|
Eschatology
THE ANTICHRIST
340. Antichrist. There is a very great resemblance in many things
between the devil and the devilish apostasy, and Antichrist and the
antichristian apostasy. The former, of angels became devils: so the pope
and his clergy were gospel ministers, who are called angels. the
apostasy of the angels was in heaven and from heaven: so the apostasy of
Antichrist is in and from the Christian church, the holy Jerusalem.
Antichrist sits in the temple of God. showing himself that he is God.
Satan attempted to make himself king and sovereign over the other
angels: so the pope arrogates to himself to be the king and sovereign
over all Christ’s ministers and over the universal church.
368. Antichrist. One end
of that great apostasy and long time of darkness, was that the church
might be brought off from all dependence upon tradition, and from
pinning our faith upon the faith of the generations of Christians, and
making their customs our rule (which the primitive church was much given
to), that they might depend to the end of world only upon God’s
revelation of his will, which he has given for our rule.
1273. How the Pope Is
Antichrist. “The devil was worshipped in the world as God and therefore
it is said, Rev. 12, that he and his angels were in heaven. Why? Because
they were worshipped as gods and he was cast out into the earth, and his
angels were cast out with him. When Constantine turned Christian all the
world turned Christian too. Then all his devils were thrown down from
having that worship as they always had before — But when he ceased to be
a god — that he might imitate God who has set up his Son Jesus Christ,
as likewise has set up his son Antichrist whose kingdom and the devils
are in many things just alike — It is said Rev. 14:2. The Dragon did
give the Beast his power and seat and great authority. Antichrist is the
oldest son of Satan as Christ is the oldest Son of God.” [Dr. Goodwin,
p. 40, 41.]
CONCERNING CHRIST’S SECOND
COMING
842. Christ’s Second Coming. With respect to that objection against the
truth of the Christian religion, that the apostles seem often to speak
of the coming of Christ to judgment, as if they thought it near at hand;
I will begin with what the apostle Paul says that may have such
appearance.
He says in the first epistle to the Thessalonians, which is reckoned to
be the first of his epistles in the order of time, and particularly 1
Thes. 4:15-17, “For this we say unto you by the word of the Lord, that
we which are alive, and remain unto the coming of the Lord, shall not
prevent them which are asleep: for the Lord himself shall descend from
heaven with a shout, with the voice of the archangel, and with the trump
of God; and the dead in Christ shall rise first: then we which are alive
and remain, shall be caught up together with them in the clouds, to meet
the Lord in the air: and so shall we be ever with the Lord.” Now from
this place some may be ready to say that here the apostle plainly speaks
as though he expected this coming of Christ while the bigger part of the
Christians that were then alive should be still living. He speaks of
those that should then be alive, in the first person plural, and of
those that should be asleep in the third person plural. Whereas, if he
expected that the day of judgment would be long after they were all
dead. then it would have been more natural for him to have said, “They
which are alive, and remain unto the coming of the Lord, shall not
prevent us, who shall then be asleep.” — And in 1 Thes. 4:17, “Then they
which are alive, and remain, shall be caught up together with us.”
To this I say,
1. Considering the scope of the apostle in these verses, all that can be
inferred from such a manner of speaking is that it might, for ought was
then revealed, be while they lived. For the scope of the apostle was to
comfort the Thessalonians concerning their friends that were already
dead, with the consideration that they should surely meet them again, if
not before, at the day of the Lord’s coming. These were those that were
asleep of whom the apostle is especially speaking Therefore it was most
proper and natural for the apostle to speak of them in the third person:
more proper than of those that should be alive, seeing it was uncertain
but that they should be of them. The apostles drift leads him to make
such a supposition, because he would speak of the time when, at the
farthest, they should certainly again meet with their deceased friends.
And if they did not meet them before, then they would be alive at that
time. And it is but just to suppose that it was only the uncertainty of
the time that was the ground of the apostle’s using such a manner of
expression, because he, in this very context, speaks of the time as
altogether uncertain: as it follows immediately in the beginning of the
next chapter, “But of the times and seasons, brethren, ye have no need
that I write unto you: for yourselves know perfectly, that the day of
the Lord so cometh as a thief in the night,” etc. The apostle, by the
expression he uses, probably had in his mind those words of Christ in
Acts 1:7, “It is not for you to know the times and seasons, which the
Father hath put in his own power.” (See M 1109)
2. That the apostle did not intend to be understood, as though it were
certain that Christ would come while they were living, is evident from
what he himself says, speaking of those very words and expressly denying
that he intended any such things, or that he supposed it to be certain
that the coming of Christ was at hand, in any such sense. See 2 Thes.
2:1-3 where he very earnestly warns them not to understand him in any
such sense. “Now we beseech you, brethren, by the coming of our Lord
Jesus Christ, and by our gathering together unto him, that ye be not
soon shaken in mind, or be troubled, neither by spirit, nor by word, nor
by letter, as from us, as that the day of Christ is at hand. Let no man
deceive you by any means; for that day shall not come, except there come
a falling away first, and that man of sin be revealed, the son of
perdition,” etc.
Now it is evident that the apostle does not thus write to them the
second time, endeavoring to retract anything he had written before, but
it must be because he really did not intend so at first. For this
epistle was written soon after the other, while the same fellow-laborers
were with him. Both the epistles are begun in the same manner (1 Thes.
1:1, 2 Thes. 1:1) and both have been supposed to be written while the
apostle abode in Athens, as appears by the postscripts. And if we well
observe the contents of this and the foregoing epistle, the principle
occasion of the apostle’s writing the second so soon after the other
seems to have been an information he had received that his former
epistle had been misunderstood in this particular. And being much
concerned about it, and fearing the ill consequences of such a
misunderstanding, he writes to guard them from the mischief of such a
mistake and to establish them in it: that it is uncertain when the Lord
will come, as he had told them before in his other epistle (1 Thes. 5).
And he argues the great uncertainty there was, whether it would be in
that age or not, from what the Holy Ghost had revealed about the coming
of antichrist.
That this apostle did not expect Christ’s coming in that generation may
be argued from his speaking as though he expected that those that were
then alive would rise from the dead at Christ’s second coming, as in 1
Cor. 6:14, “And God hath both raised up the Lord, and will also raise up
us by his own power.” And, 2 Cor. 4:14, “Knowing that he which raised up
the Lord Jesus, shall raise up us also by Jesus, and shall present us
with you.”
From what the apostle says in this second chapter of the second epistle
to the Thessalonians (2 Thes. 2), there appears a necessity that those
passages in any other of his epistles, which look as though he expected
that Christ would come in that age, should be understood in some other
sense, and that the apostle really did not mean so, as his words on a
cursory view would lead us to suppose. For here the apostle is very
express and full, and earnest in it, that he would by no means be so
understood. And he does not say so now in this epistle to the
Thessalonians, because he altered his mind since he wrote his other
epistles to other churches. For those epistles to the Thessalonians were
the first ones that he wrote (See the evidence of this in Roberts’s Key
of the Bible). It is a further evidence that those passages in other
epistles must be understood in some other sense, in that there are
passages in this very epistle, particularly in the first chapter, that
we should be ready to think had such a look, were it not that the
apostle himself, immediately in the second chapter, denies any such
meaning.
In this sense we must understand those passages, in which it is spoken
of as a duty of Christians, to look and wait for the coming of the Lord
Jesus; as, Tit. 2:13; 1 Cor. 1:7; Phil. 3:20. This implies no more than
that they, in those days, should expect, in God’s time, to see that day,
and that they knew not when that would come. And that they should
earnestly desire it and be patient while it was delayed, and still look
for it and depend on it, though it was delayed.
There is a necessity of understanding, in like manner, the following
passages — which were all written after this to the Thessalonians — Rom.
13:11-12, “And that knowing the time, that now it is high time to awake
out of sleep; for now is our salvation nearer than when we believed. The
night is far spent; the day is at hand. Let us therefore cast off the
works of darkness, and let us put on the armour of light.” We cannot
understand this as though the apostle concluded the day of judgment
would come while they lived, because he had before explained himself
otherwise: but only that the day of Christ’s kingdom, which is the day
of the salvation of the church of Christ (and that which the Holy Ghost
had before intended by the kingdom of heaven), was near at hand.
Therefore, the Holy Ghost directed the apostle to use such words. And
so, Phil. 4:5, “Let your moderation be known to all men: the Lord is at
hand.” And Heb. 10:25, “Exhorting one another, and so much the more as
ye see the day approaching.”
Christ’s coming was indeed at hand in many respects, and in such
respects as might well have all that influence intended upon those to
whom the apostle wrote to. The coming of Christ at the overthrow of the
heathen empire might well be said to be at hand, and Christ’s last
coming to judgment might well, considering all things, be said to be at
hand, as the apostle Peter observes, though there should be thousands of
years between. The apostle Paul speaks of ages to come, Eph. 2:7. That
it was not to be till many generations were past:,yet it was at hand, in
a sense agreeable to the common language of the Holy Spirit. So,
Christ’s first coming was spoken of as very nigh at hand, of old. Hag.
2:6, 7, “For thus saith the Lord of hosts, Yet once, it is a little
while, and I will shake the heavens, and the earth, and the sea, and the
dry land, and I will shake all nations; and the desire of all nations
shall come; and I will fill this house with glory, saith the Lord of
hosts.” Yet there was then above 500 years to it. And when it was about
400 years, it is said, Mal. 3:1, “The Lord whom ye seek, shall suddenly
come to his temple; even the messenger of the covenant, whom ye delight
in.” And when it was about 700 years to the gospel day, it is said to be
but a very little while. Isa. 29:17, 18, “Is it not yet a very little
while, and Lebanon shall become a fruitful field, and the fruitful field
shall the deaf hear the words of the book, and the eyes of the blind
shall see out of obscurity, and out of darkness.” So God represents as
though he would very quickly perform all the things prophesied of by
Jeremiah, though some of them were not to be fulfilled in many ages;
Jer. 1:10-12. So the time is said to be at hand, for the accomplishment
of all the prophesies of the book of Revelation, and Christ’s last
coming at the conclusion of them, Rev. 1:3, and Rev. 22:7, 10, 12, 20,
though the book evidently contains a series of events for many ages.
So then when the apostle Peter says, with respect to Christ’s last
coming, and its being said to be at hand, that “a thousand years in
God’s sight are but as one day,” it is no new conceit of his own to save
reputation. But God’s language that he had used of old justifies him in
so saying. And the expression that the apostles used about the approach
of Christ’s coming did not tend to the disappointment of God’s people.
