66

it is an invariable rule in the sacred language-*That all words of the same letters, and consequently of the same root, must have the same idea. So that if entering into such a covenant be an action which we can predicate of God, then the divine name, may without offence, allude to that covenant. Now the scriptures frequently predicate this action of God-He is said to swear by himself," Gen. xxii. 16. "To have sworn "to Abraham-and to have made an oath unto Isaac, “that in their seed all the nations of the earth should "be blessed," 1 Chron. xvi. 16. And if, without derogating from the divine perfections, he made this oath concerning Christ the universal blessing to these particular persons, why might not the same be made for the general good of all men? But it was made to particulars, to induce a full trust and reliance on what God had sworn to perform; and with the same view God made it unto all men : "For being willing more "abundantly to shew to the heirs of promise the immutability of his counsel (to redeem man) he con"firmed it by an oath, that man might have two im"mutable things to trust to, in either of which it was "impossible for God to lie," Heb. vi. 17, 18. This is a proof that the action implies no imperfection in it, and therefore the name implies none." It is impossible God should lie."-This is an imperfection he cannot be liable to-but why then have the scriptures so worded the manner of the Divine Persons entering into the Christian covenant? St. Paul says they so worded it to " give man the strongest assurance of the immutability of God's counsel to redeem him." This was the reason why they represented themselves as entering into such a covenant, and as assuming the name from thence of persons who had laid themselves under an obligation to perform it.-And therefore as the word' Elah is expressive of a certain action—and as

66

"Tela ignea Satanæ," &c. p. 406. Verus est utique non minus, quam pervulgatus Judæorum Canon-i. e. Nunquam Scripturæ aliquod dictum omne nativum verborum sensum amittit.

the Elohim are represented in scripture to be the agents or doers of that action, certainly it can be no diminution of the divine perfections for God to be called by a name expressive of that action, for the name only expresses, what all the scriptures bear witness of, that he had done. And as the action was an instance of the greatest mercy which God could shew to his fallen creatures, surely that mercy was heightened by revealing himself to them under that merciful name.

It being then consistent with the divine perfections to enter into a covenant, and be under an obligation to the performance of it-and there being but one verb in the language from whence the word Elohim can be derived-and the certain meaning of that verb being to lie under the obligation of an oath to the performance of some covenant; therefore it is evident, this is the idea of the word-And that the covenant which it expresses was the gospel covenant is manifest, from the reason of the thing, which proved the relation expressed by this word, could be no other but that of redemption; * and from the usage of the word in scripture, where it is frequently confined to this sense; and from there being no mention in scripture, that any other but the gospel-covenant was revealed since the fall of man. And therefore, when the word is applied to the persons of the divine essence, it represents them as under an obligation, which they voluntarily entered into, to perform the gospel-covenant, and save their fallen depraved creatures and upon this sense of the word, the sanctions of temporal rewards and punishments could be established: for when God promulges his laws, and requires obedience of the Jews

* Psalm lxxviii. 22. Isa. xlv. 21. Hos. xiii. 4. § vi. 6. Judges x. 14. Jer. ii. 28.

To save, to redeem, deliver, being generally attributed to the Elohim, Psalm iii. 3. " many say of my soul, there is no salvation for it in "the Elohim, Selah," mind this. Heb. xi. 16. "Wherefore God is "not ashamed to be called their God, because he hath prepared for "them an (heavenly) city." Here the reason given why God called himself their God, demonstrates that the word Elohim relates to, and is expressive of, the gospel-covenant.

upon this sanction-because I, Jehovah am your God, the obligation expressed in these words is this:

66

66

66

"That system of laws which I have given you, ye are to remember to keep and obey; for your all depends upon your obedience-It is obedience which "secures you of my protection here-But what the 66 system of laws I have now given you, chiefly aims at " is, my protection hereafter; and therefore, in order to gain your obedience, I have enforced my laws upon "this stronger sanction-I have made your title to the "benefits of redemption, depend on your believing and obeying what I have required-You are convinced, "that the persons of the divine essence have covenant"ed to redeem you from sin and death-This they "cannot do for you here-These spiritual benefits of redemption must be conferred in a future state "And you will not receive any of these benefits in that state, unless you believe and do in this, what I have required."

