Chapter 1: The Blessedness of the Righteous — Scripture Text

Psalm 17:15. As for me, I will behold your face in righteousness: I shall be satisfied, when I awake with your likeness.

A reflection upon some foregoing verses of the Psalm, by way of Introduction to the Text. A consideration of its somewhat various readings, and of its literal importance. A discussion of its real importance, so far as is necessary to the settling the subject of the following discourse.

The title speaks the Psalm a prayer of David. The matter of the prayer is preservation from his enemies. Not to go over the whole Psalm, we have in the 13 and 14 verses, the sum of his desires, with a description of the person he prays to be delivered from; in which description every character is an argument to enforce his prayer.

From the Wicked] that is, They are equally enemies to you and me: not more opposite to me by their cruelty, than by their wickedness they are to you. Vindicate, then at once, yourself and deliver me.

Your sword, your hand] You can as easily command and manage them, as a man may wield his sword, or move his hand. Will you allow your own sword, your own hand, to destroy your own servant.

Men of the world, which have their portion in this life] Time, and this lower world bound all their hopes, and fears. They have no serious believing apprehensions of anything beyond this present life: therefore have nothing to withhold them, from the most injurious violence, if you withhold them not (Men that believe not another world, are the ready actors of any imaginable mischiefs, and tragedies in this.)

Whose belly you fill] that is, Their sensual appetite. As oftentimes that term is used — with your hidden treasures, namely, the riches, which either God is wont to hide in the bowels of the earth, or lock up in the repository of Providence, dispensing them at his own pleasure.

They are full of children] So it appears by that which follows, it ought to be read, and not according to that gross (but easy) mistake of some transcribers of the Seventy.

As if in all this he had pleaded thus; Lord you have abundantly indulged those men already, what need they more? They have themselves, from your unregarded bounty, their own vast swollen desires sufficiently filled, enough for their own time; and when they can live no longer in their persons, they may in their posterity, and leave not strangers, but their numerous offspring, their heirs. Is it not enough, that their avarice be gratified, except their malice be also? That they have whatever they can conceive desirable for themselves, unless they may also infer whatever they can think mischievous on me?

To this description of his enemies, he ex opposito, subjoins some account of himself, in this his closure of the Psalm: As for me] Here he is at his static point, and, after some appearing discomposure, his spirit returns to a consistency, in consideration of his own more happy state, which he opposes and prefers to theirs in the following respects.

That they were wicked, he righteous. I will behold your face in righteousness.] That their happiness was worldly, earthly, such only as did spring from the earth; his heavenly and divine, such as should result from the face and image of God. Theirs present, temporary, encompassed within this life; his, future, everlasting, to be enjoyed, when he should awake. Theirs partial, defective, such as would but gratify their bestial part, fill their bellies; his adequate, complete (the [in non-Latin alphabet]) Such as should satisfy the man: I shall be satisfied, etc.

The variety in rendering this verse (to be seen, by comparing, the Original and translations noted in the margin, need not give us any trouble, the differences not being of great moment, nor our own reading liable to exception. The word [in non-Latin alphabet], about which is the greatest diversity, has the significance we here give it, in the second Commandment, and constantly elsewhere. And then, what more proper English can this text be capable of, than it has in our Bibles? Each word has its true and genuine import; and the syntax is sufficiently regular, and grammatical of the whole.

Only as to the former, that usual and obvious observation must here have place; that the [in non-Latin alphabet] prefixed to [in non-Latin alphabet], and which, with it, we read, [in righteousness] does often signify among its various acceptations) by or through and that, not only as denoting instrumentality; but more at large, the place of any medium necessary to the attainment of the end, it subserves to, from where the same use of the Greek [in non-Latin alphabet], that answers thereto, is wont to go for a Hebraism.

And as to the latter, the only thing liable to controversy is; whether the Gerund [in non-Latin alphabet] is to be construed with the person speaking [when I awake] or [in my awaking] or with the thing; the likeness or image spoken of [in the awaking of your image] or [when your image shall awake] and I conceive, we need not discuss it; but following our own translation, leave the judgement of it to the ear itself, which (as Elihu tells us) tries words.