For Christ’s coming to reward them at death was at hand, when they
should have such a comfortable and full prospect of their complete
reward at Christ’s last coming: so that they shall anticipate it, and as
it were, have a possession of it. Then it will appear very nigh unto
them. Though the time appears long to us in our dim-sighted state, yet
it will appear as nothing to them. The second coming of Christ was so
nigh at hand that the church of God might well take all that comfort
from what was really to be understood by those expressions. The first
coming of Christ was very often spoken of for the comfort of the saints
of the Old Testament, under great affliction, though they were never
like to see it in this lifetime. So in the case of Zerubbabel, and
Joshua, and Daniel.
As to that text of the apostle in 1 Cor. 10:11, “And they are written
for our admonition, upon whom the ends of the world are come;” the
connection of these words with the context, and the drift of the
apostle, explain his meaning. For his drift is only this: that what had
happened to the children of Israel in the wilderness, happened to them
for ensamples and were written for our sakes though they happened so
long ago, or though we live so long after them. And with respect to
them, in the ends of the world (or in the latter part of the world’s
duration), [refers to] in these days that then, and long after that
time, used to be called the latter days.
As to what is said that may seem to look as though the apostles soon
expected the last coming of Christ in 1 Pet. 4:7, “The end of all things
is at hand,” which is an expression that seems to have such a look. Yet
how did this same apostle explain this propinquity? 2 Pet. 3:7, 8, “But
the heavens and the earth which are now, by the same word are kept in
store, reserved unto fire, against the day of judgment and perdition of
ungodly men. But, beloved, be not ignorant of this one thing, that one
day is with the Lord as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one
day.” And it is to be considered that the apostle Peter was under no
temptation to change his voice in this matter, from any experience of
the events failing as yet. He had not lived long enough to prove but
that Christ’s words — whence any may suppose they might expect Christ’s
second coming before the generation passed away, and before some that
were then present should taste of death — might be fulfilled in that
sense.
That there was no such notion prevailing among the disciples, that
Christ should come while most of them lived, is manifest from this: that
when the disciples mistook the design of Christ’s words, John 21:22, “If
I will that he tarry till I come, what is that to thee?” (and from
thence, for a while, entertained a notion that that disciple was not to
die till Christ came), it seems they even while under this mistake
(verse 23), looked upon it as the distinguishing privilege of that
disciple, which none of the rest were to expect. And it is evident that
John himself concluded no such thing, as that Christ should come in his
lifetime, because he speaks of that notion of the other disciples about
him as ill-founded.
It is a further argument that when the apostles used such kind of
language as that, “the Lord is at hand,” etc., they did not use it in
any such sense as that it should be in that age or the next. The apostle
John, who was accustomed to their language, used it still when he was
very old (and all the other apostles were dead), and even after he had
prophesied of many great events, which plainly were to have their
accomplishment in many successive ages.
He uses it in the beginning of the book of Revelation, as Rev. 3:11,
“Behold, I come quickly.” And he uses it repeatedly at the end of the
book, after he had given an account of those future events, in Rev.
22:7, “Behold, I come quickly;” and Rev. 22:20, “He that testifieth
these things, saith, Surely I come quickly.” The 17th chapter of this
book (Rev. 17) alone is sufficient to convince anyone that John could
not suppose that his prophecies could be fulfilled, but in several
successive ages.
It is an argument that such a nearness of Christ’s last coming, as the
objection supposes, was not the doctrine that the apostles so much
insisted upon, in that the church prevailed still, when they saw that
Christ did not come. Such disappointment would have been a dreadful blow
to Christianity, if this had been the universal expectation of
Christians, and it had been raised by the abundant promises of Christ
and his apostles. They probably, upon it, would have exceedingly lost
ground, and shrunk away. But the fact was very much the contrary.
1109. Christ’s Second
Coming. [Concerning the expression in 1 Thes. 4:15-17, and the objection
that the apostles seem often to speak of the return of Christ as near at
hand.] We have an instance of a like nature with this, in the words of
Joseph to his brethren, Gen. 50:25, “God will surely visit you, and ye
shall carry up my bones from hence.” He does not say, God shall visit
your posterity, and they shall carry up my bones from hence. Yet it
cannot be argued, that Joseph concluded that the redemption out of Egypt
would be in that generation. Their posterity was the same Israelite
church, and very often in the Old Testament posterity is spoken of and
to with their ancestors as though they were themselves. Here it may be
observed that though the Israelite church, which to be redeemed out of
Egypt, was at much one with Joseph as with any of his brethren. Yet he
does not speak in the first person (God will surely visit us) but in the
second person (God will surely visit you). For it was certain the Joseph
who spoke would not then be alive, for he was about to leave the world.
The nature of Joseph’s discourse made it necessary to distinguish
between him and those that should be thus visited, because he is leaving
a precept to them respecting himself, as one that would be dead then,
viz., that they should carry up his bones.
So the nature and design of the apostle’s discourse [in 1 Thes.
4:15-17], necessarily gave him to distinguish between those that should
be alive at Christ’s coming, and the deceased relations of the Christian
Thessalonians. He speaks of them as already dead, and of their now
living friends then meeting them risen from the dead.
1198. Christ’s Second Coming. What Christ says to his disciples in Luke
17:22, is a confirmation that Christ’s second coming would be long
delayed. By “the days of the Son of man” is meant the days of Christ’s
personal appearance in this lower world, perhaps including both his
first and second appearing, but with a special reference to his second
appearing. This is apparent from the context: see from the 20th verse to
the end, especially verse 26 (Luke 17:20-26). It further appears by what
is said in the former part of the next chapter, which is a continuation
of the same discourse, and still with reference to the same things,
viz., his coming, especially by Luke 18:1, 7, 8.
1199. Christ’s Second
Coming. Having particularly considered the sayings of the apostles,
which have an appearance as though they expected Christ’s last coming in
their day, I would now consider the sayings of Christ, which have such
an aspect. To clear this matter, the following things may be observed:
1. Christ often speaks of his last coming as that which would be long
delayed, Mat. 25:5, “While the bridegroom tarried, they all slumbered
and slept.” Luke 20:9, “A certain man planted a vineyard;” Mat. 25:19,
“After a long time, the Lord of those servants cometh and reckoneth with
them.” Mat. 24:48, “My Lord delayeth his coming.” So Luke 17:22.
2. It is evident that when Christ speaks of his coming (of his being
revealed, of his coming in his kingdom, or his kingdom coming), he has
respect to his appearing in those great works of his power, justice, and
grace, which should be in the destruction of Jerusalem and other
extraordinary providences which should attend it. So in Luke 17:2, to
the end, Luke 18:1-8. Christ speaks of “the kingdom of God coming; of
the coming of the days of the Son of man being revealed; and of the Son
of man coming.” But yet, it is evident he has respect to the destruction
of Jerusalem, by Luke 17:37. “And they answered and said unto him,
Where, Lord? And he said unto them, Wheresoever the body is, thither
will the eagles be gathered together.” See also Luke 19:13-15. So when
the disciples had been observing the magnificence of the temple and
Christ had said to them, “Verily I say unto you, There shall not be left
one stone upon another, that shall not be thrown down,” — having respect
to the destruction of Jerusalem — the disciples asked him when these
things should be: “What should be the signs of his coming, and of the
end of the world?” By Christ’s coming they have plainly a respect to
that time of the destruction of the temple, which Christ had spoken of.
And therefore, their question is thus expressed by St. Mark 13:3, 4,
“Tell us when shall these things be, and what shall be the sign when all
these things shall be fulfilled?” And in like manner by St. Luke 21:7.
Christ has many things in his answer agreeable to this sense of this
question. He warns them to beware of others that should come instead,
Mat. 24:4, 5. Then he proceeds to tell them what will proceed the end,
i.e. the end of the world, which the disciples inquired after, and he
tells them what shall be signs of its approach, Mat. 24:6-16. And then
speaks of the desolation of Jerusalem and of the land, as that end and
that coming of his which they inquired after, Mat. 24:15-21, 28, and
more plainly, Luke 21:20-24.
3. It is manifest that the event to which Christ sometimes has respect
by his coming in his kingdom, and by the end of the world, etc., he did
not suppose would be at the time of the destruction of Jerusalem. He
speaks of that event as attended with general judgment and all nations
being gathered before his judgment seat to receive an eternal sentence,
Mat. 25, the latter part. This judgment will be attended with the
general resurrection of the dead, John 5:21, 22, 25-30. After this
resurrection, and at the end of this world, the saints shall neither
marry nor be given in marriage, but they shall be as the angels of God
in heaven, Mat. 22:30; especially Luke 20:34-36. And at the last coming
and the end of the world, all the wicked of all the nations shall be
cast into a furnace of fire, into everlasting fire, Mat. 13:39-42, chap.
25:40-46. And the righteous shall then be as wheat gathered into God’s
barn, shall enter into the kingdom prepared for them before the
foundation of the world, shall be received to Christ to live with him
where he is in his Father’s house in heaven, and shall shine forth as
the sun in the kingdom of their father, in the possession of immortal
life, Mat. 13:30, 39, 43; Mat. 25:34, 46; John 14:1-3; John 17:24.
When Christ spoke of the destruction of Jerusalem, he did not expect
that these things would be accomplished at that time. For he speaks of
that destruction as being of his enemies, as not of all nations or the
whole wicked world, but as principally confined to Judea Luke 21:20-22;
Mat. 24:15-17; Mark 13:14-15. He speaks of the great disadvantages they
should be under and directs them to pray that their flight may not be in
the winter, Mat. 14:19-20; Mark 13:17-18; Luke 21:23. But how do those
things agree to the time when they should be as the angels in heaven,
and there to shine forth as the sun? He speaks of this destruction as
being by war, by the sword of men and by the Roman armies, Luke
21:23-24; Mat. 24:28; Luke 17:37; Mat. 22:7; Luke 19:43-44 By this it
appears that Christ had no thought that then the world should be
destroyed, and all mankind disposed in their eternal state: the
righteous in heaven and the wicked all cast into a furnace of fire.
Christ supposes that the nations should remain after the destruction of
Jerusalem and that the kingdom of God would be taken from them and given
to another nation, Mat. 21:41-43; Luke 20:15-16. And it appears by the
parable of the marriage supper that the gospel should be preached to the
Gentiles and be gloriously successful among them after Jerusalem’s
destruction, Mat. 22:7-10.
From these things it follows,
4. That when Christ speaks of his coming, his coming in his kingdom,
etc. as being in that generation, and before some who were then alive
should taste of death, there is no need of understanding him of his
coming to the last judgment. But it may well be understood of his coming
at the destruction of Jerusalem, which as has been shown, he calls by
these names, and which he also distinguishes from his coming to the last
judgment and consummation of all things.
