Chapter XII: Part 12

(1.) That in human covenants, in which things are promised on certain conditions, these conditions are supposed to be possible to be performed, otherwise the promise, depending thereon, is rendered void, and it contains no other than a virtual denial to make it good. Thus the king of Israel did not, at first, understand the message sent him by the king of Syria, requiring of him to heal Naaman of his leprosy, as a condition of peace and friendship between them; and the inference he makes from it was, that he had a design to seek a quarrel against him; and his reasoning would have been just, had it been intended in this sense, since the condition was not in his own power. Moreover, if a master should tell his servant, that he would give him a reward, in case he would perform the work of ten days in one, he would conclude nothing else from it, but that he was resolved not to give him any thing. Now, to apply this to our present purpose, we must consider whether faith, when it is a condition of the covenant of grace, be in our own power or no. There are some external acts thereof, indeed, which are so; but these are too low to be deemed conditions of salvation, or of the blessings of the covenant of grace; and as for those acts which are supernatural, or the effects of the exceeding greatness of the power of God, though they are inseparably connected with salvation, yet they are not in our power; so as that we may conclude, that they are proposed as conditions, in the same sense as those things are said to be, that are supposed to contain this ingredient in them.

In this respect, the covenant of grace, as to the conditionality of it, differs from the covenant of innocency, in which perfect obedience, which was the condition thereof, was so far in man’s power, that he could have performed it, without the superadded assistance of divine grace: but when, on the other hand, perfect obedience is considered, as a condition of fallen man’s _entering into life_, in which sense our Saviour’s reply to the young man’s question, in Matt. xix. 17. is understood by many, this is a plain intimation that eternal life is not to be obtained this way, inasmuch as the condition is impossible.

(2.) When conditions are insisted on, in human covenants, it is generally supposed, that though it be possible for the person, that enjoins them, to assist, and enable him, who is under this obligation, to perform them, yet he will not give him that assistance; for, if he does, the contract can hardly be reckoned conditional, but absolute: thus if a creditor should tell an insolvent debtor, that he will discharge him, provided he pays the debt, and, at the same time, gives him to understand that he will supply him with a sum of money, that shall enable him to do it, this is altogether the same as though he had discharged him, without any conditional demand of payment. This I cannot but mention, because there are some persons, who speak of faith, as a condition of the covenant of grace, and, at the same time, take it for granted, that it is not in our own power to perform it: nevertheless, since God has promised that he will work it in us, they conclude it to be conditional; whereas such a promise as this would render the covenant absolute, or, at least, not conditional, in the same sense, in which human covenants are, and only infer what we do not deny, that there is a necessary connexion between that grace, which God will enable us to perform, and salvation, which he has promised in this covenant.

(3.) When any thing is promised to another, on condition that he do what is enjoined on him, it is generally supposed that it is a dubious and uncertain matter whether this condition shall be fulfilled, and the promise take place; or, as I may express it, every condition contains not a necessary, but an uncertain connexion between the promised advantage, and the duty enjoined, and that for this reason, because all human covenants depend on the power and will of men, who are under conditional engagements to perform what is demanded therein; and these are supposed to be mutable and defective, and, as far as they are so, the performance of the condition may be reckoned dubious; and he that made the promise is liable to the same uncertainty, whether he shall make it good or no. This will hardly be denied, by those who defend the other side of the question, who, in explaining the nature of human liberty, generally suppose, that every one, who acts freely, might do the contrary; therefore they must, from hence, conclude, that, if the performing the conditions of a covenant be the result of man’s free will, it is possible for him not to perform them, and therefore it must be a matter of uncertainty, whether a person, who promises a reward upon the performance of these conditions, will confer it or no. But, however this may be applied to human covenants, we are not to suppose that faith, or any other grace, is, in this respect, a condition of the covenant of grace, as though God’s conferring the blessings promised therein were dependent on the will of man, as determining itself to the exercise of these graces; in this respect, we cannot but deny the covenant of grace to be conditional.

(4.) If we take an estimate of the worth and value of a condition enjoined, the advantages that he, who enjoins it, expects to receive from it, or the reference that the performance thereof has to the procuring the blessing promised, in which case the person, who has fulfilled it, may be said to merit, or have whereof to glory in himself, as to what concerns the part he has performed therein: this must not be applied to any transaction between God and man, and therefore is wholly to be excluded from those ideas, which are contained in the word _condition_, when applied to the covenant of grace, as will be allowed by most, who do not give into the Popish doctrine of the merit of good works. Concerning the worth and value of faith, and all other graces, I would not be thought, in the least, to depreciate or divest them of that excellency, which they have, above all other effects of God’s power and blessings of providence; whereas certainly we ought to bless God for them, or glory in him, as the Author of them: but that which we would fence against in this matter, is nothing more than what our Saviour does, when he says, _When ye shall have done all those things which are commanded you, say, We are unprofitable servants_, Luke xvii. 10. And I would not have any one suppose, that whatever condition is performed by us, has such a value put on it, as that eternal life is hereupon due to us, in a way of debt, which would make way for boasting. It is true, the conditions which Christ performed in that branch of the covenant, which more immediately respected himself, which some call the covenant of redemption, were properly meritorious, and the blessings he purchased thereby were given him in a way of debt, and not as an undeserved favour: but, if we suppose that there is the same reference of faith, or any other grace acted by us, to that salvation, which we expect, we turn the covenant of grace into a covenant of works, and resolve that into ourselves which is due to God alone.

