fully do his duty, or, even obey in one particular precept he should be established in life, happiness, and divine favor; that is, be entitled to the heavenly inheritance. But, in case he should eat of the forbidden fruit, dying he should die: from father to son, from generation to generation, death temporal and eternal should be his portion. save In like manner, when Christ offered to redeem the forfeit ed inheritance, and to that which was lost, by giving his life for the life of the world; the Father, in the covenant of redemption, accepted his offer, on condition, he would not only honor the law with his perfect obedience, as Adam ought to have done, but pay the penalty he incurred by disobedience; in which case, he further engaged to bring in another covenant on better promises than the first, by means of which, he should have a seed, a seed of promise, which should be counted to him for a generation, and to whom, the inheritance should descend. With this better covenant we are all concerned, and with this only for the first is taken away. In this, God covenants with man through Christ, to give eternal life to all who believe in Jesus. Faith in Christ, is the sole condition of this better covenant, which, weeminently style the cov. enant of grace. On this condi. tion the obedience of Christ is the ground of our justification by thelaw; and on the same condition his death is a standing expiatory sacrifice for the personal sins of every individual. But we may not separate what God has joined together. Christ's obedience and death constitute his right cousness, as our sponsor, as explained above. Agreeably to which, God declares his righteousness for the remission of sins, that he may be just, and the justifier of him that believeth in Je sus. Faith in Christ, is of infinite importance. In relation to our justification, it is that without which we cannot be saved. It will not, therefore, be amiss, just to mention here two or three characteristic marks of this faith. "Faith operates by love," not in and through, but by. Faith proceeds from love, as that by which alone it can act. As the waterwheel goes by water, so love to the person, character, and government of Christ, carries round the wheel of faith in all its various exercises. Love in proportion to its strength, produces trust and reliance on Christ, which are the very essence of faith. Hence arises another characteristic, viz. "faith is the substance of things hoped for, and the evidence of things not seen." Trust and reliance rooted and grounded in love, realize and anticipate the promises: the believer is as confident of them, as if they were in actual possession. This is followed by a third characteristic-" Faith purifies the heart as God is pure." The more we love, trust, and confide in Christ, so much more shall we strive to be like him. Love assimilates the heart to the object of love. It is impossible it should be otherwise: hence we read that, "Beholding the glory of the Lord in the face of Jesus Christ, we are changed into the same image, from glory to glory as by the Spirit of the Lord." Such is that faith, which is the term of acceptance with God in the covenant of grace. It is a direct act of love and obedience; and expresses a right frame of of spirit. It is the spirit of Christ, and unites us to him, the true vine, as his spiritual branches; and as such, it is the appointed term of adoption into God's family, as heirs and coheirs with Christ, who is accepted and jus. tified:-"Ye are all the children of God by faith in Christ Jesus; and if ye be Christ's, then are ye Abraham's seed and heirs according to the promise."" Our faith, however, is not the pro. curing cause of righteousness, nor does it work the righteousness of the law; but is that act, by which, we have spiritual and real union to Christ, both in the temper of our minds, and in a covenant relation, and so, are one in him, as he and the Father are one. In virtue of this union, what Christ has done, as our sponsor or mystical head, we are accounted as doing. As is the vine, so are the branches. Is Christ justified, so are his members, "there is no condemnation to them who are in Christ Jesus." Abiding and acting in him, we have his obedience accounted to us: It is the obedience of his mystical body. Accordingly, St. Paul says, "The law is fulfilled in us who walk not after the flesh but after the Spirit." The law viewing the believer in Christ, sees no fault and acquits him, and the judge must pronounce sentence of justification. by his obedience and death, attained to the righteousness of the law, and is justified. His justification, according to the covenant of redemption between the Father and the Son, extends to all his spiritual members; therefore, all that are united to him by faith, are justified with him. May we have grace, in all things, to adorn the doctrines of God our Savior, who gave him. self for us that he might redeem us from all iniquity, and present us faultless before the presence of his glory with exceeding joy. Јов. ON THE DIVINITY OF CHRIST, NO. 