8:39, 1 Kings 8:43, 1 Kings 8:45, 1 Kings 8:49). He don't say, "hear thou on the propitiatory," or "hear thou between the cherubims." Though it be true Jehovah is represented as dwelling in the Holy of Holies over the propitiatory, yet 'tis not so common in Scripture to represent that as his throne, but rather as his footstool (1 Chronicles 28:2; Psalms 99:1, Psalms 99:5 and Psalms 132:7; Isaiah 66:1). And if it be considered as a seat, it was looked on rather as a chariot of the Mediator, a moveable seat, a vehicle to carry to heaven, the fixed everlasting throne of the supreme Judge, than as the throne of the Judge himself. Thus it is called "the chariot of the cherubims" (1 Chronicles 28:18). It is agreeable to Scripture to look on the propitiatory not only as a throne, but also as an altar, and much more in the latter view than in the former. It is not a throne that is a propitiatory, or a place or instrument of atonement, but an altar. The blood of the sacrifices was sprinkled on the propitiatory, and not only before it (Leviticus 16:14–16). That is an altar on which the blood of the sacrifice is offered in order to atonement. Though it be true that the propitiatory was represented as the special place of God's residence and abode, yet God's altar was the place of his abode. God will abide on no other seat in this world among sinful men than on an altar, that is, a propitiatory where atonement is made for sin. So an altar is represented from time to time as the place of God's presence in the Psalms (Psalms 43:4 and Psalms 84:1–3). And perhaps the propitiatory where dwelt God's name in the Holy of Holies, is meant by Solomon, God's altar, in 1 Kings 8:31–32, "If the oath come before thine altar in this house: then hear thou in heaven." Because the place of God's residence is an altar, therefore when he appeared in [a] vision to the prophet Amos, he appeared as standing on the altar (Amos 9:1). Not sitting on it: for the place of God's abode in the temple was rather his footstool than his throne, as was observed before. Formerly, before Moses, God's people had no other external dwelling places for God but altars. The patriarchs, where they went, built altars to the Lord, that God might dwell with them. Jacob called the place where he slept, and had his vision of the Lord, "Beth-el," the house of God, though God did not appear to him as having the place of his abode there, but in heaven. But there was the foot of the ladder of communication from him, and ascent to him in heaven; which ladder, on which angels ascended and descended, was a thing of like signification with the chariot of the cherubims. Jacob there built an altar to God. He set up the stone on which he slept for an altar, and poured oil thereon and vowed that that stone should be God's house, that he [would] repair to it and make use of it as the place of God's special residence. And accordingly, afterwards we find he made use of this stone as an altar, poured a drink offering thereon, and poured oil thereon, and called the name of the place "Beth-el," or the house of God (Genesis 35:13–15). If it were so that the children of Israel looked on the propitiatory as an altar, they must look upon it as such by far in the highest and most eminent manner of any of the altars, it being the very propitiatory, the place where all their sacrifices became an atonement, and where reconciliation was made through him that dwelt there in the cloud of glory, without whom all their sacrifices were nothing. And so they must naturally look on the angel of the covenant that abode there as their most eminent high priest, through whom their sacrifices came up for a sweet savor to God in heaven, and on whom they [were] entirely dependent for a real atonement and peace with God.The remainder of the paragraph is a later addition by JE. Philo the Jew speaks of the Logos or Word as he [of] whom the high priest made use as the most perfect advocate, the Son of God, to procure an amnesty of sins and a supply of grace or good things. (See Kidder's Demonstration, Pt. III, p. 104.)See above, p. 382, n. 9. Philo often calls him high priest,JE deletes: "Ibid p. 105," meaning Kidder, Demonstration. See above, p. 382, n. 9. and the true high priest, and him who is not falsely so called, being free from sins; that the true high priest is not a man but the divine Word. IX. God's people of old must needs understand that that divine person that had espoused that people, and that formerly went before 'em in the wilderness and dwelt among them as their Lord, protector, Mediator and Redeemer, was he that was in future time come into the world in the human nature, who was the Messiah so often promised. They must understand that the Messiah was to be God, or a divine person. In Isaiah 9:6, which is one of the plainest prophecies of the Messiah, and which undoubtedly was universally understood as pointing at him, 'tis very plainly and expressly revealed that he was to be God: "For unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given: and the government shall be on his shoulder: and his name shall be called Wonderful, Counselor, The mighty God, The everlasting Father, The Prince of Peace." And the Messiah's coming, in very many prophecies of it, is foretold as Jehovah's coming. (But see very many things in the prophecies of the Messiah that plainly signified that he was Jehovah, or a divine person, in "Fulfillment of the Prophecies of the Messiah,"JE, Jr.'s footnote: "A ms. of the author designed to be published hereafter." §14.)"Miscellanies" no. 1068, "Fulfillment of the Prophecies of the Messiah," §14 (JE cites "p. 11, etc."), provides prophetic evidence from the Old Testament that the Messiah "was to be God." But if he was to be God, they must conceive of him not as the first person in the Godhead, which is inconsistent with almost everything in the predictions of the Messiah. Therefore, they must look upon him as that other divine person, the messenger or angel of the covenant, that used of old to appear in a human shape under the name of the Angel of the Lord, and that went before 'em in the wilderness and dwelt with them in the tabernacle and temple, appearing in the cloud of glory. And that it was that very person, seems signified in the prophecies by many things. There is the sameness of office: he is abundantly foretold as the protector, guide, captain, redeemer, savior, mediator and husband of his people (see "Fulfillment of Prophecies of the Messiah");Ibid. and as that Angel of the Lord that appeared of old, told Manoah that his name was secret or "wonderful." So 'tis foretold of the Messiah that this should be his name (Isaiah 9:6). It was foretold that the name of the Messiah should be "Immanuel," or GOD WITH US, which very plainly points out the person to be the same that was God with the Jews, espousing them, dwelling with them on earth, strictly united to them as their Savior, and head of communication to them, and their Mediator with God in heaven. And so does that other name given to