But since many excellent divines have asserted faith to be a condition of the covenant of grace, who do not understand the word _condition_, either as containing in it any thing dubious or uncertain on the one hand, or meritorious on the other; and probably they choose to express themselves so, in compliance with custom, and to explain away the common ideas of the word _condition_, as applied to human covenants, rather than altogether to lay it aside; and, it may be, they do this, lest they should be thought to deny the necessary connexion between faith and salvation: I shall therefore, for the same reason, conclude this head with the following propositions, whereby our not using the word _condition_, may be vindicated, from any just exception; or, our using of it may not appear to be inconsistent with the divine perfections, or the grace of this covenant. Therefore,

_1st_, We shall lay down this as an undoubted truth, the denial whereof would be subversive of all religion, that faith, and all other graces, are required by God, and our obligation thereunto is indispensible; whether it be reckoned a condition of the covenant or no, it is no less a duty.[100] It is true, there are some who distinguish between the obligation of a law, and that of a covenant; the former of which depends on an express command; the latter is the result of some blessings promised or conferred, which has in it the obligation of a law, but not the formal nature of it; and therefore they conclude, that we are commanded by God, as a Lawgiver, to believe and repent, but that it is more proper to say, we are rather engaged by him, as a covenant-God, than commanded to exercise these graces: but this dispute is rather about the propriety of words, than the main substance of the doctrine itself; and therefore I shall enter no farther into this critical enquiry, but content myself with the general assertion, that faith, and all other graces are necessary duties; without which, _it is impossible to please God_, to use the apostle’s expression, Heb. xi. 6. or to have any right to the character of Christians.

_2dly_, Faith, and all other graces, are to be also considered as blessings, promised in the covenant of grace. This appears from those scriptures that speak of them as _the gifts of God_, Eph. ii. 8. purchased by the blood of Christ, and so founded on _his righteousness_, 2 Pet. i. 1. and wrought in us by his Spirit, and the _exceeding greatness of his power_, Eph. i. 19. and as discriminating blessings, which all are not partakers of, as the apostle says, _All men have not faith_, 2 Thess. iii. 2.

This may be farther argued, from what Christ undertook to purchase for, and apply to his people, as their federal Head; so that, in pursuance hereof, all spiritual blessings in heavenly things, are bestowed on them, in him; and hereby the covenant is made good to them, as God is said, _together with Christ, to give them all things_, Rom. viii. 32. First, Christ is given for a covenant of his people, and then, upon his fulfilling what he undertook to procure for them, all that grace, which is treasured up in him, is applied to them; therefore faith, and other concomitant graces, are covenant-blessings.

_3dly_, There is a certain connexion between faith, with other concomitant graces, and salvation. But this having been considered elsewhere, together with the sense of those scriptures, that seem to be laid down in a conditional form, from whence the arguments, to prove the conditionality of the covenant of grace, are generally taken;[101] all that we shall add, at present, is, that since, in this eternal covenant between the Father and the Son, it was agreed, established, and, on our Saviour’s part, undertaken, that the elect should be not only redeemed, but sanctified, and enabled to exercise all grace, before they are brought to glory, this is made good to them in this covenant; and therefore, as the consequence of Christ’s purchase, faith, and all other graces, are wrought in the soul, which afterwards, in receiving the end of faith, is brought to eternal salvation; so that we may as well separate Christ’s undertaking to redeem his people from their attaining salvation, as we can his applying those graces which accompany it.

However, when we speak of these graces, as connected with salvation, we must not conclude that they are the cause thereof. Though we are saved in a way of believing, we are not saved for our faith; and therefore I cannot but approve of what is observed by many divines, who treat of this subject, that these graces are the way to heaven, though Christ’s righteousness be the cause of our coming there.[102] I am sensible there are some who express their dislike of some of the most unexceptionable modes of speaking, if not altogether agreeable to those which they make use of, who can hardly approve of any one’s asserting, that faith, and other graces, are the way to salvation; partly, because they are the beginning of salvation, and principally, because Christ styles himself, _The Way_, John xiv. 6. But to this it may be replied, that though grace be glory begun, yet it may as truly be said to be the way to complete salvation, as the traveller’s setting out, and going forward on his journey, is the way to the end thereof, without which it can never be attained; and, though Christ be the way to salvation, as every thing that tends to fit us for, and bring us to it, is founded on what he did for us, as Mediator; yet this does not, in the least, overthrow the connexion of grace with glory, in the method in which he brings his people to it, by first working faith, and all other graces in them, before the work is brought to perfection, or the top-stone thereof is laid.

