Use. The use that the apostle mainly intends is, that a Christian is as sure of the time to come as of the time past or present. We are sure of what we have had, and what we have ; but a Christian is in so firm a con- dition and state that he may be sure of what is to come : because God and Christ are not only ' Alpha, but Omega ' also ; Christ is not only he ' was, and is,' but ' is to come,' Rev. i. 8. He is ' Jehovah, the same for ever,' Heb. xiii. 8. And therefore, as things past could not hinder us from bein« elected and called ; and things present cannot hurt, but they are ours : so are things to come ; because God, and Christ, who is the mediator under God, hath the command of all things to come. And therefore we may be as sure of things to come as of things present. What a comfort is this to a Christian, when he is casting what should become of him, if times of trouble and public calamity should come ! Presently he satisfieth himself with this, come what will come, all shall be for the best, ' all things to come are ours,' even all things whatsoever.
' All things are yours.'
But yet we must understand this with some limits. We therefore un- loose some knots, and answer some cases.
Case 1. First, it may seem there is no distinction of propriety,-^ if all he a Christian's.
Ohj. And if every Christian may say, ' All is mine,' then what is one man's is another's, and there will be no propriety.
Ans. I answer, undoubtedly there is a distinction of properties in the things of this life. ' All is ours,' but it is in another sense. ' All is ours,' to help us to heaven ; ' all is ours ' in an order to comfort and happiness ; but for propriety, so all things are not ours. For you know the distinction : some things are com-mon jure naturcB, by the law of nature, as the sun and air, and many such like things ; and some jure gentium, by the law of nations. It is but some things are thus common. But then there are some that by particular municipal laws are proper.
The distinction is established both by the law of God and the law of man.f Therefore, not to stand long in answering this question, the Scripture stab- lisbeth the distinction of master and servant ; and therefore it establisheth distinction of goods. The Scripture establisheth bounty and alms. If there be not a distinction of property, where were alms ? Solomon saith, * The rich and the poor meet together : God is the maker of both,' Prov. xxii. 2. He means, not as men only, but as poor and rich.
If riches be of God, then distinction of properties is of God ; for what is riches but a distinction of properties ? If God make poor and rich, then there must be poor and rich. The poor you have always with jou,' Mat. xxvi. 11. Therefore the meaning is, 'All is yours;' that is, all that we possess, and all that we need to help us, is ours in that order and carriage of things that may help us to heaven. And so the want of things is ours, as well as the having of them. The very things which a Christian wants are his ; not only the grace of contentment to want, but when God takes away those things that are hurtful for him, that may hinder him in his
* That is, ' property.' — G.
t In margin here, ' Eead Judges xi. from ver. 12 to 20.' — G.
IG A CHRISTIA^'S POETION ; OR,
course to heaven, that is his. It is a part of this portion, not to have things, if God see it good. The want of things is a part of this ' all.' Ohj. That which is so commonly alleged to the contrary, in Acts ii. 44,
* All things were common,' will easily receive answer.
Ans. 1. For, first, it mis parti ij upon iiaccssitij. If all things then had not been common, they had all been taken from them.
2. And then, secondlij, it was arbilrarij also* ' Was it not thine own ?' saith Peter, Acts v. 4. Thou mightst not have parted with it, if thou wouldst. It was arbitrary,* though it was common.
3. And then, thirdh/, all tJiiii;/s were not common {(f). Some good men kept their houses. Mary had her house. Acts xii. 12.
4. And i\icn,fourthhj, all things were common, but how? To distribute as they needed ; not to catch who would and who can. But they were so common as they had a care to distribute to every one that which they needed.
Case 2. Ohj. Another case is this ; all is the church's, all is good people's, and therefore if a man be naught,! nothing is his. There is a great point of popery grounded upon this mistake. For therefore say the Jesuited papists, the pope may excommunicate ill princes, in order to spiri- tual things, in ordine ad spiritnalia. He is the lord and monarch of all. They are evil governors ; nothing is theirs, all is the church's.