Messiah in another very plain prophecy of him, viz. JEHOVAH OUR RIGHTEOUSNESS. Whether we understand the word "righteousness" to be a righteousness for their justification, or to signify their vindication and defense from their enemies, pleading their cause as their king, judge and captain of salvation, it plainly points forth what divine person it was, viz. the same that dwelt in the temple over the mercy seat in the cloud of glory. And this again is plainly to be understood by the prophecies of Haggai, Zechariah and Malachi. When the people were lamenting the absence of the shechinah, the "glory of Jehovah," in the second temple, Zechariah comforts 'em, that the man whose name is "the Branch" should come and build the temple of JEHOVAH, and should bear the GLORY, and should sit upon his throne (Zechariah 6:12–13). Here 'tis foretold that the Messiah should bear the glory of Jehovah and sit on the mercy seat, where that glory used to abide; which, with great evidence, points out what divine person the Messiah should be. The prophet Malachi 3:1 comforts them, that the Lord whom they sought, whose absence from the temple they were lamenting, should soon come into his temple, even the messenger, or angel, of the covenant whom they delighted in, or who was as their spiritual husband. And the prophet Haggai 2:7 comforts them, that God will fill that house with glory by the coming of the desire of all nations, i.e. of that divine person who used to appear in the glory above the mercy seat. He shall come not only as the desire and delight and spiritual husband of the Jews, but of all nations. When God says here, "I will fill this house with glory," there is without doubt reference to those things mentioned, Exodus 40:34, "Then a cloud covered the tabernacle,KJV: "the tent of the congregation." and the glory of the Lord filled the tabernacle"; 1 Kings 8:10–11, "The cloud filled the house of the Lord," and "the glory of the Lord filled the house of the Lord." Thus it was when the tabernacle was built: and so when the first temple was built, the cloud of glory filled the temple as a token of the presence of the angel of the covenant. But now when the second temple was built, no such thing appeared; but here 'tis promised that God would fill this house with glory by the coming of the Messiah, as the desire not of the Jews only but all nations. How naturally and necessarily do these things lead them to conceive that that divine person who was to come as the Messiah was that Angel whom they knew by the name of their desire, delight, etc., who used to appear in the tabernacle and temple in the cloud of glory. Another thing that led them to think that that person who was to come into the world with the name and character of Jehovah was the same with the angel of God's presence, was [that] the Messiah was spoken of as in the most eminent manner the beloved of God, in whom his soul delighted (Isaiah 42:1). But we have not only such things as these to argue from, which show how natural and as it were necessary it was for the Jews to suppose the Messiah to be this person, but we have something more certain: we have accounts of facts, recorded in the writings of the Evangelists and the ancient Jewish writers. Thus 'tis manifest by the history of the Evangelists, that it was the received opinion among the Jews that the Messiah was a divine person, and that he was that divine person that was of old called "the son of God." 'Tis manifest that "the son of God" was a common appellation among them for the Messiah, or Christ. Matthew 26:63, "I adjure thee by the living God, that thou tell us whether thou be the Christ, the Son of God." Luke 4:41, "Thou art Christ the Son of God." Matthew 16:16, "Thou art Christ, the Son of the living God." John 6:69, "we believe and are sure that thou art Christ, the Son of the living God." John 11:27, "I believe that thou art Christ, the Son of God, that should come into the world." John 20:31, "That ye may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God." See also Matthew 4:3, Matthew 4:6, and Matthew 27:40, and Matthew 14:33, and Matthew 27:54; Mark 1:1 and Mark 3:11; John 1:34, John 1:43, and many other places. The Son of God they looked upon to be God, or a divine person, as is evident by Matthew 26:63–65; more clearly in Luke 22:70–71, John 10:36 and John 19:7. The same thing, viz. that the Messiah was understood by the Jews to be that person that dwelt in the temple by the name of the "word" and "name" of God is evident by their own ancient writers, and particularly from Philo and the Talmuds. Philo speaks abundantly of the Word of God as a divine person (see Bp. Kidder's Demonstration, Pt. III, pp. 93, etc.). He speaks of this Logos or Word as the first begotten Son of God, and as the very same person that God spoke of when he said, Exodus 23:23, "I will send mine Angel before thee," etc. (Bp. Kidder, Pt. III, p. 102). He calls the same the NAME OF GOD, the first begotten WORD, the Archangel, the eternal Image of God, the man of God (ibid., p. 103),On Kidder, Demonstration, Pt. III, pp. 93–103, where Philo is quoted at length to the effect that the Word is a divine person, see above, p. 382, n. 9, and p. 389, nn. 3–4. the Advocate, the Son that procures an amnesty of sins and a supply of grace and good things. That Philo understood that the person whom he calls the Son of God, the first begotten Son, the Image of God, etc., was the same person with the Messiah, is evident because he applies to him that plain prophecy of the Messiah, Zechariah 6:12, "Behold, the man whose name is the Branch," etc. See Leslie to the Jews, pp. 93, etc.See above, p. 377, n. 1. That this divine person, when he should come as the Messiah, should be incarnate, or become man: for the Messiah is the seed of the woman,MS: "word." JE, Jr., changed it to "woman." the Prophet which God should raise up to his people from the midst of them, of their brethren (Deuteronomy 18:15, Deuteronomy 18:18); was to be of the seed of David, of his house or family, a rod out of the stem of Jesse, a Branch growing out of his root; was to be the son of a virgin (Isaiah 7:14); was to be a child born, a son given (Isaiah 5:6–7). In Daniel 7:13, he is represented in [a] vision as one appearing as the Son of man, and [in] Zechariah 6:12 he is called "the man whose name is the Branch." In Daniel 9:26 it is expressly said, the Messiah shall be "cut off" See also Isaiah 53. X. God's saints in Israel supposed that the Messiah, when he came, or the angel of the covenant, when he should come to dwell amongst men in the human nature, would make an end of their sins and wholly abolish the guilt of then by an atonement which he should make; and that the guilt of their sins, though removed from them and as it were laid upon that divine person who dwelt on the propitiatory in the temple, and was by him taken on himself, yet would not properly [be] abolished and made an end [of] till he should come.JE deletes: "and that their sacrifices which they offered were of avail no