to consider hereafter. It may now suffice to say, those words give us the qualified subject of this blessedness "I; in righteousness," a righteous person as such. To the Second; Taking it for granted, that none will understand this awaking as opposed to natural sleep: in the borrowed or tropical sense, it must be understood to intend either some better state in this life, in comparison whereof the Psalmist reckons his present state but as a sleep; or the future state of blessedness in the other life. There have been some who have understood it of the former, and thought the Psalmist to speak only of an hoped freedom from his present temporal afflictions; but then, that which will be implied, seems not so specious; that trouble and affliction should be signified by the necessarily pre-supposed sleep, which sure doth more resemble rest than trouble.

I conceive it less exceptionable to refer awaking, to the blessed state of saints after this life. For, that saints, at that time when this was written, had the knowledge of such a state (indeed a saint not believing a life to come, is a perfect contradiction) no doubt can be made by any that hath ever so little read and compared the old and new testament. We are plainly told, that those excellent persons mentioned in the famous roll, (Heb. 11. v. 1. 16.) lived by that faith which was the substance of things hoped for, and the evidence of things not seen. That of them, Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, while they lived in Canaan, yet sought a better, a heavenly country; confessing themselves pilgrims and strangers on earth. We know it was the more general belief of the Jews in our Saviour's time. And whence should they have it, but from the old Testament thither our Saviour remits them Joh. 5. 39. to search it out, and the way to it. The Apostle saint Paul, Acts 26, and 6. 7. compared with the 8. gives it as the common faith of the twelve tribes, grounded upon the promise made to their forefathers; and thence prudentially he herein states the cause wherein he was now engaged; supposing it would be generally resented, that he should be called in question for avowing (only) so known and received a truth. Sure they were beholden to these sacred writings they had then among them, for so common a belief; and since it is out of question, from our Saviour's express words, they do contain the ground of that belief; what cause have we to be so shy of so interpreting scriptures that have a fair aspect that way? Is it, that we can devise to fasten here and there another sense upon divers such? I wonder what one text can be mentioned in all the old testament to this purpose, wherein one may not do so: And what then would be the tendency of this course, but to deny in all the particulars, what, upon so clear evidence, we are in the general forced to admit? and to put Moses, and Abraham, and David, in a lower class than Pythagoras, and Socrates, and Plato? And I think it would not be easy to find one text in all that part

of the Bible, where both the words thereof, and the context, do more fairly comply, that in this, so as not only to admit, but even to invite that interpretation.

For the term awake about which the present inquiry is, how apt and obvious is the analogy between our awaking out of natural sleep, and the holy soul's rising up out of the darkness and torpor of its present state, into the enlivening light of God's presence? It is truly said so to awake, at its first quitting these darksome regions, when it lays aside its cumbersome night-vail. It doth so more perfectly, in the joyful morning of the resurrection-day when mortality is swallowed up in life, and all the yet hovering shadows of it are vanished and fled away. And how known and usual an application this is of the metaphorical terms of sleeping and awaking in holy writ, I need not tell them who have read the Bible. Nor doth this interpretation less fitly accord to the other contents of this verse: For to what state do the sight of God's face, and satisfaction with his likeness, so fully agree, as to that of future blessedness in the other world? But then the contexture of discourse in this and the foregoing verse together, seems plainly to determine us to this sense for what can be more conspicuous in them, than a purposed comparison, an opposition of two states of felicity mutually to each other? That of the wicked, whom he calls men of time, and whose portion, he tells us, is in this life and the righteous man's, his own; which he expected not to be till he should awake, that is, not till after this life.

It is further to be inquired, thirdly, how we are here to understand the likeness of God? I doubt not but we are to understand by it, his glory. And the only difficulty which it will be necessary at present to consider about it, is, whether we are to take it objectively, or subjectively; for the glory to be represented to the blessed soul, or the glory to be impressed upon it; the glory which it is to behold, or the glory it shall bear. And I conceive the difference is more easily capable of accommodation, than of a strict decision on either part. By face is undoubtedly meant objective glory, and that in its most perfect representation, the face being, as we know with men, the chief seat of aspectable majesty and beauty. Hence when Moses desires to see God's glory, though he did vouchsafe some discovery of it, yet he tells him his face cannot be seen. Hereupon, therefore, the next expression thy likeness might the more plausibly be restrained to subjective glory, so as to denote the image of God now in its most perfect impression on the blessed soul. But that I insist not on. Supposing therefore, that what is signified by face, be repeated over again in this word likeness, yet I conceive the expression is not varied in vain; but having more to say than only that he expected a state of future vision, namely, that he assured himself of satisfaction too, another word was

VOL. I.

3

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

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

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

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

CHAPTER II.

I. A summary proposal of the doctrine contained in this scripture: a distribution of it into three distinct heads of discourse. First. The qualified subject. Secondly. The nature. Thirdly. The season of the blessedness here spoken of. II. The first of these taken into consideration, where the qualification, righteousness, is treated of. About which is shewn. First. What it is. Secondly. How it qualifies.

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

II. We proceed to illustrate each of these.

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

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

* Ἐν δὲ δικαιοσύνῃ συλλήβδην πᾶς ἀρετή εστι. Righteousness comprises every virtue.