5. It is evident that he did not suppose his coming to last judgment and
the consummation of all things, would be till a long time after the
destruction of Jerusalem. The calling of the Gentiles, instead of the
Jews, is spoken of as what should be principally after the destruction
of Jerusalem; Mat. 21:41, 43; Luke 20:15, 16; Mat. 22:7-10. But this
Christ himself speaks of as a gradual work, in the parables of the grain
and the mustard seed, and of the leaven hid in three measures of meal;
Mat. 13:31-33; Luke 13:19-21; Mark 4:26-32. And it is very manifest that
Christ did not suppose the consummation of all things to take place,
till long after the destruction of Jerusalem, Luke 21:24, where it is
said of the Jews that they should be led away captive into all nations,
and Jerusalem should be trodden down of the Gentiles, till the times of
the Gentiles should be fulfilled.
It is considerably manifest that Christ, in these words as in some other
things he says in this discourse, has his respect to what is said in the
last chapter of Daniel (Dan. 12). In the great tribulation he speaks of,
Mat. 24:21, 22, he has manifestly in his eye what is said in Dan. 12:1.
And in what he says here of the times of the Gentiles, he has respect to
the times spoken of in Dan. 12:6, 7, as will appear by comparing and
observing the agreement. But these times are there spoken of as very
long.
A FUTURE STATE: THE
PROPRIETY OF A GENERAL JUDGMENT
582. Future State. Divine Revelation. If the New Testament be not a true
revelation of God, then God never yet has given the world any clear
revelation of a future state. But if a revelation be needful upon any
account, it is that we may have some certain and distinct knowledge of
the future invisible world that we are to be in after death and after
this world comes to an end. We must therefore suppose that God did
design a further revelation than the Old Testament, because a future
state was not clearly revealed by that. And it is not credible that God
should defer it to this time, partly by reason of the length of time
since the finishing of that revelation, which is about two thousand
years. If that revelation was only introductory to another, it is hardly
credible that there should be so long a space between the introduction
and that other revelation to which it was an introduction. Besides, this
clear revelation of a future state would now be out of season, because
all the world has already received the doctrine of a future world for
many ages. If God designed a true revelation, it is not probable that he
would suffer that any false revelation should anticipate it and do the
work beforehand. And upon many other accounts that might be mentioned,
it is incredible that the true revelation should still be deferred.
716. Future State. Dr.
Tillotson shows, in sermons 120-123, first what arguments natural reason
furnishes us with [to prove] that there is a future state, and how this
was a received principle among all nations: both in former and in latter
ages of the world. [He also shows] how it was looked upon as exceedingly
probable by the wisest philosophers, who yet seemed to long for a
greater certainty and to have it plainly revealed, whether it was so or
not. Having shown what expectations the Jews had from the light of
nature, together with the more obscure revelations made to them of it,
he then proceeds to show how fully this matter is brought to light by
the gospel that seemed somewhat obscure before, in that,
1. The gospel makes a most clear and express revelation of it,
absolutely and plainly, and abundantly discovers the thing.
2. It is not only revealed and declared, but that the [future] state is
described with its very particular circumstances. And, says the Doctor:
3. “The gospel gives us yet further assurance of these things, by such
an argument as is most likely to be convincing and satisfactory to
common capacities, and that is by a lively influence of the thing to be
proved, in raising Christ from the dead, Acts 17:30, 31. It is true,
indeed, under the Old Testament there were two instances somewhat of
that nature. Enoch and Elias were immediately translated and taken up to
heaven. But those two instances do in many respects fall short of the
other. For after Christ was raised from the dead, he conversed forty
days with his disciples and satisfied them that he was risen. After
which he was in their sight visibly taken up into heaven. And as an
evidence that he was possessed of his glorious kingdom, he sent down,
according to his promise, his Holy Spirit in miraculous gifts, to assure
them by these testimonies of his royalty, that he was in heaven and to
qualify them, by these miraculous powers, to convince the world of the
truth of their doctrine. What argument [is] more proper to convince them
of another life after this, than to see a man raised from the dead and
restored to a new life? What fitter to satisfy a man concerning heaven
and the happy state of those there, than to see one visibly taken up
into heaven? And what more fit to assure us that the promises of the
gospel are real and shall be made good to us, than to see him who made
those promises to us, raise himself from the dead and go up into heaven,
and from thence dispense miraculous gifts abroad in the world, as
evidences of the power and authority with which he is invested? All the
philosophical arguments which a man can bring for the soul’s immortality
and another life, will have no more force upon vulgar apprehensions, in
comparison of these sensible demonstrations, which give an experiment of
the thing and furnish us with an instance of something of the same kind,
and of equal difficulty with that which is propounded to our belief?”
864. Future State. Moral
Government. The God that is the Creator of the world is doubtless also
the Governor of it: for he is able to govern it. He that had power to
give being to the world, and set all the part of it in order, has
doubtless power to dispose of the world, to continue the order he has
constituted, or to alter it. He that gave being at first can continue
being or put an end to it, and therefore nothing can stand in his way.
If anything stands in his way, he can put an end to its being, or
diminish it, and weaken it as he pleases. He that constituted the world
in a certain order, can, if he pleases, constitute things otherwise, in
another order, either in whole or in part, at once or gradually, or
(what is the same thing), he can cause what alterations he pleases in
the state of things, or cause the state of things to proceed in what
course he pleases. He that first gave the laws of nature, must have all
nature in his hands, so that it is evident God has the world in his
hands, to dispose of as he pleases. And as God is able, so he is
inclined, to govern the world. For as he is an understanding being, he
had some end in what he did, otherwise he did not act as a voluntary
agent in making the world. That being never acts voluntarily, that has
no end in what he does, and aims at nothing at all in it. Neither God
nor man is properly said to make anything that necessarily or
accidentally proceeds from them, but that only which is voluntarily
produced. Besides, we see in the particular parts of the world that God
had a particular end in their formation. They are fitted for such an
end. By which it appears that the Creator did act as a voluntary agent,
proposing final causes in the work of creation, and he that made the
particular parts for certain ends, doubtless made the whole for a
certain end. And if God made the world for some end, doubtless he will
choose to have this world disposed of to answer that end. For his
proposing the end supposes that he chooses it should be obtained.
Therefore, it follows that God will choose to take care that the world
be disposed of to the obtaining of his own ends, which is the same thing
as his choosing to have the government of the world. And it is manifest,
in fact, that God is not careless how the affairs and concerns of the
world he has made proceed, because he was not careless of this matter in
the creation itself, as it is apparent, by the manner and order in which
things were created, that God, in creating, took care of the future
progress and state of things in the world. He contrived that things
might so and so proceed and be regulated, and that such and such events
might be produced. So that it is manifest that the Creator is not
careless of the state of things in his world. This being established, I
now proceed to show that it must be, that God maintains a moral
government over the world of mankind.
1. If it be certain that God is concerned, and does take care, how
things proceed in the state of the world he has made, then he will be
especially concerned how things proceed in the state of the world of
mankind. This is manifest by three things: First. Mankind are the
principal part of the visible creation. They have understanding, are
voluntary agents, and can produce works of their own will, design, and
contrivance, as God does. And the Creator looks upon them as the
principal part of his visible creation, as is manifest, because he has
set them at the head of his creation. The world is evidently made to be
a habitation for man, and all things about him are subordinated to his
use. Now if God be careful how the world that he has made be regulated,
that his end may be answered, and that it may not be in vain, he will be
especially careful of this concerning the principal part of it, and in
the same proportion that it is principal or superior in his own account
to the rest. Because if that superior part be in vain, there is much
more in vain than if a less part was in vain: so much more as his loss
(as I may say) is so much the greater, in its being in vain, according
as the part is superior in his account.
Second. The more God has respect to any part of the world he has made,
the more concerned he will be about the state of that part. But it is
manifest, by the creation itself, that God has more respect or regard to
man, than to any other part of the visible creation, because he has
evidently made and fitted other parts of man’s use. If God be concerned
how things proceed in the world he has made, he will be so chiefly in
that part of his world that he has set his heart most upon.
Third. It is evident that God is principally concerned about the state
of things in the world of mankind. In creation, he subordinated the
state of things in the inferior world, to the state of things in the
world of mankind, and he so contrived that the affairs of the former
should be subservient to the affairs of the latter. And therefore God
will not leave the world of mankind to themselves, without taking any
care to govern and order their state, so that this part of the world may
be regulated decently and beautifully, and that there may be good order
in the intelligent, voluntary and active, and so a superior part of the
creation. Or which is the same thing, he will take care that the world
of mankind be regulated with respect to its moral state, and so will
maintain a good moral government over the world of mankind. It is
evident by the manner in which God has formed and constituted other
things, that he has respect to beauty, good order and regulation,
proportion and harmony: so in the system of the world, in the seasons of
the year, in the formation of plants, and of the various parts of the
human body. Surely, therefore, he will not leave the principal part of
the creation, about the state of which he is evidently chiefly
concerned, without making any proper provision for its being in any
other than a state of deformity, discord, and the most hateful and
dreadful confusion. And especially so in what relates to those things in
them, by which alone they are distinguished, and are superior and more
valuable than the rest of the world, viz., their intelligence, will, and
voluntary actions, and therefore, upon the account of which alone, God
has more regard to them and is more concerned about their state.
By what has been already said, God is most concerned about the state and
government of that which is highest in his creation, and which he values
most, and so he is principally concerned about the ordering the state of
mankind, which is a part of the creation that he has made superior, and
that he values most. And therefore, in like manner, it follows that he
is principally concerned about the regulation of that which he values
most in men, viz., what appertains to his intelligence and voluntary
acts. If there be anything in the principal part of the creation that
the Creator values more than other parts, it must be that wherein it is
above them, or, at least, something wherein it differs from them. But
the only thing wherein men differ from the inferior creature, is
intelligent perception and action. This is that in which the Creator has
made man to differ from the rest of the creation, and by which he has
set him over it, and by which he governs the inferior creatures, and
uses them for himself. And therefore it must needs be that the Creator
should be chiefly concerned that the state of mankind should be
regulated according to his will, with respect to what appertains to him
as an intelligent, voluntary creature. Hence it must be that God does
take care that a good moral government should be maintained over men,
that his intelligent, voluntary acts should be all subject to rules, and
that with respect to them all, he should be the subject of judicial
proceeding. For unless this be, there is no care taken that the state of
mankind, with respect to their intelligent, voluntary acts, should be
regulated at all, but all things will be remedilessly in the utmost
deformity, confusion and ruin. The world of mankind, instead of being
superior, will be the worse, and the more hateful, and the more vile and
miserable, for having the faculties of reason and will, and this highest
part of the creation will be the lowest, and infinitely the most
confused, deformed, and detestable, without any provision for rectifying
its evils. And the God of order, peace, and harmony that constituted the
inferior parts of the world, which he has subjected to man and made
subservient to him, in such decency, beauty, and harmony, will appear to
have left this chief part of his work, and the end of all the rest, to
the reign of everlasting discord, confusion, and ruin. [They will be]
contradicting and conflicting with their own nature and faculties:
having reason and yet acting in all things contradictory to it, being
men but yet beasts, setting sense above reason, and improving reason
only as a weapon of mischief and destruction of God’s workmanship. God
has so made and constituted the world of mankind that he has made it
natural and necessary that they should be concerned one with another,
linked together in society, by the manner of their propagation, their
defending one from another, their need one of another, and their
inclination to society. We see that in other parts of the creation,
wherein many particulars are dependent and united into one body, there
is an excellent harmony and mutual subserviency throughout the whole, as
in all bodies natural. How then can we believe that God has ordered so
much of the contrary in the principal part of his creation?