otherwise than as they had reference to him and that great sacrifice of the Messiah, which at last should make an end of sin." That the sins of God's people were not truly atoned for and made an end of by their legal sacrifices, but that this was to be done by the Messiah when he came, is expressed in such a manner in the writings of the Old Testament as naturally lead us to suppose that this was the notion of God's people in those times. The prophecies were very plain that the King Messiah, when he came, should be a priest. Psalms 110:4, "The Lord hath sworn, and will not repent, Thou art a priest forever after the order of Melchizedek." Zechariah 6:11–13, "Take silver and gold, and make crowns, and set them upon the head of Joshua the son of Josedech, the high priest; and speak unto him, saying, Thus speaketh the Lord of hosts, Behold my servant whose name is The BRANCH; and he shall grow up out of his place, and he shall build the temple of the Lord; even he shall build the temple of the Lord; and he shall bear the glory, and sit and rule upon his throne; and he shall be a priest upon his throne." It was plainly taught 'em that their legal sacrifices did not make a true atonement for sin. Isaiah 40:16, "And Lebanon is not sufficient to burn, nor the beasts thereof for a burnt offering." Micah 6:6–7, "shall I come before the Lord with burnt offerings, with calves of a year old? will the Lord be pleased with thousands of rams, or ten thousands of rivers of oil? shall I give my firstborn for my transgression, the fruit of my body for the sin of my soul?" Psalms 40:6, "Sacrifice and offering thou didst not desire." Psalms 50:8–12, "I will not reprove thee for thy sacrifices or thy burnt offerings. I will take no bullock out of thine house, nor he goats out of thy stalls. I know all the fowls of the mountains. If I were hungry, I would not tell thee: for the world is mine, with the fullness thereof." Psalms 51:16, "Thou desirest not sacrifices; thou delightest not in burnt offerings." Together with many other places.JE deletes a reference to the texts listed in the second paragraph of pt. VIII, above. Therefore they must conceive that the guilt of their sins remained as yet without a true atonement, though they were as it were left with the angel over the propitiatory. But it was foretold that [when] the Messiah should come, then a true, complete and final atonement should be made. Daniel 9:24, "Seventy weeks are determined upon thy people and upon thy holy city, to make an end of sin, and to make reconciliation for iniquity, and to bring in everlasting righteousness, and to seal up the vision and prophecy, and to anoint the most Holy"; implying that making reconciliation for iniquity was a thing future and had not yet been, and that an end had not been made of sin as yet, notwithstanding all the sacrifices that had been offered. The word which is translated "make reconciliation for iniquity," is the same that is used in the law for making atonement by sacrifice. So that the words imply that the Messiah should offer such an atonement for sin as should make an end of, or "consume the transgression," as the word is, i.e. quite complete the business of reconciliation, so that the sacrifice and oblation should cease and there should be no further atonement or sacrifice to bring sin any more into remembrance as a thing to be atoned for; as 'tis expressly said, Daniel 9:27, that at that very time, in the last half of the last of the seventy weeks, he should "cause the sacrifice and oblation to cease." The same thing seems pretty evidently implied in that, Zechariah 3:8–9, "for, behold, I will bring forth my servant the branch. For behold the stone that I have laid before Joshua; upon one stone shall be seven eyes: behold, I will engrave the graving thereof, and I will remove the iniquity of that land in one day." A thus removing the iniquity of God's people is here spoken of as a new and extraordinary thing, some great thing whereby that should be brought to pass, that is very diverse from what used to be. As much as to say, removing iniquity shall not be a thing continually doing by a long and perpetual series of sacrifices, by which there is continually fresh remembrance made of sin, signifying that a proper atonement was not yet made. But the business shall then be finished in one day, and shall not remain to be done over again; but the work of making reconciliation or atoning for sin shall be from that day forward forever completed. See also Zechariah 13:1, "In that day there shall be a fountain opened to the house of David and the inhabitants of Jerusalem for sin and uncleanness." And therefore 'tis often represented in the prophecies, that forgiveness of sin should be a blessing that should in an eminent manner [be] a consequence of the Messiah's coming. Jeremiah 23:5–7, "Behold, the days come, saith the Lord that I will raise up unto David a righteous Branch… this is the name whereby he shall be called, The Lord our Righteousness. Therefore, behold, the days come, saith the Lord, that they shall no more say, The Lord liveth, which brought up the children of Israel out of the land of Egypt." Compare this with Jeremiah 31:31–34, "Behold, the days come, saith the Lord, that I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and the house of Judah: not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day when I took 'em by the hand to bring 'em out of the land of Egypt… but this shall be the covenant… for I will forgive their iniquity, and I will remember their sin no more." Which implies there shall no more be a constant renovation of the remembrance of sin by repeated sacrifices, agreeable to the Apostle's understanding of this place (Hebrews 8:8–13 and Hebrews 10:10–18). So Jeremiah 33:8, "And I will cleanse them from all their iniquity, whereby they have sinned against me; and I will pardon all their iniquities, whereby they have sinned, and whereby they have transgressed against me." Jeremiah 33:15, "And I will cause the Branch of righteousness," etc. It was signified that the Messiah should thus procure the pardon of sin by a bloody sacrifice which he should offer. Zechariah 9:9–11, "Rejoice greatly, O daughter of Zion; shout, O daughter of Jerusalem… and he shall speak peace unto the heathen… As for thee also, by the blood of thy covenant I have sent forth thy prisoners out of the pit wherein there is no water." Not only do these things make it reasonable to suppose that the Jews understood that the Messiah was to be their high priest, who was to take away the guilt of sin and make a true complete atonement; but it appears to be so in fact, by what was observed before out of Philo, of his being the Mediator, the advocate and true high priest that procures an amnesty or act of oblivion for sins (pp. 382, 385, 389). And Grotius observes (De Veritate, Bk. 5, §15) that it is "a common thing among the Jews to call the Messiah, Ish Copher, i.e. The Appeaser." To that purpose he cites the Chaldee Paraphrast on Canticles 1:14.Hugo