_4thly_, If we assert more than this, namely, that faith is a condition of the covenant of grace, or, as it is expressed in this answer, a condition to interest believers in Christ, we must distinguish between God’s bestowing the blessings of the covenant of grace, pursuant to his secret will, or his eternal purpose; and our having a visible ground, or reason, to claim an interest in them; the former of these cannot be supposed to be conditional, without making God dependent on our act; the latter may, and, I think, ought to be deemed so. Thus faith is a condition, or an internal qualification, without which no one has a warrant to conclude his interest in, or lay claim to the saving blessings of the covenant of grace, so that when it is said to be a condition to interest believers in Christ, in this answer, we are to understand it, as that which evinces our claim to him, or gives us ground to conclude, that we are redeemed by him, and to expect that he will bestow upon us complete salvation. To deny this, would be to suppose, that an unbeliever has a warrant to conclude that Christ loved and gave himself for him, or that he shall be saved by him; which is a doctrine that I cannot but oppose with the greatest detestation, as what contains in it an unwarrantable presumption, and leads to licentiousness, which, I hope, nothing, that has been said on this subject, has the least tendency to do. Thus we have considered how faith may be said to be a condition of our laying claim to an interest in Christ; we proceed,

VII. To consider how the grace of God is glorified, in his having ordained, that we should apprehend or discern our interest in Christ, and the blessings of the covenant, by faith. Of all other graces, faith is that which has the greatest tendency to discover to the soul its own vileness, and nothingness; and, indeed, every thing that we behold in Christ its object, has a tendency to abase us in our own sight. Do we, by faith, behold Christ’s fulness? This has a tendency to humble us, under a sense of our own emptiness. Do we look on Christ as the Fountain of all righteousness and strength? This leads us to see that we are destitute hereof in ourselves; so that, as faith beholds all that we have, or hope for, as being founded on, and derived from Christ, and gives us hereupon the greatest sense of our own unworthiness, this is in its own nature adapted to advance the grace of God; and therefore God, in taking this method to apply the blessings of the covenant, requiring faith, as an instrument, hereof, ordained the best expedient, to illustrate, and set forth his own grace as displayed therein. But since it is a very difficult matter to believe, as this grace of faith is the gift and effect of the power of God, we are now to consider,

VIII. That the grace of the covenant is farther manifested, in that God has promised, and pursuant thereunto, gives his Holy Spirit to work faith, and all other graces that are connected with, or flow from it. That we have in the covenant of grace a promise of the Holy Spirit, to work in us, that grace which God requires, is very evident; for he says, _I will pour upon the house of David, and upon the inhabitants of Jerusalem, the Spirit of grace, and of supplications_, Zech. xii. 10. and elsewhere, God promises _to pour his Spirit upon their seed, and his blessings upon their offspring_, Isa. xliv. 3. and this is farther set forth, in a metaphorical way, when he promises _to sprinkle clean water_ on his people, and that _he would cleanse them from all their filthiness, and from all their idols, and give them a new heart, and put a new spirit within them, and take away the stony heart out of their flesh, and give them an heart of flesh_, and all this is said to be done by _his Spirit_, which he promised _to put within them_, Ezek. xxxvi. 25-27. And more particularly, the Spirit, as working faith in the hearts of believers, is called, for that reason, _The Spirit of faith_, 2 Cor. iv. 13. and all other graces are called, _The fruit of the Spirit_, Gal. v. 22, 23. so that they are from the Spirit, as the Author of all grace, and they proceed from faith, as one grace tends to excite another: thus the heart is said _to be purified by faith_, Acts xv. 9. which is said also _to work by love_, Gal. v. 6. and hereby we are enabled _to overcome the world_; and this produces all holy obedience, which is called, _The obedience of faith_, Rom. xvi. 26. Thus concerning the Spirit’s working faith and all other graces.

Again, it is farther added, that the truth and sincerity of faith is evidenced as well as the grace of faith wrought by the Spirit; and this is also a blessing promised in the covenant of grace. Hereby we are enabled to discern our interest in Christ, and our right to all the blessings that accompany salvation; in which respect, the _secret of the Lord is with them that fear him, and he shews them his covenant_, Psal. xxv. 14. He not only discovers to them that there is such a dispensation of grace in general, but that they have a right to the blessings promised therein, and accordingly _seals them unto the day of redemption_, Eph. iv. 30. and hereby they are enabled to walk comfortably, as knowing in whom they have believed, and, are induced to the greatest thankfulness, as those, who are under the highest obligations to God, who promises and bestows these, and all other blessings, whereby his grace is abundantly manifested, in this covenant.

Footnote 97:

_Such an one is more properly called Internuncius, than Mediator._

Footnote 98:

_Vid. Bez. and Whitby in loc._

Footnote 99:

_See Quest._ lxvii.