2. I would again argue that God must maintain a moral government over
mankind, thus: — It is evident that it was agreeable to the Creator’s
design, that there should be some moral government maintained amongst
men, because, without any, either in nations, provinces, towns, or
families, and also without any divine government over the whole, the
world of mankind could not subsist, but would destroy itself. Men would
be not only much more destructive to each other than any kind of animals
are to their own species, but a thousand times more than any kind of
beasts are to those of any other species. Therefore, the nature that God
has given all mankind, and the circumstances in which he has placed
them, lead all, in all ages throughout the habitable world, into moral
government. And the Creator doubtless intended this for the preservation
of this highest species of creatures. Otherwise he has made much less
provision for the defense and preservation of this species, than of any
other. There is no kind of creature that he has left without proper
means for its own preservation. But unless man’s own reason, to be
improved in moral rule and order, be the means he has provided for the
preservation of man, he has provided him with no means at all.
Therefore, it is doubtless the original design of the Creator: that
there should be moral subordination amongst men, and that he designed
there should be heads, princes, or governors, to whom honor, subjection,
and obedience should be paid. Now this strongly argues that the Creator
himself will maintain a moral government over the whole in several ways:
First. Without this, the preservation of the species is but very
imperfectly provided for. If men have nothing but human government to be
a restraint upon their lusts, and have no rule or judgment of an
universal omniscient governor to be a restraint upon their consciences,
still they are left in a most woeful condition. And the preservation and
common benefit of the species, according to its necessities, and the
exigencies of its place, nature, and circumstances in the creation, is
in nowise provided for, as the preservation and necessities of other
species are.
Second. As the Creator has made it necessary that there should be some
of our fellow creatures that should have rule over us, he has therein so
ordered it that some of them should have some image of his own disposing
power over others. (For as was shown before, God has the disposing power
of the whole world.) Now is it reasonable to think that the Creator
would so constitute the circumstances of mankind that some particular
persons, who have only a little image and shadow of his greatness and
power over men, should exercise it in giving forth edicts and executing
judgment, and that he who is above all, and the original of all, should
exercise no power in this way himself, when mankind stand in so much
more need of such an exercise of his power than of the power of human
governors?
Third. He has infinitely the greatest right to exercise the power of a
moral governor if he pleases. His relation to man as his Creator most
naturally leads to it. He is infinitely the most worthy of that respect,
honor, and subjection that is due to a moral governor. He has infinitely
the best qualifications of a governor, being infinitely wise, powerful,
and holy, and his government will be infinitely the most effectual to
answer the ends of government.
Fourth. It is manifest that the Creator of the world, in constituting
human moral governments among men, has, in that constitution, had great
respect to those qualifications, that relation, and those rights and
obligations, in those whom he has appointed to be rulers, and in putting
others under their moral government, which he has in himself in a vastly
more eminent degree. As particularly in the government of parents over
their children, which of all other kinds of human moral government is
most evidently founded in nature, and which the preservation of the
species does most immediately require. Here God has set those to be
moral rulers, who are the wiser and stronger, and has appointed those to
be in subjection who are less knowing, and weaker, and have received
being from their rulers, and are dependent, preserved, and maintained.
Would not he therefore maintain moral government himself over mankind,
who is their universal father, their universal preserver, who maintains
all, and provides all with food and raiment, and all the necessaries and
enjoyments of life, and is infinitely wiser and stronger than they?
Would not he maintain a moral government over men, who need his
government, as children need the government of their parents, and who
are no more fit to be left to themselves in the world without his rules,
directions, authority, promises, threatenings, and judgment, than
children are fit to be left to themselves in a house?
3. As man is made capable of knowing his Creator, so he is capable of a
high esteem of his perfections, his power, wisdom, and goodness. He is
capable of a proper esteem of God for his wise, excellent, and wonderful
works, which he beholds; and for their admirable contrivance, which
appears in so excellently ordering all things; and of gratitude to him
for all the goodness of which he himself is the subject; or, on the
contrary, of slighting and despising him, and hating him, finding fault
with his works, reproaching him for them, slighting all his goodness
which he receives from him: yea, hating him for ordering things in his
providence to him as he has done, and cursing and blaspheming him for
it.
Now it is unreasonable to suppose that God should be an indifferent
spectator of those things in his creature made in his own image, and
made superior to all other creatures, and in a creature that he values
above all the rest of the creation. It cannot be equally agreeable to
him, whether man gives him proper esteem, love, honor, and gratitude,
or, on the contrary, unreasonably despises, hates, and curses him. And
if he be not an indifferent spectator of these things, then he will not
act as a perfectly indifferent spectator, and wholly let men alone, and
order things in no respect differently for those ends one way or other.
But so it must be, if God maintains no moral government over mankind.
4. As man is made capable of knowing his Creator, so he is capable of
knowing his will in many things, i.e. he is capable of knowing his ends
in this way and the other works which he beholds. For it is this way
principally that he comes to know there is a God, even by seeing the
final causes of things, by seeing that such and such things are plainly
designed and contrived for such and such ends, and therefore he is
capable of either complying with the will of his Creator, or opposing
it. He is capable of falling in with God’s ends, and what he sees his
Creator aim at and cooperating with him, or of setting himself against
the Creator’s designs. It is manifest that it is the Creator’s design
that parents should nourish their children, and that children should be
subject to their parents.
If a man therefore should murder his children, or if children should
rise up and murder their parents, they would oppose the Creator’s aims.
So if men use the several bodily organs to quite contrary purposes to
those for which they were given, and if they use the faculties of their
own minds to ends quite contrary to those for which they were fitted
(for doubtless they were given and fitted for some end or other), he may
perversely use his dominion over the creatures against the ends to which
they were given. For however far we suppose man may be from being
capable of properly frustrating his Creator, yet he is capable of
showing that his will is contrary to his Creator’s ends. He may oppose
his Creator in his will, and he may dislike God’s ends and seek others.
Now the Creator cannot be an indifferent spectator of this, for it is a
contradiction to suppose that opposition to his will and aims should be
as agreeable to him in itself, as complying with his will. And if he is
not an indifferent spectator, then he will not act as such, and so he
must maintain a moral government over mankind.
This argument is peculiarly strong as it respects man’s being capable of
falling in with or opposing God’s ends in his own creation, and his
endowing him with faculties above the rest of the world. It is exceeding
manifest concerning mankind, that God must have made them for some end;
not only as it is evident that God must have made the world in general
for some end; not only as it is evident that God must have made the
world in general for some end; and as man is an intelligent voluntary
agent; — but as it is especially manifest from fact, that God has made
mankind for some special end. For it is apparent, in fact, that God has
made the inferior parts of the world for some end, and that the special
end he made them for, is to subserve the benefit of mankind. Therefore,
above all, may it be argued, that God has made mankind for some end. If
an artificer accomplishes some great piece of workmanship, very
complicated, and with a vast variety of parts, but the whole is so
contrived and connected together that there is some particular part
which all the other parts are to subserve, we should well conclude that
the workman had some special design to serve by that part, and that his
peculiar aim in the whole, was what he intended should be obtained by
that part. Now man, the principal part of the creation, is capable of
knowing his Creator, and is capable of discerning God’s ends in the
formation of other things. Therefore, doubtless, since God discovers to
him the ends for which he made other things, it would be very strange if
he should not let him know the end for which he himself is made, or for
which he had such distinguishing faculties given him, whereby he is set
above other parts of the creation. Therefore, in the use of his own
faculties, he must either fall in with the known design of the Creator
in giving them, or thwart it. He must either cooperate with his Creator,
as complying with the end of his own being, or wittingly set himself as
his enemy. Of this the Creator cannot be an indifferent spectator, and
therefore, by what was said before, must maintain moral government over
mankind.
5. It may be argued that God maintains a moral government over the world
of mankind, from this: that the special end of the being of man is
something wherein he has to do with his Creator, some business where in
he is especially concerned with God. The special end of the brute
creation is something wherein they are concerned with men. But men’s
special end is some improvement or use of his faculties towards God.
First, I would show the truth of this, and then would show the
consequence.
First. The special end for which God made mankind is something very
diverse and very superior to those ends for which he made any part of
the inferior creation, because God has made man very different from
them. He has vastly distinguished him in the nature that he has given
him, the faculties with which he has endowed him, and the place he has
set him in the creation. Now if he has made man for nothing different
from what he has made other creatures, then he has thus done in vain.
Second. Man’s special end does not respect any other parts of the
visible creation. All these are below him, and all, as we observed
before, are made for him, to be subservient to his use. Their special
end respects him, but his special end does not respect them. For this is
unreasonable in itself: if they are in their formation and end
subordinated to him, and subjected to him, then the Maker set a greater
value on him than them, and therefore he has not made him for them. For
that would be to suppose them most valuable in the eyes of their Maker.
And it is manifest, in fact, that the being of mankind does not subserve
the benefit of the inferior creatures, any farther than is just
necessary to turn them to his own use, and spend them in it.
We may add to this that the happiness of the greater part of mankind, in
their worldly enjoyments, is not great enough, or durable enough, to
prove that the end of all things in the whole visible universe is only
that happiness. — Therefore, nothing else remains, no other supposition
is possible, but that man’s special end is something wherein he has
immediately to do with his Creator.
Third. If God has made men above other creatures, with capacities
superior to them, for some special end, for which other creatures are
not made, that special end must be something peculiar to them, for which
they are capacitated and fitted by those superior faculties. Now the
greatest thing that men are capacitated for, by their faculties, more
than the beasts, is that they are capable of having intercourse with
their Creator, as intelligent and voluntary agents. They are capable of
knowing, esteeming, and loving him, and capable of receiving
instructions and commands from him, and capable of obeying and serving
him, if he be pleased to give commands and make a revelation of his
mind. What business or enjoyment, in any measure so distinguishing and
peculiar, are men capacitated for, by their superior faculties, as this?
Indeed there is nothing material that is entirely peculiar, and in its
nature distinguished. Men could have done as well and better for such
things, and have been beasts or birds. It is a vast difference that God
has made between some of his creatures and others: that he has made one
capable of knowing himself, and so of loving and serving him, and
enjoying him. Surely this is not without some end. He that has done
nothing in the inferior world in vain, has not given man this capacity
in vain. The sun has not its light given it without a final cause, and
shall we suppose that mankind has this light of the knowledge of their
Creator without a final cause?