Grotius, De Veritate Religionis Christianæ (Paris, 1622). JE apparently used a translation, possibly John Clarke's The Truth of the Christian Religion (3rd ed., London, 1729). Bk. 5, §15, is entitled "With an answer to what is alleged, that [the Messiah's] coming was deferred upon the account of the sins of the people." Grotius' reference reads: "See the Chaldee paraphrase on Canticles 1:14. R. Judas in Chasidim, and r. Simeon in Bereschith Rabba, say, that the Messiah should bear our sins." XI. The saints in Israel understood that the way that the Messiah was to make a proper and true atonement for sin, and make an end of it, was by his own suffering and by offering up himself a sacrifice for sin. The following things determine me to suppose this: First. It is not credible that there should be so much revealed to the church of God from the beginning of the world about the Messiah for the comfort of the church, so that he seems to have been all along the main subject of divine promises and promises given to his people, which predictions it is evident raised great expectations and desires in God's people: I say, that it is not credible that it should be thus, and yet God's people all along be totally ignorant ofMS: "that." The editorial change follows JE, Jr.'s insertion. the main errand of the Messiah into the world and ofMS: "that." The editorial change follows JE, Jr.'s insertion. the main thing that he should do for their benefit. Their expectations, it is manifest, were greatly raised; their dependence on these promises were the main comfort of the church in all these preceding ages. This was the object of the earnest and joyful expectation of Abraham, for he rejoiced to see Christ's day; "he saw it, and was glad" [John 8:56]. It was earnestly desired and waited for by Jacob. Genesis 49:18, "I have waited for thy salvation, O Lord." The same was the language of the hearts of God's church in all times of the old testament. Psalms 14:7, "Oh that the salvation of Israel were come out of Zion! when the Lord bringeth back the captivity of his people, Jacob shall rejoice, and Israel shall be glad." We have the same words, Psalms 53:6. (See "Prophecies of Messiah," §51.)"Miscellanies" no. 1068, "Prophecies of the Messiah," §51, discusses Psalms 14 and Psalms 53 as prophecies of the Messiah's time. This was that which was the object of David's greatest and most earnest desire and expectation, and the main spring of his comfort and joy; as he declares, it was all his salvation and all his desire. Christ tells his disciples, Matthew 13:17, that many prophets and kings and righteous men had desired to see those things which they saw, and had not seen them, and to hear those things which they heard, and had not heard them; Luke 10:24. This is represented as the great object of the desires of the church under the old testament. Canticles 8:1, "O that thou wert as my brother, that sucked the breasts of my mother!" etc. Adam seems to have taken great notice of the first prophecy made of the salvation of the Messiah as the seed of the woman that should bruise the serpent's head, and to have laid fast hold of it, by his changing his wife's name upon it and calling of it "Eve," or "Life," because she is the mother of all living [Genesis 3:20]. The saints that were in Israel at the time of Christ's coming are characterized by this, that they were those that waited "for the consolation of Israel," and "looked for redemption in Jerusalem," and "waited for the kingdom of God" (Mark 15:43, Luke 2:25, Luke 2:38). Second. Especially is this incredible, when there was so much said, and so plainly said, in the ancient prophecies concerning the sufferings and death of the Messiah, and his suffering as a sacrifice and atonement for the sins of his people. The first prophecy of Christ that ever was, under the name of the seed of the woman, spoke plainly of his sufferings. And seeing Adam took so much notice of that prophecy, there is all reason to think he took notice of the prediction of these sufferings. How plainly is it foretold. Daniel 9:26, "And after threescore and two weeks shall the Messiah be cut off." It is impossible this prophecy of the Messiah should be overlooked by the saints in Israel, or be so misunderstood by them as not to understand that the Messiah should die. Again, the prophecy is plain in Zechariah 13:7, "Awake, O sword, against the man that is my fellow: smite the shepherd, and the sheep shall be scattered: and I will turn my hand upon the little ones." But above [all] is the prophecy of the sufferings and death of the Messiah plain and full and impossible not to be observed in Isaiah 52:13 to the end of Isaiah 53. And it was plainly foretold that these sufferings should be as an atonement for the sins of his people. This was intimated with such a plainness in those words in the Daniel 9— "the Messiah shall be cut off, but not for himself" Daniel 9:26]— that the design of 'em could not easily be mistaken. But 'tis declared with abundant fullness and plainness in the Isaiah 53:4: "Surely he hath borne our griefs, and carried our sorrows." Isaiah 53:5, "he was wounded for our transgressions, he was bruised for our iniquities: the chastisement of our peace was upon him; and by his stripes we are healed." Isaiah 53:6, "All we like sheep have gone astray; we have turned every one to his own way; and the Lord hath laid on him the iniquity of us all." Isaiah 53:10, "when thou shalt make his soul an offering for sin." Isaiah 53:11–12, "by his knowledge shall my righteous servant justify many; for he shall bear their iniquities… he hath poured out his soul unto death: and he was numbered with the transgressors; and he bare the sin of many, and made intercession for the transgressors." Third. If the prophecies of the sufferings and atonement of the Messiah had been less plain than they were, yet it would have been no wonder if the saints, who delighted in God's word and made it their meditation day and night, had understood that he was to suffer, and in that way make atonement for sin; and therefore 'tis no strange supposition if we suppose they understood thus much before the prophecies were so plain, considering what we are told of the engagedness of the minds of the prophets and righteous men of old diligently to search into these prophecies and to endeavor to understand them. 'Tis not so much to be wondered at if they had some understanding of those predictions of these things that were clothed with dark figures or symbolical representations, and delivered in enigmatical speeches, seeing it was a great part of the wisdom that was in vogue in those day among the Jews and other nations, to be able to interpret hieroglyphics and parables and to understand enigmas and dark speeches. And there were many of Israel that excelled in that wisdom, especially of the righteous, who had their minds enlightened by the Spirit of God, and who had prophets and priests and the wisest of their nation to instruct them and teach 'em the meaning of God's word.