Footnote 100:

“The law of God itself requires no creature to love him, or obey him,
beyond his _strength_, or with more than all the powers which he
possesses. If the inability of sinners to believe in Christ, or to do
things spiritually good, were of this nature, it would undoubtedly
form an excuse in their favour; and it must be as absurd to exhort
them to such duties, as to exhort the blind to look, the deaf to hear,
or the dead to walk. But the inability of sinners is not such as to
induce the Judge of all the earth, (who cannot do other than right) to
abate in his requirements. It is a fact that he does require them, and
that without paying any regard to their inability, _to love him_, and
_to fear him_, and _to do all his commandments always_. _The blind_
are admonished _to look, the deaf to hear_, and _the dead to arise_.
Isa. xlii. 18. Ephes. v. 14. If there were no other proof than what is
afforded by this single fact, it ought to satisfy us that the
blindness, deafness, and death of sinners, to that which is
spiritually good, is of a different nature from that which furnishes
an excuse. This however is not the only ground of proof. The thing
speaks for itself. There is an essential difference between an
inability which is independent of the inclination, and one that is
owing to nothing else. It is equally impossible, no doubt, for any
person to do that which he has no mind to do, as to perform that which
surpasses his natural powers; and hence it is that the same terms are
used in the one case as in the other. Those who were under the
dominion of envy and malignity, COULD NOT _speak peaceably_; and those
who have _eyes full of adultery_, CANNOT _cease from sin_. Hence also
the following language—_How_ CAN _ye, being evil, speak good
things?—The natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God,
neither_ CAN _he know them—The carnal mind is enmity against God; and
is not subject to the law of God, neither indeed_ CAN _be—They that
are in the flesh_ CANNOT _please God—No man_ CAN _come to me, except
the Father who sent me draw him._—It is also true, that many have
affected to treat the distinction between natural and moral inability
as more curious than solid. ‘If we be unable, say they, we are unable.
As to the nature of the inability, it is a matter of no account. Such
distinctions are perplexing to plain Christians, and beyond their
capacity.’ But surely the plainest and weakest Christian in reading
his bible, if he pay any regard to what he reads, must perceive a
manifest difference between the blindness of Bartimeus, who was
ardently desirous that _he might receive his sight_, and that of the
unbelieving Jews, who _closed their eyes, lest they should see, and be
converted, and healed_; Mark x. 51. Matt. xii. 15. and between the
want of the natural sense of hearing, and the state of those _who have
ears, but hear not_.

“So far as my observation extends, those persons who affect to treat
this distinction as a matter of mere curious speculation, are as ready
to make use of it as other people where their own interest is
concerned. If they be accused of injuring their fellow-creatures, and
can allege that what they did was not _knowingly_, or of _design_, I
believe they never fail to do so: or when charged with neglecting
their duty to a parent, or a master; if they can say in truth that
they were _unable_ to do it at the time, _let their will have been
ever so good_, they are never known to omit the plea: and should such
a master or parent reply by suggesting that their want of ability
arose from want of _inclination_, they would very easily understand it
to be the language of reproach, and be very earnest to maintain the
contrary. You never hear a person, in such circumstances, reason as he
does in religion. He does not say, ‘If I be unable, I am unable; it is
of no account whether it be of this kind or that:’ but labours with
all his might to establish the difference. Now if the subject be so
clearly understood and acted upon where interest is concerned, and
never appears difficult but in religion, it is but too manifest where
the difficulty lies. If by fixing the guilt of our conduct upon our
father Adam, we can sit comfortably in our nest; we shall be very
averse to a sentiment that tends to disturb our repose, by planting a
thorn in it.

“It is sometimes objected, that the inability of sinners to believe in
Christ, is not the effect of their depravity; for that Adam himself in
his purest state was only a _natural man_, and had no power to perform
spiritual duties. But this objection belongs to another topic, and
has, I hope, been already answered. To this, however, it may be
added—_The natural man who receiveth not the things of the Spirit of
God_, (1 Cor. ii. 14.) is not a man possessed of the holy image of
God, as was Adam, but of mere natural accomplishments; as were the
_wise men of the world_, the philosophers of Greece and Rome, to whom
the things of God were _foolishness_. Moreover, if the inability of
sinners to perform spiritual duties, were of the kind alleged in the
objection, they must be equally unable to commit the opposite sins. He
that from the constitution of his nature is absolutely unable to
understand, or believe, or love a certain kind of truth, must of
necessity be alike unable to _shut his eyes_ against it, to
disbelieve, to reject, or to hate it. But it is manifest that all men
are capable of the latter; it must therefore follow, that nothing but
the depravity of their hearts renders them incapable of the former.