In the mean time, the real importance of this Scripture, more calls for discussion than the literal; concerning which a threefold inquiry will be necessary, for the settling the subject of the following discourse: 1. What relation this [righteousness] must be understood to have to the vision of God's face, and the other consequent blessedness. 2. What time or state [awaking] refers to. 3. What is intended by the [likeness of God.]

To the first, It is only necessary to say at present: that the already noted import of the preposition [in] being supposed most suitable to this text (as apparently it is) righteousness must be looked upon in reference to this vision, not as in an idle, or merely casual concomitancy; or as an unconcerned circumstance, that has nothing to do with the business spoken of; but as in a close and intimate connection therewith; being 1. antecedent. 2. conducible. 3. necessary thereto. Nor can I better express its place, and reference to it, generally and in one word, than in saying it qualifies for it, which how it does will be more proper 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.

2. To the second: Taking it for granted [reconstructed: that] none will understand this awaking as opposed to natural sleep in the tralatitious or [reconstructed: tropological] sense; it must be understood to intend either some better state in this life in comparison of which 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) presupposed sleep, which sure does 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 has ever so little read and compared the Old and New Testament. We are plainly told that those excellent persons mentioned in that famous roll, lived by that faith, which was the substance of things hoped for, and the evidence of things not seen (Hebrews 11:1). 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 (Hebrews 11:9, 13, 14, 15, 16). We know it was the more general belief of the Jews in our Savior's time. And from where should they have it, but from the Old Testament? There our Savior directs them to search it out, and the way to it (John 5:39). The Apostle Saint Paul gives it as the common faith of the twelve tribes; grounded upon the promise made to their forefathers (Acts 26:6, 7, compared with the 8): and from that he prudentially 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 Savior'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 various 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 than 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 [reconstructed: is] the analogy between our awaking out of natural sleep, and the holy soul's emerging out of the darkness and torpor of its present state, into the invigorating light of God's presence. It is truly said so to awake, at its first quitting these dark regions, when it lays aside its cumbersome night-veil. It does 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 does 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 and opposition of two states of felicity mutually each to other? That of the wicked, whom he calls Men of time (as the words are rendered by one, and do literally signify) and whose portion, he tells us, is in this life; and the righteous man's, his own; which he expected not to be, until he should awake, that is, not until after this life.

Thirdly, it is further to be inquired, 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 a notable 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 [your 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 souls.

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 thought fit to be used that might signify also somewhat that must intervene in order to that satisfaction. 'Tis certain the mere objective representation and consequent intuition of the most excellent, (even the Divine) glory, cannot satisfy a soul remaining disaffected and unsuitable to it. It can only satisfy, as being represented, it forms the soul into the same image, and adjusts it to itself. q. d. 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 visible in itself considered — but formally, and in esse actuati 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 those 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. 'Tis 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 has evident truth in it. Pleasure is here certainly made up of something finite and something infinite, meeting together. 'Tis not (as the Philosopher speaks) a [⟨ in non-Latin alphabet ⟩] but a [⟨ in non-Latin alphabet ⟩], not anything separate from the soul, but something it possesses that can make it happy. 'Tis 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 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 glorious.

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 learning had not made them mad, will be noted in its place) that objective glory, and grace in Saints, were the same specific (much less the same numerical) thing.

'Tis true that Scripture often expresses the future blessedness by vision of God. But where that phrase is used to signify it alone, 'tis evident (as within the lower region of grace, words of knowledge do often imply affection, and corresponding impressions on the soul) it must be understood of affective transformative vision, such as has conformity to God most inseparably joined 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 [⟨ in non-Latin alphabet ⟩] 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 needs not 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 has not the express mention of a consequent satisfaction as this has, and 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 show 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 (mostly) it has been understood by interpreters, (I might venture to say the generality) of all sorts: however the few annexed (for I neither apprehend the necessity, nor have the present convenience of alleging many) will suffice to avoid any imputation of singularity or novelty.