Fourth. There were ancient traditions found amongst many heathen nations (joined with their traditions concerning a Trinity) concerning the sufferings of the second divine person, [the] son of the first, which it is highly probable were derived from the Jews or came by tradition from the ancient patriarchs, the first fathers of nations, being derived from their doctrine concerning the sufferings of the Messiah, the Son of God: such as the traditions of the Persians concerning the combats of Mithras, the second god of the Persians, the first person that proceeded from the great god Azomazes; the murder of the Orus or second Osiris of the Egyptians, and the second deity of the Egyptians; the banishment of the Apollo of the Greeks, the son of Jupiter; the death of the Adonis of the Phoenicians; the labors of Hercules, the son of Jupiter, who came down to exterminate monsters; and the conflict of the Kiun-Tse of the Chinese (see "Miscellanies" no. 1351, p. 872, [col. 2], c, d, e, and 876, [col. 1], e.)The reference is to two passages in "Miscellanies" no. 1351, "Extracts of the Travels of Cyrus," that replicate the information provided in the paragraph up to this point. In this portion of the entry, JE gives examples from "the traditions of all nations foretell[ing] the coming of a hero who is to descend from heaven to bring back Astrea to the Earth." And 'tis probable that from hence, at least in part, came the custom among the heathen of offering human sacrifices. Fifth. What is a more direct evidence of the fact I would establish, is that it appears by the writings of the ancient Jews them [selves] that they did suppose the Messiah should suffer death, and so make atonement for sin. They interpreted the fifty-third [chapter] of Isaiah of the Messiah (see Bp. Kidder's Demonstration, Pt I, p. 69b). And Grotius, in his treatise De Veritate, etc., Bk. 5, §15, cites Rabbi Judas in Chasidim and Rabbi Simeon in Bereschith Rabba saying "that the Messiah should bear our sins." And the latter Jews are [so] sensible of the plainness of the prophecies of the Messiah's sufferings that they have invented two messiahs: one suffering, and another a triumphing messiah (see Kidder, Pt. I, pp. 69e and 70a).Kidder, Demonstration, Pt. I, p. 69b, on Isaiah 53: "In that chapter the sufferings of the MESSIAS are graphically described: And there never was any people or person, to whom all those particulars recited in that chapter could belong, but to our blessed SAVIOUR, who is the MESSIAS there foretold. The Jews (I mean the more ancient among them) understood that place of the MESSIAS; and whereas among the later Jews we shall find some interpret them in another sense… yet it is manifest, and hath been made so, that these words must be understood of the MESSIAS." Sixth. We can't suppose that our Lord would ever have so severely rebuked Peter for his objecting against what he had told [of] his own ignominious and cruel death, if the revelation of the death and atonement of Christ were so dark that it was not supposed or expected of the saints under the old testament that they should have any understanding of them or any expectation or notion of this great and wonderful event. Seventh. Though it be apparent from many passages of the New Testament that the way of men's salvation by the death and atonement of Jesus Christ was a mystery in a great measure kept hid from God's people through all the ages of the old testament, and this be evident also by the universal surprise of the true disciples of Christ on his crucifixion, these things prove no more than [that] their knowledge of these things was very imperfect in comparison of what it was after Christ's ascension— like a dim moonlight in comparison with daylight. They had doubtless very imperfect notions of the manner of the death and sufferings of Christ. Perhaps their notion was that the devil was to kill him, taken from the first prophecy of the serpent's bruising the heel of the Messiah [Genesis 3:15], from whence probably came the Egyptian fables of Orus' conflict with the serpent Python and Hercules' conflict with monsters. Or they might suppose that he would be slain in war with the heathen nations, who worshipped devils and would be some way headed by the devil in their conflicts with the Messiah, and so in that sense be slain by the devil; but afterwards should come to life again and then carry on the war to a glorious victory over all the heathen nations. Possibly some might think his enemies would take him captive and imprison, judge, condemn and execute him, and so in that the prophecy of Isaiah be fulfilled, "he was taken from prison and from judgment" [Isaiah 53:8]. Eighth. If it should be objected that the Jews in Christ's time— at least the great part of 'em— seemed to be without any notion of a suffering Messiah, and it was very contrary to the apprehensions that were deeply rooted in their minds: I answer that it is very apparent that the nation at that time was exceeding corrupt in principle and practice, and had greatly degenerated and departed in many respects from the purity of the faith of their forefathers, were become more stupid, ignorant and carnal in their notions of things, and had in many respects perverted and made void the doctrine of Moses and the prophets, and had conformed their notions of religion, and so their notions of the Messiah and his salvation and kingdom, to their own carnal, vain and proud disposition of heart. XII. God's people brought and offered their sacrifices, depending upon them for reconciliation to God and acceptance to his favor, no otherwise than as representations of that great sacrifice and atonement of the Messiah, or as having reference and respect to that. This must almost necessarily follow from things which have already [been] observed, viz. that they were sensible those sacrifices were of no avail on their own account, that God did not require 'em because he valued them at all for themselves. Therefore they must suppose it was with a view to something else. It has already been observed that they depended on the Angel that dwelt in the Holy of Holies as their Mediator and advocate to procure for 'em peace and acceptance with God, and that therefore they supposed it requisite their prayers and sacrifices should be directed to the place where he dwelt, and offered with respect to him and a dependence on him to make them acceptable and prevalent, and that they were sensible that on this account the blood of their sacrifices was to be brought into that Holy of Holies and then sprinkled on the seat of this Angel, which God taught 'em to be the propitiatory, to be as it were most eminently the altar of atonement, the grand instrument of propitiation, because their Mediator and divine high priest dwelt there; and that that divine person was the Messiah, who was afterwards to come into the world and make an end of sin by offering a sacrifice that should be truly propitiatory, and that this sacrifice was that of his own blood. Those things, put together, led 'em directly and as it were necessarily