“Some writers, as hath been already observed, have allowed that
sinners are the subjects of an inability which arises from their
depravity; but they still contend that this is not _all_; but that
they are both _naturally_ and _morally_ unable to believe in Christ;
and this they think agreeable to the scriptures, which represent them
as both _unable_ and _unwilling_ to come to him for life. But these
two kinds of inability cannot consist with each other, so as both to
exist in the same subject, and towards the same thing. A moral
inability supposes a natural ability. He who never in any state was
possessed of the power of seeing, cannot be said to _shut his eyes_
against the light. If the Jews had not been possessed of natural
powers, equal to the knowledge of Christ’s doctrine, there had been no
justice in that cutting question and answer, _Why do ye not understand
my speech? Because ye_ CANNOT _hear my word_. A total physical
inability must of necessity supersede a moral one. To suppose,
therefore, that the phrase, _No man_ CAN _come to me_, is meant to
describe the former; and, YE WILL NOT _come to me that ye may have
life_, the latter; is to suppose that our Saviour taught what is
self-contradictory.

“Some have supposed that in ascribing physical or natural power to
men, we deny their _natural depravity_. Through the poverty of
language, words are obliged to be used in different senses. When we
speak of men as _by nature_ depraved, we do not mean to convey the
idea of sin being an essential part of human nature, or of the
constitution of man as man: our meaning is, that it is not a mere
effect of education and example; but is from his very birth so
interwoven through all his powers, so ingrained, as it were, in his
very soul, as to grow up with him, and become natural to him.

“On the other hand, when the term _natural_ is used as opposed to
_moral_, and applied to the powers of the soul, it is designed to
express those faculties which are strictly a part of our nature as
men, and which are necessary to our being accountable creatures. By
confounding these ideas we may be always disputing, and bring nothing
to an issue.

“Finally, It is sometimes suggested, that to ascribe natural ability
to sinners to perform things spiritually good, is to nourish their
self-sufficiency; and that to represent their inability as only
_moral_, is to suppose that it is not insuperable, but may after all
be overcome by efforts of their own. But surely it is not necessary,
in order to destroy a spirit of self-sufficiency, to deny that we are
men, and accountable creatures; which is all that natural ability
supposes. If any person imagine it possible, of his own accord to
chuse that to which he is utterly averse, let him make the trial.

“Some have alleged, that ‘natural power is only sufficient to perform
natural things; and that spiritual power is required to the
performance of spiritual things.’ But this statement is far from
accurate. Natural power is as necessary to the performance of
spiritual, as of natural things: we must possess the powers of men in
order to perform the duties of good men. And as to spiritual power,
or, which is the same thing, a right state of mind, it is not properly
a faculty of the soul, but a quality which it possesses: and which
though it be essential to the _actual performance_ of spiritual
obedience, yet is not necessary to our being under _obligation_ to
perform it.” FULLER.

Footnote 101:

_See Vol. 1. page 479, 480._

Footnote 102:

_The former of these is generally styled_, Via ad regnum; _the
latter_, Causa regnandi.

Quest. XXXIII., XXXIV., XXXV.

QUEST. XXXIII. _Was the covenant of grace always administered after
one and the same manner?_

ANSW. The covenant of grace was not always administered after the
same manner; but the administrations of it, under the Old Testament,
were different from those under the New.

QUEST. XXXIV. _How was the covenant of grace administered under the
Old Testament._

ANSW. The covenant of grace was administered under the Old
Testament, by promises, prophecies, sacrifices, circumcision, the
passover, and other types and ordinances, which did all fore-signify
Christ then to come, and were, for that time, sufficient to build up
the elect in faith in the promised Messiah, by whom they then had
full remission of sin, and eternal salvation.

QUEST. XXXV. _How is the covenant of grace administered under the
New Testament?_

ANSW. Under the New Testament, when Christ the substance was
exhibited the same covenant of grace was, and still is, to be
administered in the preaching of the word; and the administration of
the sacraments of Baptism, and the Lord’s Supper, in which, grace
and salvation is held forth in more fulness, evidence, and efficacy,
to all nations.

Having considered the nature of the covenant, in which God has promised salvation to his people, and how his grace is manifested therein, we proceed to speak concerning the various dispensations thereof, or the way in which God has been pleased, from time to time, to discover and apply the blessings contained in it, for the encouragement of his people to hope for salvation. This he has done, _at sundry times, and in divers manners_, Heb. i. 1. the first method of administration was before Christ’s incarnation; the other, in all succeeding ages, to continue to the end of the world. Accordingly we are led to consider,

I. How the covenant of grace was administered under the Old Testament. As God has always had a church in the world, in the earliest ages thereof, which has been the seat of his special presence, and been favoured with the displays of his glory; so he has made known, and applied to them, the blessings of salvation, or the promises of this covenant, in which they are contained. How he has done this, is particularly considered in this answer; in which there is something supposed, namely, that it was absolutely necessary, for the salvation of the elect, that God should, some way or other, reveal Christ to them, by whom they were to obtain remission of sins; for he was to be the object of their faith, as well as the fountain of their blessedness. This he could not have been, unless he had taken some methods to lead the world into the knowledge of his Person, and that work he designed to engage in, whereby they, who lived before his incarnation, might be encouraged to look for the benefits which he would procure, by what he was to do and suffer, in order thereunto. Now, that he has done so, and that the method which he has taken therein, was sufficient to build up his elect in the faith of the promised Messiah, is what we are particularly to consider, and so shall shew,

1. That God revealed Christ, and the blessings of the covenant of grace, to his church of old. There were two ways by which he did this; one was by express words, or an intimation given from heaven, that the Messiah, the prince of life, should, in the fulness of time, take our nature, and dwell among us; and that what he was then to be, and do, should be conducive to the salvation of those who lived before his incarnation, as much as though he had done this from the beginning of the world: the other was, by types, or significant ordinances, which are only different ways of discovering the same important doctrines to them.