9. OBJECTIONS CONSIDERED. IV. CHRIST acknowledges the Father to be the only true God. John xvii. 3. Answer. Since there is but one true God, each person in the godhead is that one only true God. But it is not said that the Father only is the true God exclusively of the other persons of the divine Trinity; nor will these words of Christ support us in saying so. V. It is objected that Christ disclaims some perfections of the Supreme God. Now if he wants any perfection essential to the Deity, he is not God in the highest sense. Answer. As we allow this consequence, so we think it may as justly be concluded, that if Christ has any perfection truly divine, then he is truly God, and does not want any essential perfection. And as we have endeavored to prove that divine To sum up the whole in a word, by a divine and gracious appoint-perfections are ascribed to him, we will now consider whether any essential perfection is dis. claimed by him, or denied to ment, our faith constitutes us spiritual members of Christ. He, as federal head of fallen man, has, him. I say, essential perfection of the Deity. For it is allowed that there are personal attributes, such as unbegotten, only begot. ten, &c. by which the divine persons are distinguished. But the essential attributes of Deity are, we conceive possessed by the Son of God. And we shall now con. sider what is urged to the contrary. 1. It is said that Christ disclaims omnipotency, when he says John v. 19, I can do noth. ing of myself. Surely this is not the voice of a God, but of a man. Answer. But he says also in the same verse "What things soever the Father doth, the same also doth the Son likewise." This I think is the voice of a God, and not of a mere man. He who doth all things that the Father doth must be almighty. Besides, it has been shown that he is al. mighty both from his titles and his works. When Christ says that he can do nothing of himself, his meaning may be that he does nothing of himself separately, without the concurrence and co-operation of the Father. They are united in operation, as well as in essence. Or rather, Christ here speaks as Mediator, an office which he holds and executes under the Father, and agreeably to his commandment. But his conde. scending to become the servant of God for our sakes is no evi. dence that he is not by nature God Almighty. As the Son of God, and Mediator, he received all from the Father. And it was fit, that what Christ received from the Father be ascribed to him, as the Fountain of all power and perfection. It is objected that Christ disclaimed absolute goodness; re. buking the young man who call. ed him good master; adding, there is none good but one, that is God. Answer. The words of Christ "Why callest thou me good," seem to have been spoken by way of inquiry, rather than rebuke, and to admonish him that, to call one absolutely good, was a high. er expression of honor than was proper for a mere man, and that he should not have called him good master unless he meant to honor him as God. And if Christ had spoken in a way of reproof for his giving him a title, which properly belonged to God alone, kneeling before him in a worshipping posture, while he viewed him but as a mere man, I seenot that this implies a disclaiming any divine perfections, though he would not receive idolatrous honors from one who believed him to be but a man. It is also objected that Christ was not omniscient, and therefore was not God in the highest sense. For he owned that he knew not the day, or hour of his second coming, but that this was known to the Father only. Mark xiii. 32. This seems to be one of the most considerable objections, that I have met with. And it has been supported and pressed with great acuteness and spirit. Let us see if this dignus vindice nodus can be untied. Here let it be remembered, that it is testified of Christ, that he knew all things. The apostles had told him so, nor did he inti. mate that this was their mistake. It is also certain that he has that knowledge, which qualifies him to be the Governor and Judge of the world. He has that knowledge which according to the Scriptures is peculiar to God, even the knowledge of the hearts of all the children of men. But what is alleged in the objection looks like a contradiction to it. How can these seeming contradictions be reconciled. The common answer, (and I know no better) is to this effect, Christ being a true man as well as God, his human nature was subject to the imperfection of a finite being. His knowledge was limited. His human mind at that time knew not the day or hour of his coming. It was not then revealed to him as man. Though as God he knew all things, yet a human mind is not capable of omniscience. And the time of his coming, and the end of the world was not to be known by men, and so was not revealed to Christ as the prophet who was sent into the world to teach mankind. The knowledge which he had as teacher was such, as qualified him to execute this office according to the orders he had received. And he might truly say that as a