to suppose their legal sacrifices were only representations of that great future sacrifice; the sufferings of the beasts they offered, and their consumption in the fire, an image of the future sufferings of the Messiah; and that the sacrifices were of value only as they were related to the Messiah's sacrifice. This was the more natural, considering how common and known a thing it was for God to exhibit spiritual things in symbolical representations, and how common it was in the world in general to represent divine matters by hieroglyphics, allegories and symbolical actions. And 'tis very probable that the truly wise and righteous persons of a good spiritual sense perceived those things as such, were muchMS: "must." JE, Jr. deleted the word and inserted "much." more apt than others to understand the meaning of those types. Hence Christ delivered spiritual things in parables that they might he hid from the wicked, and hence he blames his disciples that they did not understand them. Mark 4:13, "Know ye not this parable? and how then will ye know all parables?" Matthew 15:15–16, "Then answered Peter and said unto him, Declare unto us this parable. And Jesus said, Are ye also yet without understanding?" So Mark 7:17–18 Mark 7:17–18. 'Tis spoken of as the part of true piety, "to understand a proverb and the interpretation; the words of the wise, and their dark sayings" (Proverbs 1:6). The Apostle blames the Christian Hebrews that they were no more apt to understand the types and mysteries of the Old Testament Hebrews 5:11–14, "Of whom" (i.e. of Melchizedek) "we have many things to say, and hard to be uttered, seeing ye are dull of hearing. For when for the time ye ought to be teachers, ye have need that one teach you again which be the first principles of the oracles of God; and are become such as have need of milk, and not of strong meat. For every one that useth milk is unskillful in the word of righteousness: for he is a babe. But strong meat belongeth to them that are of full age, even those who by reason of use have their senses exercised to discern both good and evil." And another thing that confirms the probability of the Jewish saints' trusting in the sacrifice of Christ, as represented by their legal sacrifices, is what we read of Abraham. The Apostle, speaking of the example of the faith of old testament saints, mentions that as one instance, that Abraham, when he offered up his son Isaac, received Christ "in a figure," or ευ παραβολη, as it is in the original [Hebrews 11:19]; i.e. he received the antitype of Christ slain and risen in that type of his son Isaac. That was the time, in all probability (above all others), when Abraham rejoiced to see Christ's day, "and saw it, and was glad" [John 8:56]. If Abraham by faith received Christ and his sacrifice in that type, 'tis likely that the saints received him in the type of the legal sacrifices, concerning which there were much more to lead 'em to understand the sacrifice of Christ as signified thereby. XIII. Such a dependence on the divine Mediator as has been spoken [of] was the revealed and known condition of peace and acceptance with God. It is evident from what has been already said that divine institutions plainly directed to this and were so ordered, as had that language very plain, that looking to this Mediator, confessing him, having respect to him and dependence on him, was required in order to the forgiveness of their sins and the hearing of their prayers, acceptance of their persons and receiving the tokens of God's favor. What was said and done at the dedication of the temple, that has been taken notice of already,See pp. 374–77. very fully declares this. They that walked in darkness were directed to trust in the name of the Lord. The name of the Lord is spoken of as the "strong tower" of the righteous, in which he put his confidence and by which he had safety [Proverbs 18:10]. Sinners, in order to make peace with God, are directed, Isaiah 27:5, to lay hold on God's strength, and it is promised that if they did so they should make peace with God. And 'tis evident it was the way of the saints to trust in this Mediator for acceptance, by their asking for mercy for God's name's sake, etc., as has been before observed.See pp. 386–89. There are also some other things in the Old Testament that would naturally lead wise and considerate and pious persons to suppose that the way to be saved was to look to Christ and trust in him, as particularly that, Isaiah 45:22, "Look to me, and be ye saved, all the ends of the earth"; and Isaiah 45:24–25, "Surely, shall one say, in the Lord have I righteousness and strength: even to him shall men come.… In the Lord shall all the seed of Israel be justified, and shall glory." Isaiah 55:1–3, "Ho, every one that thirsteth, come ye to the waters, and he that hath no money; come ye, yea, come, buy wine and milk without money and without price.… Hearken diligently unto me, and eat ye that which is good, and let your soul delight itself in fatness. Incline your ear, and come unto me: hear, and your soul shall live; and I will make an everlasting covenant with you, even the sure mercies of David." Isaiah 56:4–5, "For thus saith the Lord unto the eunuchs that… take hold of my covenant; even to them will I give in mine house a place and a name." And Isaiah 56:6–7, "Also the sons of the stranger, that join themselves to the Lord… and take hold of my covenant." Isaiah 51:5, "My righteousness is near; my salvation is gone forth, and mine arms shall judge the people; the isles shall wait upon me, and on my arm shall they trust." Isaiah 26:1–4, "In that day shall this song be sung; We have a strong city; salvation will God appoint for walls and for bulwarks. Open ye the gates, that the righteous people that keepeth the truth may enter in. Thou wilt keep him in perfect peace, whose mind is stayed on thee: because he trusteth in thee. Trust in the Lord forever: for in the Lord Jehovah is everlasting strength"; or, "the Rock of Ages," as it is in the Hebrew.צוֹלָמִֽים צֻוּר. Hosea 14:1–3, "Israel, return unto the Lord thy God; for thou hast fallen by thine iniquity. Take with you words, and turn to the Lord: say unto him, Take away all iniquity, and receive us graciously.