(1.) God revealed Christ then to come to the Old Testament church, by promises and prophecies; to the end, that though they were not, at that time, to behold him, as manifested in the flesh, they might take a view of him by faith, and hereby he might be rendered the object of their desire and expectation, that when he came, it might be no unlooked-for event, but the accomplishment of those promises and predictions that related thereunto: thus God told Abraham, not only that he should be blessed with a numerous off-spring, but that, _in his seed_, that is, in the Messiah, who should descend from him, _all the nations of the earth should he blessed_; he likewise says to Israel, by Moses, _The Lord thy God will raise up unto thee a Prophet, from among thy brethren, like unto me; unto him ye shall hearken_, Deut. xviii. 15. and, in following ages, there were promises and predictions, that gave farther light, concerning the person and offices, the sufferings and glory of the Messiah, as it is said, _To him give all the prophets witness_, Acts x. 43. And the prophet Isaiah is so express, in the account he gives of this matter, that he is styled, by some, the evangelical prophet; what he says, concerning him, is so particular, as though it had been an history of what was past, rather than a prophecy of what was to come; accordingly he foretells, that he should _be born_, or _given_, as a public blessing to the world, and describes him not only as having _the government upon his shoulder_, but as having the perfections of the divine nature, which discover him fit for that important trust, when he styles him, _Wonderful, Counsellor, the mighty God, the everlasting Father, the Prince of peace_, Isa. ix. 6. And, as he speaks of his birth, so he intimates, that he should be _born of a virgin_; chap. vii. 14. and he describes him, in chap. liii. as condescending to bear our sins, as standing in our room and stead, designing hereby to make atonement for them; he speaks of him, as _brought like a lamb to the slaughter_, and _cut off out of the land of the living, making his grave with the wicked, and with the rich in his death_, and after this, that _he should prolong his days_, and that the consequence hereof should be glorious to himself, and of the highest advantage to his people: and he describes him elsewhere, chap. lxiii. 1, &c. in a most elegant manner as one triumphing over conquered enemies; _travelling_, or pursuing his victories, _in the greatness of his strength_, and making it appear that he is _mighty to save_.

Another prophet speaks of him as _a Branch_ that should grow out of the root or stock of David, when it was almost dead and dry, and that he should set up a more glorious throne, and exercise a government over his people in a spiritual way, Jer. xxiii. 5, 6. And the prophet Micah gives us an account of the very place of his birth, and speaks of Bethlehem, as rendered famous and renowned by his being born therein, _who should be a ruler in Israel_, though otherwise it was _little among the thousands of Judah_, Micah v. 2. Another prophet signifies his coming at that time, when God would _shake all nations_, that is, fill the world with civil commotions, and cause it to feel the sad effects of those wars, whereby the kingdoms of the world had been dis-jointed, and many of them broken in pieces, that then _the desire of all nations should come, and fill his house_, to wit, the second temple, _with glory_, Hag. ii. 7. And the prophet Daniel speaks of him as the Messiah, or Christ, the character by which he was most known, when he was here on earth, and gives a chronological account of the time when he should come, and _be cut off, though not for himself_, and hereby _confirm the covenant_, and at the same time, _cause the sacrifice and oblation_, that is, the ordinances of the ceremonial law, _to cease_, and so make way for another dispensation of the covenant, to wit, that which we are under, which was to succeed in the room thereof.

(2.) The covenant of grace was also administered by the various types and ordinances of the ceremonial law, which were all significant signs of that grace, that should be displayed in the gospel, which was to be obtained by Christ. Many of these types and ordinances were instituted before the whole body of the ceremonial law was given from mount Sinai. The first we read of was that of sacrifices, which were offered in the first ages of the world, whereby they had an early intimation given them of the blood of the covenant, which should be shed to expiate sin. And, after this, circumcision was instituted, first given to Abraham, as a visible mark, or token, of the covenant, immediately before the birth of Isaac, the promised seed, at that time, when God was pleased to enter into covenant with him, Gen. xvii. 9, 10. and this ordinance was continued in the church, throughout all the generations thereof, till our Saviour’s time, and is explained by the apostle, as a sign, or _seal of the righteousness of faith_, Rom. iv. 11.