Thus it is evident that the special end for which God has made man, is
something wherein he has intercourse with his Creator, as an
intelligent, voluntary agent. Hence the consequence is certain that
mankind are subject to God’s moral government. For there can be no such
thing maintained, as a communication between God and man, as between
intelligent, voluntary agents, without moral government. For in
maintaining communication or converse, one must yield to the other, and
must comply with the other. There must be union of wills: one must be
clothed with authority, the other with submission. If God has made man
to converse with himself, he is not indifferent how he is conversed
with. One manner of behavior must be agreeable to his will, and another
not, and therefore God cannot act as indifferent in this matter. He
cannot let man alone, to behave toward him just as he pleases. Therefore
there must be moral government. God cannot be indifferent, whether he is
respected and honored, or is condemned and hated.
Now as the consequence of the whole, I would infer two things:
(1.) A future state of rewards and punishments. For unless there be such
a state, it will certainly follow that God, in fact, maintains no moral
government over the world of mankind. For otherwise it is apparent that
there is no such thing as rewarding or punishing mankind, according to
any visible rule, or indeed, according to any order or method
whatsoever. Without this, there may be desires manifested, but there can
be no proper laws established, and no authority maintained. Nothing is
more manifest, than that in this world there is no such thing as a
regular, equal disposing of rewards and punishments of men according to
their moral estate. There is nothing in God’s disposals toward men in
this world, to make his distributive justice and judicial equity
visible, but all things are in the greatest confusion. Often the wicked
prosper, and are not in trouble as other men. — They become mighty in
power, yea, it has commonly bee so in all ages that they have been
uppermost in the world. They have the ascendant over the righteous. They
are mounted on thrones, while the righteous remain in cottages. And in
this world, the cause of the just is not vindicated. — Many wicked men
have the righteous in their power, and trample them under foot, and
become their cruel persecutors. And the righteous are oppressed and
suffer all manner of injuries and cruelties, while the wicked live and
reign in great glory and prosperity.
(2.) What has been said does invincibly argue a divine revelation. And
that 1st. Because if God maintains a moral government over mankind, then
there must be rewards and punishments. But these sanctions must be
declared: for instance, the punishments which enforce God’s laws must be
made known. To suppose that God keeps up an equal, perfect moral
government over the world, and yet leaves men wholly at a loss about the
nature, manner, degree, time, place, and continuance of their
punishment, or leaves it only to their guesses, or for them to argue it
out from the nature of things, as well as they can, and everyone to make
his judgment according as his notions shall guide him, is a very
unreasonable supposition. If moral government be maintained, the order
and method of government must be visible. Otherwise it loses the nature
of moral government. There must be a powerful disposal, as inanimate,
unintelligible things are the subjects of God’s government, in a visible
and established order, but no moral government. The order of government
serves to maintain authority, and to influence and rule the subject
morally, no further than it is visible. 2nd. The notion of a moral
government without a revelation or declaration of the mind of the head,
by his Word or some voluntary sign or signification, in the whole of it
is absurd. If God maintains a moral government over a society of
intelligent creatures, doubtless there must be a revelation. How absurd
is it to suppose that there should be converse and moral government
maintained between the head and subjects, when both are intelligent,
voluntary agents, without a voluntary communication of minds and
expressions, thoughts and inclinations, between the head and the members
of the society!
1007. Judgment Day. The
doctrine taught in the Scriptures, that at the end of the world all
mankind shall stand together before the judgment-seat of the supreme
Lawgiver and Judge, to have all things visibly set to rights — and
justice made visibly to take place with respect to all the persons,
actions, and affairs of the moral world, by the infinitely wise, holy,
and just Head of it — is a most reasonable doctrine, and much commends
itself to our belief, from the reason of the thing, on the supposition
of a moral government maintained over the world by him who created it.
For this implies that he governs the world as its lawgiver and judge,
and will treat men as accountable creatures. God’s moral government not
only requires, that there should be divine laws, and an execution of
them in rewards and punishments, but also that both should be made
visible. It is requisite that the subject should have proper means of
knowing what the laws are, by which he is obligated, and the grounds of
the obligation, and that others who are his fellow-subjects should also
know his obligations. For as men are made to dwell in society, this
cannot well be, without knowing each other’s obligations, and being able
to judge of the good or evil of each other’s actions. It is likewise
requisite that the subject of the laws should have proper means of
knowing the grounds of the rewards or punishments of which he is the
subject, in the execution of the laws; and that it should be made
manifest, to the conscience of him who is rewarded or punished, what he
is rewarded or punished for, and the ground on which the Judge assigns
such a retribution; and if he see others punished or acquitted, that the
ground of it should be manifest to him, that he may see the justice of
it. That there should be some judicial proceeding in which that should
take place, seems absolutely necessary, in order to a proper
manifestation of the grounds of the subject’s reward or punishment, and
a display of the justice of his judge to his own conscience, which must
be if the subject be dealt with as a rational moral agent.
Hence it is of necessity, that every one of mankind must be the subject
of such a dispensation of God towards him, which may fitly be called an
appearing before the judgment-seat of God. And it is most reasonable to
suppose, that this judicial proceeding will not be secret; that each
individual will not be judged so; that the transaction with respect to
him will be out of the sight and knowledge of all others; but that truth
and righteousness will be made visibly to take place, after a prevalence
of wrong, wickedness, and confusion, in the violations of a divine law,
which was public, and the law of their union and regulation in society.
Many of those violations are of course visible to others, and are
concerned in them, either in being united in the wickedness, and
accessory to it, or a party concerned in suffering the injury done by
that wickedness.
Reasonable creatures are the eye of the world. They are capable of
beholding the beauty and excellency of the Creator’s workmanship, and
those displays of himself, which he has made in his works. And therefore
it is requisite that the beauty and excellency of the world, as God has
constituted it, should not be hid or kept secret. But the beauty of
God’s constitution of the world consists mainly without doubt in the
intelligent part of the world, which is head and end of all the rest, et
instar omnium. But the beauty and order of God’s constitution of this
consists chiefly in his moral regulation of it. Now, therefore, since
God has made the beauty and regularity of the natural world so publicly
visible to all, it is much more requisite that the moral beauty and
regularity of his disposals, in the intelligent world, should be
publicly visible. For the beauty of God’s works consists a thousand
times more in this than in the other. It is reasonable to suppose that
these will be as publicly visible as the brightness and beautiful order
and motions of the heavenly bodies, and the regular successions of the
various seasons of the year, and the beauties of nature in the air and
on the face of the earth. The moral deformity and confusion of the world
is most public. It stands forth continually in view through all ages. It
is therefore fit that the rectifying of this deformity and disorder, and
the bringing of light out of darkness should also be made publicly
visible to those creatures that are made to be the eye of the creation
to behold its beauty and the glory of the Creator in it. God has given
man a nature which, if it be under the influence of true virtue, desires
above all things to behold this kind of order and beauty. When man sees
a great and horrid crime committed, as some nefarious act of injustice,
cruelty, etc. the nature of the reasonable creature has something in it,
which desires and makes it requisite, that he should see justice done,
and right take place, with respect to such an act. The mind or heart, as
it were, fails in such a case if it neither sees this nor hopes to see
it.
If it be requisite that judgment should be public, and that many should
stand together before the judgment-seat, [then] on the same account it
will appear most reasonable to suppose that the whole world should
appear together in one great assembly before the judgment-seat. The
whole world is one commonwealth and kingdom, all made of one blood, all
under one moral head, one law, and one government; and all parts of it
are joined in communication one with another. All are sinners, and yet
God appears placable to all, etc. All dwell in one habitation, viz.,
this earth, under the same roof of the visible heavens having the same
sun to enlighten them, etc. Besides, many of the causes and
controversies to be decided by the Supreme Judge of the world, are of
the most public mature: as causes between princes, heads of great
kingdoms, and monarchies and their people, and causes between one nation
and another. Yea, there are many causes which the Supreme Judge must
bring to an issue, wherein the greater part of the world is concerned.
And when the cause and controversy between these two is judged, it is
requisite that both parties should appear together before the
judgment-seat. The Roman emperors had to do with other nations that were
without the limits of the empire, to the utmost ends of the earth: as
with the Scythians, the Persians, the Arabians, the Indians, the
Chinese, the Germans, Cimbrians, and Africans. So that it is requisite
when they appear to be judged that not only the people of the Roman
empire should appear with them, but also those other nations. Thus, all
the nations of Europe have dealings one with another continually; and
these European nations have some dealings with almost all other nations
upon earth, in Asia, Africa, and America.
It is therefore necessary that all nations should be gathered together
before the judgment-seat of the Supreme Lawgiver and Judge, that he may
determine between them, and settle all things by his wise, righteous,
and infallible decision. And many of the good and evil acts that are
done, though the world is not properly concerned in them as a party
interested, yet are public through the world. They are done in the sight
of the world, and greatly draw the attention of mankind. It is fit,
therefore, that they should be as publicly judged. And, it is to be
observed, that the longer the world stands, the more and more
communication have the different parts of it together. So that, at the
end of the world, there probably will be the highest reason, in this
respect, that all nations that shall then be found upon the earth,
should be called together before the judgment-seat of God.
As it is requisite that all who dwell on the face of the earth at the
same time, should appear together before the judgment-seat, so it is
also requisite that all generations that have succeeded one another,
appear together. Many of the moral acts, both good and bad, not only are
public in this respect, that they are known over great part of the face
of the earth, in or near the time of them, but also they are made public
to all following generations, by tradition and history. And it the
actions of one generation be not visible to all, yet the actions of one
generation are very visible to the generation immediately following, and
theirs to the next, and so all, in this sense, are very visible one to
another. And as all nations of the world are morally concerned one with
another, though not so as each one immediately concerned with every
other nation, yet all are mutually concerned by concatenation. — One
nation is concerned with the next, and that with the next, and so on: so
that there is need that all should appear together to be judged.
All generations of men, from the beginning to the end of the world, are
morally concerned with one another. — The first generation is concerned
with the next, and that with the next, and so on to the end of the
world. Therefore it is requisite that all should appear together to be
judged. Parents may injure their children, and children may injure their
parents; and so they are two parties in one cause which must be decided
by the Supreme Judge. Therefore it is needful, that they, as parties,
should appear together, when their cause is judged. Parents and
children, or a younger generation and an older, may be accessory to each
other’s crimes, or united in each other’s virtuous deeds; and therefore
it is requisite that they should be judged together. Yea, the present
generation may become necessary to an injury committed by their
ancestors ages ago. For, in many things, they stand in the stead of
those ancestors, and act for them, and have power to continue the
injury, or the remove it.