… Ashur shall not save us; we will not ride upon horses: neither will we say any more to the work of our hands, Ye are our gods: for in thee the fatherless findeth mercy." And if any [think]JE, Jr.'s insert. that the revelations of the way of justification in the Old Testament are too obscure to lead the people to seek and depend upon justification in this way, it may be considered that 'tis certain and beyond dispute that there were many things of an evangelical nature that the church of God under the old testament were fully established in the belief of, and express and plain in their profession of, that the Old Testament itself was no more express and full in than in this way of justification Thus they were full in the belief of the immortality of the soul, as the heathen philosophers were, and so in their belief of the resurrection of the dead, as is evident by the New Testament and by the ancient Jewish writings. By these it is plain those doctrines were esteemed as great and main articles of their faith. And thus I suppose the saints under the old testament trusted in Christ and were justified by faith in him. FAITH,The remaining materials on justification are shorter entries (apparently written contemporaneously with, or very shortly after, the previous essays) on MS pp. 237–39, 241, and 244. wherein its NATURAL FITNESS, etc. consists. The great office that Christ sustains and executes in order to his being the means of our justification, reconciliation and acceptance with God is that of a Mediator. But now, in order to our having an interest in Christ as our Mediator, or his being a mediator for us, and our having the benefit of his mediation, 'tis fit, as Dr. Owen observes (Exposition on Hebrews 8:6, p. 215e), "That he who is Mediator be accepted, trusted and rested in on both sides or parties."John Owen, Exercitations on the Epistle to the Hebrews (4 vols. London, 1668–80), 5, 215. On God's part he is chosen, appointed, accepted and entirely trusted in He is the mediator in whom he is well pleased his elect in whom his soul delighteth. And therefore how fit that he should also on our part be in like manner chosen, trusted and acquiesced in [in] order to his being a mediator for us as we are also intelligent beings capable of act and choice. JUSTIFICATION, a forensic term. See Poole's Synopsis on Isaiah 53:11, the place marked in the margin thus |.JE's copy of Poole's Synopsis criticorum has not been located. However, the reference is in all likelihood to Synopsis III, col. 524: "Justificatio in hoc argumento condemnationi opponitur, ac proinde vox est forensis, judicialem actum notat, non solùm extra doctrinam justificationis." BY FAITH, NATURAL FITNESS. If we consider Christ as a sacrifice offered to atone for sin and obtain the favor of God, how can it be expected that this sacrifice should be looked upon as our sacrifice, or that we should be respected as interested in the sacrifice, unless we are active in the affair, coming to the sacrifice in our hearts, choosing, appointing and constituting it as our sacrifice, looking for pardon and acceptance by it, and trusting in it for these?JE, Jr., heavily overwrote "these." The sacrifices of old were offered for them who were the comers thereunto, and who worshipped God in the [sacrifice]JE, Jr.'s insert. offered, looking and hoping for the benefit of it. See Hebrews 10:1–2. See Papers on Faith.See "Faith" no. [142], below, p. 464. The offerer, in some cases, laid his hands on the head of the sacrifice, therebyMS: "therefore." expressing his consent, choice and appointment of that as his sacrifice to bear and take away his sins, and his expectations of the benefit of atonement by means of that. If we consider Christ in the character of an advocate, how fit is it that, in order to our having him for our advocate to undertake and plead our cause for us, we should commit our cause to him. OBJECTION. One SECTION on this inquiry, viz. whether this doctrine depreciates virtue and holiness in general as to its value, excellency and importance. To show that this doctrine is not made out by unreasonable and unmeaning terms and distinctions. To show particularly how the terms are reasonable and intelligible, and that nothing is requisite but candor in order to an understanding of them. To show how that the distinction our adversaries are obliged to make use of are nice and as unintelligible as justified by works of the law of Moses, or Moses' law, or by works of law considered with respect to the perfection it requires: not by works, i.e. not as meritorious, i.e. by a merit of condignity or by merit of equality, etc., etc.; that by works [they] don't mean good works in general but Jewish works; that by righteousness is not meant righteousness in the ordinary use of that phrase but Pharisaic righteousness, not saved by works merely on the footing of law. See Mayhew, p. 201e.See Mayhew, Sermons, pp. 201–02: "There is a wide difference betwixt saying, that we are justified and saved by works, merely upon the footing of law; (which is what the Apostle denies) and saying, that we are justified and saved, by believing in, and submitting to Him that was the End of the law for righteousness; and who has redeemed us from the curse thereof: (Which is what he denies not.)" This is toward the end of Mayhew's sermon "Of Justification by Faith," based on James 1:21–22. To show particularly how these are the unmeaning, unintelligible distinctions. Remember when writing, consult Dr. Mayhew on the subject.Ibid.
CONCLUSION. Why should any be disposed to oppose this doctrine? What is got by it? There is evidently no advantage to the cause of virtue no increase of obligation or incitement to it; it derogates nothing from the necessity or benefit of it, and surely it more naturally leads to exalt God's grace. To express what I would say of our faith and obedience not justifying by a MORAL FITNESS, thus: that it don't justify or give an interest in Christ by any moral value in it. CONCLUSION. The Scripture is no more wrested from its more obvious and natural sense on our side than on theirs, nor in any measure so much. There are requisite no more, and no more subtle, distinctions and farfetched criticisms to bring the Scripture to speak our meaning than theirs; no, nor need of any subtle far-fetched distinctions in any measure [in] so many cases. All the advantage they have on their side in the manner of arguing, and means made use of to support their scheme, above what we have (if that be any advantage): they clothe themselves with more of the air of haughtiness and contempt. It may probably tend to remove the prejudice from some divines against what I have said of a NATURAL FITNESS in faith if, instead of this, I use the phrase "natural suitableness," and so suppose a moral fitness recommending to a natural suitableness in this qualification, to be looked upon as that which makes the believer one, and so on that account is suitable to bring to an interest in Christ or a communion in his benefits, and to show that this is what is meant by the particle by when we read of being justified by faith; i.e. this is the qualification wherein lies the immediate suitableness, according as infinite grace and wisdom has constituted things, of our coming to an union and interest in Christ and by which we have that union and interest. Concerning DISTINCTIONS made use of by the Calvinists in what they say of justification, see back, concerning Mysteries, pp. 197e, etc.In the preceding section of the "Controversies" notebook, on "Mysteries of Religion," pp. 197–98 (printed in Miscellaneous Observations, pp. 395–96), JE quotes Locke (Essay on Human Understanding, Bk. II, ch. 11, §2) and Turnbull (Moral Philosophy, Pt. I, ch. 3, p. 94) on the importance of making distinctions in making judgments, thereby implying that maintaining "distinctions in religion" is also necessary and reasonable.