Another type was the passover, which was first instituted in commemoration of Israel’s departure out of Egypt, which had in it many significant rites and ceremonies, whereby our redemption, by Christ, was set forth; upon which occasion, the apostle calls him _our Passover, who is sacrificed for us_, 1 Cor. v. 7. and in allusion hereunto, he is styled, _The Lamb of God, which taketh away the sin of the world_, John i. 29.

There were many other ceremonial ordinances, or types, which God gave to the Jewish nation, which were significant representations of the grace that was to be displayed in the gospel, or, as it is expressed in this answer, they fore-signified Christ then to come, which contained as the apostle expresses it, _A shadow of good things to come_, Heb. x. 1. so that they all pointed at the grace of the covenant, or the accomplishment of what was to be performed by Christ, after his incarnation: but this will be more particularly considered, when we speak of the ceremonial law, as distinguished from the moral, under a following answer[103]. Therefore, at present, we shall only consider the types in general, and their reference to the grace of the covenant, whereby the Old Testament church were led into the knowledge of the Messiah then to come, together with what he was to do and suffer, to purchase and apply the blessings of this covenant to his people. And here we shall shew,

_1st_, That there were typical ordinances under the ceremonial law. This we are obliged to maintain, against those who have advanced several things relating to the origin of the ceremonial law, which tend very much to divest it of its spirituality and glory[104], when they assert, that all the rites and ordinances thereof were derived from the Egyptians; and that they were first observed by them, before known and received by the church; and that the reason why God accommodated his law thereunto, was because he knew how tenacious they were of that religion in which that generation had been trained up in Egypt, and how difficult it would be for them wholly to lay it aside, and to give into another way of worship, which was altogether foreign to it: nevertheless, they say that he cut off, or separated from it, every thing that was idolatrous, and adapted other things to that mode of worship, which he thought most conducive to his glory. But though he commanded his people, when they left Egypt, to borrow vessels of silver and gold, to be used in that service they were to perform in the wilderness; yet far be it from us to suppose, that God, in ordaining this law, borrowed any part of it from them. It is true, there were rites of worship used by the Egyptians, and other nations, which had some affinity with the divine law, and were received by them in common with other heathen nations, by tradition, from the church, in former ages; and it cannot be denied, but that the Israelites sometimes corrupted the worship of God, by introducing some things into it, which were practised by neighbouring nations: but God gave no countenance to this matter, by accommodating his law to theirs. But since this has been purposely and largely insisted on, with much learning and judgment, by others[105], I shall pass it over.

There are others, who make farther advances on this subject, tending to overthrow that which appears to be the main design of the ceremonial law, together with the spiritual meaning of it; these not only conclude, that the main end of God’s giving it to the Jews, was because it was necessary that there should be some form of worship erected, otherwise they would have invented one of their own, or practised that which they had received from the Egyptians; and the more pompous and ceremonious this form was, and especially the nearer it came to that of neighbouring nations, it would more readily be received and complied with: but, that there was no design herein to typify, or shadow forth Christ, or the blessings of the covenant of grace; these therefore, were commanded duties[106], (whereby the people were to be kept employed,) but not typical ordinances. But it is very strange that any, who have read some explications hereof, occasionally mentioned in the Old Testament, and especially that large comment on the ceremonial law, given by the apostle, in his epistle to the Hebrews, should embrace this opinion.

_2dly_, Whatever ordinances were typical, they respected Christ, his person, offices, the grace of the covenant, and the way of salvation, by him; therefore I cannot approve of what I occasionally meet with, in some ancient commentators, and other modern writers, who sometimes speak of things being typical of other things besides Christ, and what relates to the work of redemption by him. Thus some speak of those notorious wicked persons mentioned in scripture, as Cain, Pharaoh, and others, as though they were types of the devil; and of Antiochus Epiphanes, as a type of Anti-christ. And others speak of some things as types of Gospel-ordinances, so they call circumcision a type of baptism, and the passover of the Lord’s supper; and several writers, amongst the Papists, suppose, that the bread and wine, that was brought forth by Melchisedek to Abraham, was a type of the Eucharist, as they call that ordinance. Others speak of Noah’s being saved in the ark from the deluge, as a type of baptism, being mis-led herein by a mistaken sense of the word, used by the apostle, when he says, having spoken before of Noah’s being saved in the ark, _The like figure whereunto, even baptism, doth also now save us_, 1 Pet. iii. 21. &c. whereas the meaning of the Greek word[107] is not that this was a type of baptism, but that it signified, as baptism also doth, that salvation, which we have by Christ.