Posterity is concerned in the actions of their ancestors or
predecessors, in families, nations, and most communities of men, as
standing in some respect in their stead. And some particular persons may
injure, not only may injure and undo all future generations of many
individuals, families, or larger communities. So that men who live now,
may have an action against those who lived a thousand years ago. Or
there may be a cause which needs to be decided by the Judge of the
world, between some of the present generation, and some who lived a
thousand years ago. Princes who, by rapine and cruelty, ruin nations,
are answerable for the poverty, slavery, and misery of the posterity of
those nations, so as to those who broach and establish opinions and
principles, which tend to the overthrow of virtue and propagation of
vice, and are contrary to the common rights and privileges of mankind. —
Thus, Mahomet has injured all succeeding posterity, and is answerable,
at least in a degree, for the ruin of the virtue of his followers in
many respects, and for the rapine, violence, and terrible devastations
which his followers have been guilty of toward the nations of the world,
and to which they have been instigated by the principles which he taught
them. And whoever they were, who first drew away men from the true
religion, and introduced and established idolatry, they have injured all
nations that have to this day partaken of the infection.
In like manner, persons, by their virtue, may be great benefactors to
mankind, through all succeeding generations. Without doubt, the apostle
Paul, and others who assisted him, and following generations, may
properly become the subjects of a judicial proceeding with respect to
that great religious change and revolution in the nations subject to the
Roman empire in abolishing heathenish idolatry and setting up
Christianity in the room of it.
The end of the divine judgment is the manifestation of the divine
justice. And how fit is it that the justice of the universal and supreme
Head and Judge of all mankind, in governing his kingdom, should be most
publicly manifested, and exhibited to his whole kingdom! This doctrine
of the day of judgment, exceedingly becomes the universal moral Head of
the world, who rules through all generations.
It is certain that the world of mankind, in its present state in this
world, will come to an end: nature, in length of time, will bring it to
an end. But it is not to be supposed that the Creator and Governor of
the world will let it come to an end, in the gradual way in which nature
would bring it to an end. And if an end will be put to the probationary
state of the whole world of mankind, that shall then be alive, at once,
their judgment of course will be at once. For judgment doubtless
immediately follows the state of probation.
When the world shall come to an end, it will probably be exceedingly
full of people, and a great part of the whole of the inhabitants will be
alive at that time. And as then the world will probably have great
intercourse one part with another, vastly beyond what it has now, so it
will be peculiarly fit that they should be judged in sight of one
another.
If there shall ever come a time wherein the Lawgiver and Judge of the
world will publicly regulate the moral state of all generations, the end
of the world, when there shall be a final period to all farther
probation, seems to be a proper time for it. If ever, by divine wisdom
and righteousness, there be brought about a righteous, holy, and
glorious issue of the confused state of the world, it will be when this
world shall have come to an end. As the proper time for judging a
particular person is when the probationary world comes to an end.
There is all reason to think that the wicked will hereafter be punished
together, having a place of punishment assigned for them, where they
shall suffer divine vengeance in sight of one another, and that the
righteous will also be rewarded together. If so, it is most requisite
that their judgment should be together, that they might understand the
ground and reason of the punishment, and of that reward, which they
shall see in each other.
1087. God’s Chosen People.
On the supposition that God has not utterly cast off the world of
mankind, it is most reasonable to suppose that in the time of the
universal corruption of the world by idolatry, which continued for so
many ages, God should choose some one people to maintain amongst them
the knowledge and the true worship of himself.
1156. Future Rewards and
Punishments. It is most agreeable to reason that there is a future state
of rewards and punishments, wherein God will reward and make happy good
men and make wicked men miserable. And if there be a future state of
happiness to God’s favorites, it is rational to suppose, that this
should be ETERNAL. Because otherwise, God’s greatest favorites to whom
he gives greatest rewards in another world, would, in one respect, have
most to torment them: to wit, the dreadful and eternal end of that sweet
happiness. The sweeter and more happy life is, the more terrible are
death and the thoughts and expectations of it. It is not likely that God
would add such a sting to the sweetest enjoyments and rewards of his
greatest favorites. It is rational, therefore, to suppose that the life
he gives them after death, is life eternal: life that is not to come to
an end by another worse death, consisting not only in the destruction of
the body, but the abolition of the soul. God has not made them like the
brutes, who cannot contemplate futurity, and therefore have no allay to
present enjoyment by the prospect of an end by death. And if it be so
that there be an eternal state of happiness in another world, set before
us to be sought after, then how rational are the Christian doctrines and
precepts of placing our affections on heavenly objects, of weanedness
from the world, of behaving as pilgrims and strangers on the earth, of
not laying up treasure on the earth, but in heaven, of selling all for
the kingdom of heaven, of not looking at the things which are seen,
which are temporal, but at the things which are not seen, which are
eternal! Hence, also, the reasonableness of the Christian precepts of
patience under sufferings, seeing these afflictions are but for a
moment, in comparison with the duration of the future weight of glory.
Since the doctrine of original sin, and the exceeding depravity and
corruption of human nature, is so agreeable to experience, and also
men’s obstinancy in sin and folly under all manner of means, these make
the doctrine of regeneration, and the sovereign grace of God in it,
exceedingly rational. And seeing the extreme stupidity of mankind is so
evident, in a senselessness of the amiableness of the divine Being, of
the unreasonableness and excellency of virtue, of the reality and
importance of future and eternal things, and in their expectations of
happiness here, and in the value they set upon the vain things of this
world. Hence, how rational is the doctrine of divine illumination, of
the teachings of God’s Spirit, opening the blind eyes, turning from
darkness to light, taking away the heart of stone, and giving an heart
of flesh, etc.
Since reason teaches that a divine revelation is peculiarly necessary to
teach us a way of reconciliation with God, after we have offended him by
sin, and since this depends on God’s sovereign pleasure (and the
strength and clearness of reason do not at all help to the discovery of
it), therefore, it is more reasonable to suppose that when a divine
revelation is given, it should be very much taken up about this, to wit,
about the way of a sinner’s reconciliation to God, the justification of
a sinner, and that this should be very much the subject of that Bible,
which contains the divine revelation to mankind. Since experience
teaches that mankind, in general, is in fallen and exceedingly depraved
state. and it is also evident that all mankind are not actually
reconciled, but comparatively few. and since reason teaches that there
must be a future eternal state of rewards for the good, and that there
must be some revelation to ascertain and declare this, that this reward
may properly be set before men, as God’s promise and an enforcement of
God’s commands, and certain encouragement to the good under the
difficulties and sufferings they meet with in the way of virtue — it is
also very rational to suppose that God, in this revelation, would
appoint that those who are gathered out of this corrupt, polluted world,
and being brought to true virtue are reconciled to God, and are
interested in the eternal happiness of another world, should be UNITED
in one HOLY SOCIETY or CHURCH.
How reasonable is the scripture doctrine of one God, and of the other
invisible heavenly beings that are concerned in the affairs of the
government of the world! Though these beings be of very great power and
exalted dignity, and different degrees and orders, having a diverse
superintendency over various parts of God’s creation, and so may be
called thrones, dominions, principalities, and powers — yet all those
are his ANGELS, his mere servants in perfect dependence on him and
subjection to him. How much more rational is this, than the old heathen
notions of a multiplicity of gods, or heavenly beings, who were the
joint objects of trust, dependence, and divine adoration? It is evident
to reason that there is but one eternal, self-existent, independent,
infinite Being, and that all other beings are his creatures.It is not
reasonable that we should make these inferior beings the objects of
adoration, invocation, and praise, for we do not know them, we do not
know who they are. If any of them have the special care or charge of us,
of our families, cities, or nation, we do not know who they are, nor
what care they have of us, what power they have with respect to us, nor
how far their knowledge extends. As the supreme Being has made the
world, so he has made us. As he is the author of the whole system of the
visible universe, so he is the author of us, who are the head and the
end of this system, to which the other creatures of this system are
subjected, and for which they are evidently made, contrived and ordered.
He is the author of the frame of our bodies, and the father of our
souls, and the author of their faculties. He is our preserver and
governor, and we live, move and have our being in him. Therefore, none
of our fellow creatures should share with him, in our adoration,
self-dedication, dependence, prayer, and praise.
The doctrine of the gospel concerning an INVISIBLE WORLD, to which good
men are to be transferred, and where they are to have their inheritance
and fixed abode, is most rational on this account, that this visible
world is corruptible in its own nature. Such is the nature and
constitution of it, that it must come to an end. And it is unreasonable
to suppose that the Creator would leave it gradually to perish,
languishing in a decayed, broken, miserable state, through thousands of
ages, gradually growing more and more wretched, before it is quite
destroyed. Therefore, it is reasonable to suppose that there will be a
time wherein its Creator will immediately interpose, to put the world to
an end, and destroy it suddenly. And at that time, all the living
inhabitants of the world, that are not taken from it and translated to
some other abode, must perish, and be destroyed in a very awful manner,
by the immediate hand of God, with most inexpressible manifestations of
his mighty power and great majesty, which will have infinitely more
dreadful appearances of divine wrath and fury, than is in the most
terrible thunderstorms or earthquakes. And who can believe that at that
time, when God, in this manner, immediately interposes, he will make no
distinction between the virtuous and his enemies? That this awful
destruction and wrath shall come upon all alike? There will be no
necessity of it from the course of nature. For at that time, by the
supposition, God will put an end to the course of nature. God will
immediately and miraculously interpose. The whole affair shall be
miraculous, and by God’s immediate hand, and therefore, a miraculous
deliverance of the good will not be at all beside God’s manner of
operation at this time. He can as easily, and, without departing any
more from the stated course of things, miraculously deliver the
virtuous, as he can miraculously destroy the wicked.
Therefore we may well suppose, that at that time, when God is about to
put an end to the frame of this visible universe, the virtuous will be
translated into some other world, beyond the limits of the visible one.
And if God designs thus to deal with all the good that shall be found
alive on the earth at that time, how rational is it to suppose that he
deals in like manner with the good in all generations? That they are all
translated into that distant invisible world? Without doubt, the world
into which God will receive his favorites, when this corruptible world
shall perish, shall be incorruptible. He will not translate them from
one corruptible world to another. He will not save them from one world
that is to perish, to carry them to another world that is to perish.
Therefore, they shall be immortal and have eternal life, and doubtless,
that world will be unspeakably better than this, and free from all that
destruction, that fleeting, fading, perishing, empty nature, that
attends all the things of this world. And their bodies shall be
immortal, and as secure from perishing as the world is to which they are
translated.
This makes it most reasonable to suppose that good men, in all ages, are
translated to that world. For why should so vast a difference be made,
between the virtuous that shall be of the last generation, and the
virtuous of all preceding generations? Seeing there is a far distant and
invisible world provided for some of the virtuous inhabitants of this
world, it is reasonable to suppose that all the good shall have their
habitation and inheritance together there, as one society, partaking of
the same reward: as they were of the same race of mankind, and loved and
served God, and followed him in the same state here below, in the
performance of the same duties, the same work, and under like trials and
difficulties.