man, instruct. ed to teach his disciples the words of eternal life, he knew not what they inquired for. But to this it is strenuously objected, 1. That this distinction of two natures is not intimated in these discourses of Christ. I answer, The Scriptures testify that Christ is God, and that he is man. This is more than intimation, it is a plain proof that he has two distinct natures. If it is impossible for the same nature to be less than fifty years old, and yet older than Abra ham, when Abraham had been long dead; if a mere man cannot at the same time be in distant places, in heaven and earth; if every thing could not be made by a mere man who had no existence till long after the world was created; if it is impossible, that a mere man should be God over all, blessed for ever, sustain the peculiar names, titles, and attributes of the Supreme Being, do those works which are peculiar to him, and be the object of religious worship to angels and men, then Christ, of whom all these things are affirmed, had a nature distinct from the human. And it is in vain for any to say that this is a mere shift, a cunning invention of men. 2. It is objected, that Christ could not truly say that he knew not the day of judgment, if he knew it as God. For though we may affirm a thing of a person which belongs only to a part of him, yet we cannot truly deny any thing of a person, if it belong to any part of him. I answer, Christ might truly say that he knew not the day of judgment, though as God he was omniscient, if this had not been revealed to his human understanding, and if it were sufficiently evident that he meant only to disclaim this knowledge in res. pect of his human mind. Expressions are true, if the intend. ed meaning of them is true, and sufficiently obvious. And the intended meaning of language is often determined, not barely from the words separately taken, but from the words compared with the known character of the speaker, the subject to which they have relation, with other circumstances. Now supposing Christ to be God (which as respondent I have a right to suppose, especially after the argu. ments which have been adduced in proof of it) taking it also for granted that he was a man, it must now be plain and obvious that if one who is God and man shall own himself ignorant of any thing, he must mean not that he is ignorant of it as God, for God is omniscient, but that he is ignorant of it as man whose knowledge is limited. Therefore they who believed that Christ is God and man, would be in no doubt what his meaning was, and that it was true in the sense obviously intended. It looks more like sophistical cavilling, than fair, candid reasoning for any to say that expressions are not true, when the intended meaning is true, and so obvious to those to whom they were addressed, that they could not be fairly misunderstood. A thing may be truly denied to a person though it belong to a part of him, when it is apparent, that the denial is meant only in respect of the part of which it may truly be denied. So when man is said to be im. mortal, this is denying mortality of him. Yet this is often said in respect of his soul, though in respect of his bodily part he is mortal. So Christ hath said, He that believeth on me shall never die, though all men are mortal. 1 3. It is further argued, If Christ had a divine knowledge, his disciples must be supposed to believe it, and then no doubt they directed their question to the divine knowledge, rather than the imperfect human capacity. Answer. We willingly allow that Christ's disciples believed that he, as God, was omniscient. They said they were sure that he knew all things. And therefore when Christ said that he knew not the time of his second coming, it must be so plain and obvious that this was not meant of his divine nature that there could be no room for doubt, or danger of mistake. But I should think that Christ's disciples directed their question to him as their teacher, and were not so absurd as to expect to receive any information of which he, as man, was ignorant. If they directed their question to him as the omniscient God, yet the answer which Christ gave them shews that he did not answer them as God who knoweth all things. 4. It is further objected, that Christ says the Father only knows the day of his coming; which plainly excludes every other person. And as Christ is confessedly a distinct person from God the Father, this knowl. edge is denied to him by consequence. Yea, it is expressly said in Mark xiii. 32, that the Son knoweth not that day. And his saying that that day is not known to men, or angels, or the Son, shews that he speaks of the Son in his highest character, as superior to the angels and inferior to God alone. Answer. If we look back to the 26th verse we shall see that Christ is here speaking of himself as Son of man, or in his human nature, which being personally united to the divine logos has a dignity superior to the angels, and inferior only to God. Whereas it is said that the Father only knoweth the day of the coming of the Lord, whence |