_3dly_, When we consider what was typified by those ordinances, under the ceremonial law, we must avoid two extremes; namely, that of those who make more types, than the Holy Ghost designed in scripture; and others, who will not acknowledge many things to be types, which plainly appear to be so: the former give too great scope to their wit and fancy, when they reckon every thing to be a type, that may be adapted to Christ, and the gospel-state; and accordingly suppose, many persons and actions done by them to be typical, which it is hard to prove that they were designed to be, or were looked upon as such by the Old Testament-church. Thus it would be a difficult matter to prove that Samson (especially in any other respect than as he was a Nazarite) was a type of Christ. But, if it could be proved, that the success he sometimes had in his skirmishes with the Philistines, was a type of Christ’s victories over his and our enemies; yet it doth not appear, though some have extended the parallel so far, that his carrying the door and posts of the gate of Gaza to the top of a hill that is before Hebron, Judges xvi. 3. signifies Christ’s resurrection. But it is abominable, when any one supposes, as some have unwarily done, that his loving a woman in the valley of Sorek, whose name was Delilah, ver. 4. was a type of Christ’s loving the Gentile church.

But, because I would not give any occasion to conclude that I have light thoughts of the performance of some, who have explained many things, which they call types, in scripture, with a very honest and good design, to lead the world into the knowledge of several great gospel-truths; I shall take leave to distinguish between those things, which were plainly designed, in scripture, to be types, and some other, which, though it doth not appear that they were looked upon as such by the Old Testament-church, yet they may be accommodated to illustrate or explain some doctrines contained in the gospel. If any one call these methods of illustration, types, because there is some analogy or resemblance between them and Christ, or the benefits of the covenant, they may extend their illustrations as far as they please; I will not contend with them. It is not their saying, that such and such things are similitudes, by which Christ may be set forth; but their asserting that these similitudes were designed by God, to be ordinances for the faith of his church, to lead them into the knowledge of Christ, that I militate against, when I suppose that some are chargeable with an extreme, in extending this matter too far, which, it is certain, many have done.

But this may give occasion to enquire; when we may determine that a thing is designed, by God, to be a type of Christ, and the grace of the covenant? To this I answer,

(1.) As to what respects persons, or, as it is commonly expressed, personal types, though I cannot say, that every one, whose life and actions bear a very great resemblance to some things that are remarkable in the life of Christ, is a type of him, in any other sense, than, as we are led, by the analogy, or resemblance of things, to speak of it, in a way of accommodation or illustration; yet we have some directions given us, by which we may conclude some persons to be types of Christ; one of which is, when he is called by their name: thus our Saviour’s being called David, in several scriptures, Hos. iii. 5. Ezek. xxxiv. 23. and David’s often speaking in the Person of our Saviour, in several of his Psalms, seems to intimate, that he was looked upon, by the church in his day, as a type of Christ.

Again, Moses seems to imply as much concerning himself, when he speaks of Christ as _a Prophet, whom the Lord God should raise up from among their brethren_, and he adds, that he should be _like unto him_, and consequently typified by him, Deut. xviii. 15. and the apostle seems to intimate as much, when he compares Moses and Christ together, in point of faithfulness, that _the one was faithful as a servant_ in God’s house, the other as _a Son over his own house_, Heb. iii, 2, 5, 6.

Again, when any remarkable actions, were done by persons mentioned in scripture, which were allowed to be typical, it follows, from thence, that the person, who was appointed to be God’s minister in doing them, was a type of Christ. Thus we may conclude Joshua to have been reckoned, by Israel, a type of Christ, in leading them into the land of Canaan, upon the same ground that they had to look upon that land, as a type of the gospel-rest, which we are brought to by Christ. And, for the same reason, Solomon might be called a type of Christ, as he built the temple, which was reckoned, by the Jews, as a type of God’s presence, in a way of grace with his people; and there are other passages, that might be referred to in scripture, which farther prove him to be a type of Christ.[108]

And nothing is more evident, than that the priests, under the law, who were ministers in holy things, and the high priest, in a way of eminency, were types of Christ; they are so considered in the explication thereof, given in the epistle to the Hebrews; and they farther appear to be so, inasmuch as the church had sufficient ground to conclude, that their ministry was typical, or the gifts, or sacrifices that they offered, were types of what was offered by Christ, for our redemption. And this leads us,

(2.) To consider those types, which are called real, or things done, as being ordinances designed to signify the grace of the covenant. These were either occasional, or stated; the former whereof were designed for types, at those times, when the things were performed. But it doth not appear that they were so afterwards, in succeeding ages; as their _passing through the red sea_, being _under the cloud_, their _eating manna_ in the wilderness, and _drinking water_ that came _out of the rock_. All these things are expressly mentioned, by the apostle, as types, 1 Cor. x. 1, 3, 4. compared with ver. 11. and we may add thereto _the brazen serpent_, which was plainly a type of Christ, and, as such, our Saviour applies it to himself, in John iii. 14. But all these were occasional types, which were ordinances to the church no longer than the action was continued.

Again, there were other things, which seemed to be standing types, or ordinances, in all successive ages, till Christ the Antitype came, as circumcision, the passover, sacrifices, and other rites of worship, used in the temple service; these things being expressly mentioned, in scripture, as types, we have ground to determine them to be so. Thus concerning the covenant of grace, as revealed to the church of old.