It is also, hence, rational to suppose that there should be a
RESURRECTION of the bodies of the saints of all past generations. For
from what has been observed before, the bodies of the saints of the last
generation will be preserved from perishing with the world, and will be
translated. And, doubtless, if all the good of all generations are to
have a like reward, and are to dwell together in the same world in one
society, they shall be in a like state, partaking of a like reward.
Corollary. Hence there must be some notice given of this invisible world
of rewards to mankind on earth, and what way is so rational, as by
DIVINE REVELATION, or by God’s testimony and promise? And how reasonably
is full credit to God’s testimony, and dependence on his promise,
required? And so, living by faith, and not by fight, is reasonably
required of all the heirs of the inheritance.
It is reasonable to suppose that if God should give to man a revelation,
to teach him what virtue is suitable for such a creature as man, in his
exceedingly corrupt, broken, miserable state, and what virtue and
religion would be acceptable to God, and to teach the way to the
happiness of such a creature — I say that it is reasonable to suppose
that he should teach a different kind of virtue, consisting in a
different sort of frame and exercise of heart, from the virtue which
philosophers teach from their own reason.
The reasonableness of the doctrine of the resurrection will appear, if
we suppose that union with a body is the most rational state of
perfection of the human soul: which may be argued from the consideration
that this was the condition in which the human soul was created at
first, and that its separation from the body is no improvement of its
condition, being an alteration brought on by “sin, and was inflicted
under the notion of evil, and expressly as punishment, upon the
forfeiture of a privilege. From whence we must conclude that the former
state of union to the body was a better state than the disunion which
was threatened. Sin introduced that death that consists in the
separation of body and soul. The state of innocence was embodied: the
state of guilt was disembodied.” [Winder’s History of Knowledge. P. 59,
60.]
Therefore, as Christ came to restore from all the calamities which came
from sin, it is most reasonable to suppose that he will restore the
union of soul and body.
How reasonable to suppose that the salvation of the Messiah, which was
to be a general salvation of mankind, should not be from particular
evils or enemies, as the redemption of one particular nation from Egypt
or Babylon, but the general enemies and evils of all mankind, and the
general foundations and authors of all their evils, as Sin and Satan.
If God intended to be gracious to mankind, who [had] apparently become
corrupt and miserable, and if he designed any such thing in a
restoration, it is analogous to what is apparently God’s manner in his
providence, that he should appoint some PARTICULAR PERSON to be the
SAVIOR and the instrument of so great a good. It is evident that it has
ever been God’s manner, in other cases, to bestow the greatest public
benefits by particular persons. These have been the instruments of
deliverance from great public calamities, as from the oppression of
enemies, and of raising nations and great communities to great worldly
wisdom, honor, and prosperity. Instances from sacred history we have in
Noah, Joseph, Moses, the Judges of Israel, David, Solomon, Hezekiah,
Josiah, Cyrus, Mordecai; and from profane history, Cyrus, Alexander, the
Roman conquerors, Czar Peter the Great, the men that were deified among
the heathens, and many others. Though true virtue be essentially the
same in all, the same in mankind before and after the fall, the same in
all intelligent creatures, both men and angels, yet the leading exercise
of true virtue may differ, according to the different nature, state, and
circumstances of the creature, the different relation it stands in to
God, and its different leading concern with its Creator, and the diverse
principal means and manner of God’s manifesting himself to the creature,
and the different intercourse he maintains with it. And if these things
are considered, it will appear reasonable every way, that FAITH should
be the leading virtue of fallen man, a subject of the salvations of
Jesus Christ, or candidate for it, to whom God principally makes himself
known by the gospel of Jesus Christ.
Virtue is essentially the same in men and women, in parents and
children, yet the leading exercises of relative virtue may differ in
these, by reason of difference of nature, state, circumstances, and
relation. Thus, considering the weakness and dependence of the wife, and
her relation to her husband, as her head, her guide, defense, provider,
and husband — those exercises of virtue peculiarly proper for her, and
amiable to her in her circumstances, and peculiarly endearing to her
husband, are a chaste reservation of herself for him, meek submission,
and resignation of herself to him, and alliance to him. On the other
hand, the proper leading exercises of virtue in him, and most endearing
him to her, are fortitude, generosity, tenderness, compassion, etc. So
the leading relative virtues of a child in minority are submission and
dependence, but of the father, parental tenderness, watchful care, etc.
And nothing is more plain than that the most proper and suitable leading
exercises of every kind, rank, and state of beings is to be determined
from the particular nature, state, circumstances, connections and
relations, in which they stand with respect to the chief objects of
duty. For state and relation bring duty, and are the ground of
particular obligations and determinations of virtue. And therefore,
according as state and relation are different, so will the
determinations of the leading exercises of virtue be different.
Now whatever is considered in the nature and circumstances of fallen
man, under the gospel of salvation by the Son of God, everything will
show that faith, or cordial belief in the Son of God, and dependence on
him, is certainly the most proper leading exercise of virtue for us.
This will appear, if we consider what is most affecting, and most to be
attended to in our present fallen circumstances: being sinful,
miserable, weak, poor, helpless, unworthy and lost. This will also
appear if we consider the leading character and relation under which God
now reveals himself to us, thus sinful, miserable, helpless creatures,
even that of our Savior. And the grand affair, in regard to which is our
chief concern with God, is salvation. And that notion under which
chiefly all those benefits, wherein our happiness consists is exhibited,
is salvation, and benefits that are spiritual, and chiefly unseen and
future. This will also further appear if we consider that the way,
manner, and principal means by which God makes himself known to us in
our fallen state, and the only means by which he manifests himself to us
in the forementioned character and relation, and makes known those
mentioned benefits wherein our happiness consists, and directs us in
answerable conduct and behavior, is divine revelation or the Word of
God.
1160. Solomon’s Writings
About A Future State. Besides those texts in the Old Testament that do
directly speak of a future state, the Old Testament affords the
following evidence and confirmation of a future state, especially
Solomon’s writings, and, above all, the book of Ecclesiastes.
It is often declared in the Old Testament that God will bring every work
into judgment; that there is verily a God that judges in the earth; that
his eyes are on the way of man and he considers all his goings; that the
sins of the wicked and the good deeds of the righteous are exactly
observed, written in a book of remembrance, and none of them forgotten
and they are sealed and laid up among God’s treasures; that he will
render to every man according to his works and the Judge of all the
earth will do right; that therefore God will not destroy the righteous
with the wicked; that as to the righteous, it shall be well with him,
for he shall eat the fruit of his doings; that as to the wicked, it
shall be ill with him, for the reward of his hands shall be given him
and that it is impossible it should be otherwise; that there is no
darkness nor shadow of death, where the workers of iniquity can hide
themselves from God the Judge; that God cannot forget his people and a
woman may sooner forget her sucking child, and God has graven them on
the palms of his hands; that God beholds and takes notice of all their
afflictions, and pities them, as a father pitieth his children, but he
is the enemy of wicked men; that their sins shall find them out, and
though hand join in hand, the wicked shall not go unpunished; and that
the way of righteousness is a certain way to happiness, and the way of
sin a sure way to misery. Solomon himself is more abundant than all
other penmen of the Old Testament, in observing the different between
the righteous and the wicked in this respect, the greatness and the
certainty of that difference. *12* And, in Ecc. 12:13-14, Solomon
declares, “That to fear God and keep his commandments, is the whole duty
of man: because God will bring every work into judgment, with every
secret thing, whether it be good or whether it be evil.” And Ecc. 5:8,
“If thou seest the oppression of the poor, and the violent perverting of
judgment and justice in a province, marvel not at the matter; for he
that is higher than the highest regardeth, and there be higher than
they.” Ecc. 8:11, “Because sentence against an evil work is not executed
speedily, therefore the heart of the sons of men is fully set in them to
do evil.” And therefore, there is some other time, beside the time of
this life, for executing the sentence which he observes will so surely
be executed. In Pro. 10:7, Solomon says, the memory of the just is
blessed, but the name of the wicked shall rot. And of this memory or
good name of the just, he says, Ecc. 7:1 that “it is better than
precious ointment (meaning the precious ointment they were wont to
anoint the children of great and rich men with, when first born), and
that, upon this account, the day of a godly man’s death (followed with a
good name and so blessed a memory) is better than the day of one’s
birth.”.
It is an argument that the Scriptures of the Old Testament afford for a
future state, that it is so often observed in those sacred writings, as
a thing very remarkable, that man should be mortal, that in this respect
he should be like the beasts that perish, and like the flowers and the
grass of the field, Psa. 49:10-12 and verses 19-20. Why should it be
taken notice of as something remarkable that man should be mortal and
die as the beasts do, if there be nothing in the nature and
circumstances of men, by which he is distinguished from the beasts, that
would naturally lead one to expect an answerable distinction in this
respect? If it be no more than is to be expected, considering man’s
nature, capacity, state in the world, business, the end of his creation,
his views and natural desires, I say, if considering these things, there
is nothing in man that should lead us to expect that man should be any
more immortal than the beasts, or that should make it any more wonderful
or remarkable that men should die than that the inferior creatures
should die, — then why is such a remark made upon it? And, besides, it
is plainly signified that man’s superior nature and circumstances to the
beasts, or his being in honor, does require or naturally lead us to
expect that man should be distinguished in this respect from the beasts.
For that is mentioned as the thing that renders it remarkable, that man
should die as the beasts, that he is in honor.
The words of Solomon are very emphatical, Ecc. 3:18-20, “I said in my
heart concerning the estate of the sons of men, that God might manifest
them, that they might see that they themselves are beasts. For that
which befalleth the sons of men, befalleth beasts; even one thing
befalleth them; as the one dieth, so dieth the other; yea they have all
one breath. So that a man hath no preeminence above the beast; for all
is vanity; all go to one place; all are of the dust, and all turn to
dust again.” This would not be spoken with so much emphasis, as a thing
very remarkable and difficult to conceive of, if there was nothing in it
indeed wonderful, nothing pertaining to the nature which God had given
mankind or the state he had set them in, leading one to expect that man
should differ from the beasts in this; nothing that should make it
appear congruous and fit that God should make man, unless under his
remarkable displeasure, to be distinguished from the inferior creatures
by immunity from death, and that he should enjoy eternal life. And if it
be so, then we may determine that there is great reason to suppose that
there is some way that good men shall be delivered from death, and that
they shall enjoy eternal life in some invisible world after death. For
good men are spoken of abundantly in the Old Testament, as fully in
favor with God, having all their sins perfectly done away, as if they
had never been, and as being very dear and precious in God’s sight, that
God greatly delights in them, and the bestowment of life is abundantly
spoken of as the excellent fruit of his distinguishing live and favor.