66

66

66

66

9. And this interpretation, which is drawn from the reason of the thing and the express meaning of the words, is fully justified by Christ's argument in the text. Our Saviour there asserts, that the term Elohim (for this is the word in the text he quotes, Exod. iii. 6.) is a term of relation: and it is expressive of some beneficent relation, because he says it respects God, "not "the God of the dead, but as the God of the living." Now the living, whom this word respects, cannot be the persons who live in the present world, because God still stood in that beneficent relation to Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, when they were dead; from whence our Saviour infers-that the covenant expressed by this word, and the blessings flowing from it, must respect a future life; for if, in consequence of this covenant, the bodies of these patriarchs were to be raised from the dead, then the covenant must relate to a future life-But in consequence of this covenant, the bodies of these patriarchs were to be raised from the dead, because God is not the God (the Elohim) of the dead, but of the liv

ing; and consequently as the covenant relates to the resurrection of the dead, so must the sanction founded upon that covenant.

But since our Saviour hath produced an authority from Moses, to prove that he taught the resurrection of the dead, upon which very authority, Moses hath enforced the sanctions of all his laws: this therefore being such an infallible proof, what these sanctions were, demands a more particular consideration; and the state of the case is this:

The Sadducees, which say there is no resurrection, come to Christ-they propose a difficulty to him from the law of Moses, which they could not solve upon the supposition of a resurrection-and they desire that Christ, who preached the doctrine of the resurrection, and said he came to fulfil the law of Moses, would reconcile this difficulty with that doctrine-Christ's answer consists of two parts-first, a solution of the difficulty; and then a proof, that the difficulty they proposed, was founded on a great error, viz. that Moses had not treated of the resurrection of the dead: and this proof he introduces in a very remarkable manner

"Ye Sadducees deny that there is any resurrection; "but concerning the resurrection of the dead that they "rise," I can give you a satisfactory proof out of your own prophet: for have ye not read in the book of "Moses, and hath not he shewed you that the dead 66 are to be raised, when he calleth the Lord, the God "of Abraham, and the God of Isaac, and the God of "Jacob? For he is not the God of the dead, but the "God of the living; ye therefore do greatly err." And the sacred historian remarks upon this answer, "that when the multitude heard it, they were astonish"ed at his doctrine; and that the Sadducees, the de“niers of the resurrection, were put to silence."

From this fair and impartial state of the case then, it is evident, that Christ did intend to prove from the text he quotes, that Moses had treated of the resurrec tion of the dead. The difficulty which the Sadducees

proposed, was an objection against the resurrection; and as Christ's answer cannot but be to the purpose, it must be an argument for the truth of this doctrine. Now the exordium to this proof sets forth, that the resurrection was taught in the book of Moses-the proof is a text from that book of Moses, wherein it was taught and therefore the exordium must directly refer to this proof, and nothing else.* And what can be a direct introduction to a proof, if this be not? Have ye not read concerning the resurrection of the dead in the book of Moses? And then immediately follows the proof which they might have read concerning the resurrection. Can any words more plainly declare, that the resurrection of the dead was taught in the books of Moses, and that this particular text was a proof of it?

But if the design of Christ's argument was to prove, that Moses had shewed the dead were to be raised, wherein lies the conclusiveness of it? To be the God or Elohim of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, it was before proved was to stand related to them under the character of Redeemer, and particularly to be under a covenant to redeem them from sin and death: for redemption could not regard fallen man in any other respect than as a sinner, and as liable to the punishment of sin. Now it was impossible that God, who had represented himself to them, as under a covenant, should lie-And yet all these patriarchs suffered death, the punishment of sin; and whilst their bodies continued in the grave, they had not received the benefit of God's being under such a covenant, because by that covenant, man was to be redeemed from sin and death; but whilst death reigned over the patriarchs, they had not received that redemption; and therefore, since that redemption was

* Corn. á Lapide, Ludg. 1638, 1 vol. p. 409, 410. Ego sum Deus Abrahæ, &c. Christus non contentus solvisse Sadducæorum objectionem contra resurrectionem insuper eandem illis probat ex dicto Dei ad Mosen, ego sum Deus Abraliæ, &c. § Dr. Stanhope's Ep. & Gosp. 3d. vol. p. 425. "The force of this argument there is no room to doubt, "after our blessed Lord himself hath made use of it to confute the "Sadducees' error, and to prove a resurrection.”