"We cannot be justified by any law, according to which we are rightly deemed transgressors.… If on account of a partial obedience only to the law, we really are, and must be reputed offenders; we cannot be accounted by or according to that law.… The Lawgiver cannot account us righteous, without that righteousness which the law he gives requires us to practice.… This is perfectly agreeable to the reasoning of the Apostle on this subject. He concludes upon the impossibility of the justification of any man by the works of a law, from hence, viz. every man being a sinner, and to be proved such by the law: if therefore, there be any force in his reasoning, we must conclude, that no man can be justified by any law; according to which every man, by reason of his defective obedience to it, is rightly denominated a transgressor.… If by this law, supposed to be accommodated to the present state of human imperfection and weakness, men may be justified, on account of their own works, in obedience to it; then it demands or requires not perfect holiness; so far from it, that no unfit action, which hinders not our justification, can truly be accounted criminal.… The absurdity of this distinction of works, is very great, plain and evident; and as it has no foundation in revelation, it hath not in reason; it is no other than a figment, a dream, or foolish invention of men, to evade the force of the Apostle's clear and nervous reasoning on this important subject. "If men are justified in the sight of God by the works of a law, then Christ died in vain.… For if we are justified by our own obedience to a law, then we cannot be accounted sinners by that law; and if we are not transgressors, or reputed such, no atoning sacrifice is required, in order to peace and reconciliation; God hath nothing against us as our Lawgiver, and Judge; his law charges us with no offense, pronounces no threatening against us, nor is the justice of God displeased with us, and, consequently, no propitiatory sacrifice was needful to be offered for us. "God justifies men who work not, and therefore works performed by them, cannot be the cause of their justification. Crellius says, that they work not, or obey not perfectly: this is not to explain, but to contradict the Apostle.… The distinction of working perfectly and imperfectly, is not to be found throughout the Apostle's discourse on this subject." The Apostle says, the justified person worketh not, i.e. in order to his justification. Crellius contradicts this and says, he does work to that end, and his works justify him. These things taken from Mr. John Brine in Answer to Mr. Foster.John Brine, A Vindication of some truths of natural and revealed religion; in answer to the false reasoning of Mr. James Foster, on various subjects (London, 1746), pp. 223–28. JE copied excerpts from this work into "Miscellanies" no. 1357.
That BY WORKS the Apostle means any good works whatsoever, and not only works of the ceremonial law, nor perfect obedience only, appears by Romans 9:11. "For the children not being yet born, NEITHER HAVING DONE ANY GOOD OR EVIL, that the purpose of God according to election might stand, not of works, but of him that calleth." Romans 3:20, "Therefore by the deeds of the law there shall no flesh be justified in his sight." "The learned Vitringa hath with propriety observed that this word is borrowed from Psalms 143:2, and must therefore signify 'to receive the testimony of being righteous from a judge,' and cannot merely signify 'to obtain mercy.' 'To be justified' also sometimes signifies 'to overcome in judgment' (Psalms 51:4), and the expression of being 'just before God' implies the same. And that this is the sense of the word in this Epistle, appears from several passages; particularly Romans 2:3. So that on the whole, as he argues, justification is not a phrase parallel to forgiveness, but refers to a judicial process, and carries in it the idea of acquittal, praise and reward. And indeed it seems to me always ultimately to refer to the being pronounced and treated as righteous in the great day of God's universal judgment. See Romans 2:13, Romans 2:16." Doddridge in loc.The Doddridge quotation may be found in Philip Doddridge, The Family Expositor; or, A Paraphrase and Version of the New Testament (London, 1739–56; Amherst, Mass., 1836), p. 506, n. a. Romans 4:9, "we say that faith was reckoned to Abraham for righteousness." "I think nothing can be easier than to understand how this may be said in full consistence with our being justified by the imputation of the righteousness of Christ, that is, our being treated by God as righteous for the sake of what he has done and suffered: for though this be the meritorious cause of our acceptance with God, yet faith may be said to be imputed to us, εις δικαιοσυην, 'in order to our being justified' or becoming righteous; that is,… as we are charged as debtors in the book of God's account, what Christ has done in fulfilling righteousness for us is charged as the grand balance of the account; but that it may appear that we are, according to the tenor of the gospel, entitled to the benefit of this, it is also entered in the book of God's remembrance 'that we are believers'; and this appearing, we are graciously discharged, yea and rewarded, as if we ourselves had been perfectly innocent and obedient."Doddridge, Family Expositor (1836 ed.), "A Paraphrase and Notes on the Epistle to the Romans," §8, p. 508, n. e.
Stapferus, Theologiæ Polemicæ, Tome IV, p. 24, speaking of the Latitudinarians in England concerning justification, says, "Si vero non justificari operibus, Romans 3 et Romans 4 alibique, id intelligendum esse dicunt, de operibus legis cæremonialis in ritibus et observantiis externis consistentis; nec non de operibus absolute perfectis, sine ullo defectu; ut et de operibus quæ sunt caussa meritoria justificationis coram Deo."Johan Stapfer, Institutiones Theologicæ Polemicæ, Bk. IV, ch. XIII, p. 24. The passage reads in English: "If truly one is not justified by works, as stated in Romans 3 and Romans 4 and elsewhere, which are to be understood as saying, that the works are defined as the legal ceremonies in the rites and they consist of the external observation of these ceremonies, assuredly and certainly concerning the works that are absolutely perfect, without that defect; in order that the works might be the meritorious cause of justification before God." Objection from Revelation 22:14, "Blessed are they that keep his commandments, that they may have right to the tree of life." Dr. Doddridge translates it, "that they may have the privilege to eat of the tree of life."Doddridge, Family Expositor (1836 ed.), "A Paraphrase and Notes on the Revelation of St. John," §27, p. 947.
Jonathan Edwards [1740], Writings on the Trinity, Grace, and Faith (WJE Online Vol. 21) , Ed. Sang Hyun Lee [word count] [jec-wjeo21]. |
|||||