And the durableness of the benefits of his favor is often spoken of as a
proper testimony of the greatness of it; their being more durable than
the everlasting mountains, yea than heaven and earth; Psa. 102, the
latter end; Isa. 51:6; chap. 44:10. And it cannot answer the design of
those great declarations of God’s favor, that although particular saints
shall die, yet a succession of them shall be continued, and their
posterity shall last. For if there be no future state, then they are
never the better for what happens to their posterity or successors after
their death, as is often observed in the Old Testament, and especially
in the book of Ecclesiastes.
If God has perfectly forgiven all the sins of the righteous, and they
are so high in his favor, and if the great evidence of this favor be the
durableness of the benefits that are the fruits of it, and the chief
fruit of it is life, then it is at least to be expected that they will
escape that mortality which is such a remarkable disgrace to those that
have the human nature, and so wonderful to behold in those whom the Most
High has made to differ so much from the beasts in capacity, dignity,
end, and design. We might surely expect that these high favorites
should, with regard to life and durableness of happiness, not be mere
beasts, and have no preeminence above them, and that they should not be
like the grass, and the flower of the field, which in the morning
flourisheth and groweth up, but in the evening is cut down and withered;
that all their happiness and all the benefits of God’s favor should not
be like a shadow, like a dream, like a tale that is told; that it should
not be as a span, and should not pass away as the swift ships, as the
eagle that hasteth to the prey, to which things the life of man is
compared in Scripture.
The things of this world are spoken of as having no profit or value,
because they are not lasting, but must be left at death, and therefore
are mere vanity, and not worthy that any man should set his heart on
them; Psa. 49:6, to the end; Pro. 23:4, 5; Pro. 11:7; Ecc. 2:15, 16, 17,
Ecc. 3:1-10, 19; chap. 5:14, 15, 16. But the rewards of righteousness
are abundantly represented as exceedingly valuable and worthy that men
should set their hearts upon them, because they are lasting; Pro. 3:16;
8:18, and Pro. 10:25, 27; Isa. 55:3; Psa. 1:3, to the end; Isa. 17:7, 8;
and innumerable other places. How can these things consist one with
another, unless there be a future state?
It is spoken of as a remarkable thing, and what one would not expect,
that good men should die as wicked men do, as it seems to be, by good
men’s dying a temporal death as wicked men do, Ecc. 2:16, chap. 9:3-5.
And therefore, it may be argued that it does but seem to be so, but that
in reality it shall not be so, inasmuch as though good men die a
temporal death as wicked men do, yet as to their happiness, they die
not, but live forever in a future state. It is an evidence of a future
state that in the Old Testament so many promises are made to the godly,
of things that shall be after they are dead, which shall be testimonies
of God’s great favor to them, and blessed rewards of his favor. [There
are] so many promises concerning their name, their posterity, and the
future church of God in the world, and yet we are so much taught in the
Old Testament that men are never the better for what comes to pass after
they are dead, concerning these things (i.e. if we look only at the
present life, without taking any other state of existence into
consideration), Job 14:21; Ecc. 1, 2; Ecc. 3:22, and Ecc. 9:5, 6. Yea,
the wise man says expressly that the dead have no more reward, Ecc. 9:5,
i.e. in anything in this world.
That man shall die as a beast seems to be spoken of (Ecc. 3:16, to the
end) as a vanity, an evil, a kind of mischief and confusion, that
appears in the world. Therefore this is an argument: that God, the wise
orderer of all things, who brings order out of confusion, will rectify
this disorder by appointing a future state.
These representations of the Old Testament, wherein the life of man is
set forth as being so exceedingly short, as a flower, as a shadow, as a
dream, a tale that is told, as a span, a moment, etc. have no propriety
at all in them any other way than as man’s life is short, in a
comparative view, compared with things pertaining to men, that would
naturally lead us to expect that it should be incomparably longer, such
as, the dignity of man’s nature above all other creatures, his being
made in the image of God, his being of a capacity so much superior, his
being made for such an end and business, and capable of such happiness,
made capable of looking forward and having some comprehension of an
endless life, his necessary desires of such a life, etc. Otherwise, why
is not the shortness of the duration of other things in like manner set
forth and insisted on, which do not last longer than the life of man?
But if it be so indeed, that man’s life is exceedingly short,
considering his nature, end, capacity and desires, then doubtless the
righteous, who are represented as the high favorites of God, who shall
be the subjects of his blessings every way, and particularly shall have
life as the great fruit of his favor and blessing, will have a life, or
duration, that shall be long, answerably to their natures, desires, etc.
It is an argument that the Old Testament affords for the proof of a
future life and immortality, that we are there taught that mortality is
brought in by sin, and comes as a punishment of sin. Therefore, it is
natural to suppose that when complete forgiveness is promised, and
perfect restoration to favor, and deliverance from death, and the
bestowment of life, as the fruit of this favor, then eternal life and
immortality is intended.
The better men are, the more terrible would it make death, if there were
no future state. For the better they are, the more they love God. Good
men have found the fountain of good. Those men who have a high degree of
love to God, greatly delight in God. They have experience of a much
better happiness in life than others, and therefore it must be more
dreadful for them to have their beings eternally extinct by death. Hence
we may strongly argue a future state: for it is not to be supposed that
God would make man such a creature as to be capable of knowing and
loving him, and delighting in him as the fountain of all good, which
will necessarily increase in him a dread of annihilation and an eager
desire of immortality, and yet so order it that such desire should be
disappointed, so that his loving his Creator should in some sense make
him the more miserable.
1167. Divine Judgment.
That the state of divine judgment and retribution is hereafter in
another life, and not in this, is manifest from this: that some of the
highest acts of virtue consist in dying well, in denying ourselves of
life in a good cause for God and a good conscious (rather than commit
what is in itself vicious and vile), for our country, for the church of
God, and the interest of that holy society.
1258. Relinquishing This
World for A Future State. Nothing is more manifest than that it is
absolutely necessary, in order to a man’s being thoroughly, universally,
and steadfastly virtuous, that his mind and heart should be thoroughly
weaned from this world, which is a great evidence that God intends
another world for virtuous men. He surely would not require them, in
their thoughts, affections, and expectations, wholly to relinquish this
world, if it were all the world they were to expect: if he had made them
for this world wholly and only, and had created the world for them, to
be their only country and home, and all the resting-place ever designed
for them.
1290. Divine Revelation.
It strongly argues that when God gave the Old Testament, he intended
some further and far more glorious revelation of his mind and will, that
in the Old Testament, are so many hints of another world and a future,
eternal state of rewards and punishment, and yet that these things are
nowhere spoken more plainly and insisted upon more fully, particularly
and didactically. For if there be such a state, doubtless the things of
it are infinitely greater than the things of the present state. The
things that concern it are infinitely more important than the things of
this world. The things of that future eternal state must be the grand
things of all, to which the religious concerns of this life must all be
subordinate, and in comparison with which temporal things are nothing.
This argues that a then future far more plain and clear revelation of
the chief things of religion and of the greatest concern between God and
man was in reserve.
MILLENIUM
26. Millenium. How happy will that state be when neither divine nor
human learning shall be confined and imprisoned within only two or three
nations of Europe, but shall be diffused all over the world, and this
lower world shall be all over covered with light, the various parts of
it mutually lighting each other; when the most barbarous nations shall
become as bright and polite as England, when ignorant heathen lands
shall be packed with most-profound divines and most-learned
philosophers; when we shall, from time to time, have the most-excellent
books and wonderful performances brought from one end of the world and
another to surprise us — sometimes new and wondrous discoveries from
rara Australis incognita, admirable books of devotion, the most divine
and angelic strains from among the Hottentots, and the press shall groan
in wild Tartary; when we shall have the great advantage of the
sentiments of men of the most-distant nations, different circumstances,
customs, and tempers; when learning shall not be restricted to
particular humans of a nation, or their singular way of making things;
when the distant extremes of the world shall shake hands together and
all nations shall be acquainted, and they shall all join the facets of
their minds in exploring the glories of the Creator, their hearts in
loving and adoring him, their hands in serving him, and their voices in
making the welkin ring with his praise! What infinite advantages will
they have for discourse of every kind! To what they know now, there will
continually be something new and surprising discovered in one part of
the world and another. The vast number of explorers, their different
circumstances, their different paths to come at the truth — how many
instructive and enlightening remains of antiquity will be discovered
here and there now buried amongst ignorant nations!
262. Millenium. It is
probable that the world shall be more like heaven in the millenium in
this respect: that contemplation and spiritual employments, and those
things that more directly concern the mind and religion, will be more
the saint’s ordinary business than now. There will be so many
contrivances and inventions to facilitate and expedite their necessary
secular business that they shall have more time for more noble exercise,
and that they will have better contrivances for assisting one another
through the whole earth by more expedite, easy, and safe communication
between distant regions than now. The invention of the mariner’s compass
is a thing discovered by God to the world to that end. And how
exceedingly has that one thing enlarged and facilitated communication.
And who can doubt but that yet God will make it more perfect, so that
there need not be such a tedious voyage in order to hear from the other
hemisphere? And so the country about the poles need no longer be hid to
us, but the whole earth may be as one community, one body in Christ.
WORLD WILL COME TO AN END
552. End of the World. The doctrine of the general resurrection at the
end of the world, upon many accounts, seems to me a most credible
doctrine. There are a multitude of resemblances of it in nature and
providence, which, I doubt not, were designed to be types of it. It
seems credible on this account, that the work of the Redeemer is wholly
a restoring work from beginning to end. It seems rational to think that
he would therefore be thorough in it, would make a thorough restoration,
and repair all the ruins brought on the world by sin. It is the glory of
the restorer that he appears as an all-sufficient and complete restorer.
867. The World Will Come
to an End. Immortality of the Soul. A Future State. The natural world,
which is in such continual labor, as is described in the first chapter
of Ecclesiastes (Ecc. 1), constantly going round in such revolutions,
will doubtless come to an end. These revolutions are not for nothing.
There is some great event and issue of things that this labor is for,
some grand period aimed at. Does God make the world restless, to move
and revolve in all its parts, to make no progress, to labor with motions
so mighty and vast, only to come to the same place again, to be just
where it was before? Doubtless some end is nearer approached to by these
revolutions. Some great end is nearer to an accomplishment after a
thousand revolutions are finished than when there was only one finished
or before the first revolution began. The sun does not go round day
after day and year after year for no other end but only to come to the
same place again from whence it first set out, and to bring the world to
the same state again that it was in before. The waters of the sea are
not so restless, continually, to ascend into the heavens, and then
descend on the earth, and then return to the sea again, only that things
may be as they were before. One generation of men does not come, another
go, and so continually from age to age, only that at last there may be
what there was at first, viz., mankind upon earth. The wheels of God’s
chariot, after they have gone round a |
