// -*- coding: utf-8 -*-
.dt The Project Gutenberg eBook of A Body of Divinity, Vol. 1 of 4, by Thomas Ridgley
.pn on
.pn link
.de div.tnotes { padding-left:1em;padding-right:1em;background-color:#E3E4FA;border:1px solid silver;margin:1em 5% 0 5%;text-align:justify;}
// verse
.dm verse-start
.in +4
.sp 1
.fs 95%
.nf b
.dm-
.dm verse-end
.nf-
.fs 100%
.in -4
.sp 1
.dm-
// letter
.dm letter-start
.sp 1
.in +4
.dm-
.dm letter-end
.in -4
.sp 1
.dm-
.if h
.il fn=cover.jpg w=600px
.pb
.if-
.sp 4
.dv class='tnotes'
.ce
Transcriber’s Note:
.if t
This version of the text cannot represent certain typographical
effects. Italics are delimited with the underscore character as italic.
Footnotes have been moved to follow the chapters in which they
are referenced.
.if-
.if h
Footnotes have been collected at the end of the text, and are
linked for ease of reference.
.if-
.dv-
.h1
A Body of Divinity
// File: a001.png
.pn i
.sp 4
.nf c
A BODY OF DIVINITY:
WHEREIN THE DOCTRINES OF THE CHRISTIAN RELIGION ARE EXPLAINED AND DEFENDED.
BEING THE SUBSTANCE OF SEVERAL LECTURES ON THE ASSEMBLY’S LARGER CATECHISM.
BY THOMAS RIDGLEY, D. D.
WITH NOTES, ORIGINAL AND SELECTED,
BY JAMES P. WILSON, D. D.
IN FOUR VOLUMES.
VOL. I.
FIRST AMERICAN EDITION, FROM THE THIRD EUROPEAN EDITION.
PHILADELPHIA:
PRINTED BY AND FOR WILLIAM. W. WOODWARD, CORNER OF CHESNUT AND SOUTH
SECOND STREETS.
1814.
.nf-
// File: a002.png
.pn +1
.sp 4
District of Pennsylvania, to wit:
BE IT REMEMBERED, That on the seventeenth day of May, in
the thirty-eighth year of the Independence of the United States of
America, A. D. 1813, William W. Woodward, of the said District,
hath deposited in this office the title of a Book, the right whereof he
claims as proprietor, in the words following, to wit:
.pm letter-start
“A Body of Divinity: wherein the doctrines of the Christian religion, are explained
and defended. Being the substance of several lectures on the Assembly’s
larger catechism. By Thomas Ridgley, D. D. With notes, original and
selected, by James P. Wilson, D. D. In four volumes. First American, from
the third European Edition.”
.pm letter-end
In conformity to the Act of the Congress of the United States, intitled, “An
Act for the encouragement of Learning, by securing the Copies of Maps, Charts
and Books, to the authors and proprietors of such Copies during the times therein
mentioned.”—And also to the Act, entitled “An Act supplementary to An
Act, entitled ‘An act for the encouragement of Learning, by securing the Copies
of Maps, Charts, and Books, to the authors and proprietors of such Copies
during the times therein mentioned,’ and extending the benefits thereof to the
arts of designing, engraving, and etching historical and other prints.”
D. CALDWELL, Clerk of the
District of Pennsylvania.
// File: a003.png
.pn +1
.sp 4
.h2 title='To The Reader.'
TO THE READER.
.sp 2
In this first American edition the original text remains unaltered,
the notes which Dr. Ridgley had subjoined to his work
are retained, and for the sake of distinction, printed in Italics.
The other notes have been added by Dr. Wilson; and in every
instance wherein they have been selected by him from others,
they are accompanied by marks of quotation, and the name of
the author or book from whence they were taken.
.sp 4
.h2 title='Preface.'
PREFACE.
.sp 2
The influence which the different sentiments of men, in
matters of religion, have, for the most part, on their temper
and behaviour towards one another, affords very little
ground to expect that any attempt to explain or defend the
most important doctrines of Christianity, should not be treated
with dislike and opposition by some, how much soever it
may afford matter of conviction to others. This consideration
would have put a stop to my pen, and thereby saved me a great
deal of fatigue, in preparing and publishing the following
sheets, had it not been over-balanced by what I cannot, at present,
think any other than a sense of duty, in compliance with
the call of providence. I heartily wish there were no occasion
to vindicate some of the great doctrines of the gospel, which
were more generally received in the last age, than at present,
from misrepresentation, as though the method in which they
had been explained led to licentiousness, and the doctrines
themselves, especially those of election, particular redemption,
efficacious grace, and some others, that depend upon them,
were inconsistent with the moral perfections of the divine nature:
these are now traduced by many, as though they were
new and strange doctrines, not founded on scripture, nor to
be maintained by any just methods of reasoning deduced from
it, or as if the duties of practical religion could not be inculcated
consistently therewith. If this insinuation were true, our
preaching would be vain, our hope also vain, and we should
be found false witnesses for God, and have no solid ground
whereon to set our feet, which would be a most tremendous
thought. And, if this be not sufficient to justify my present
undertaking, I have nothing to allege of equal weight.
I must confess, that when I took the first step, in order to
the setting this design on foot, by consenting that proposals
// File: a004.png
.pn +1
should be printed, about two years since, I reckoned it little
other than an expedient to disengage myself from any farther
thoughts, and my friends from any expectation of it, which I
could not well do, but by having a proof of the backwardness
of persons to encourage, by subscription, a work which would
be so very expensive to the undertakers; but, the design being
countenanced, beyond what I could have imagined, and
numbers subscribed for, with more expedition than is usual, I
was laid under an obligation immediately to prepare my notes
for the press, and set forward the work, which, through the
divine goodness, has been thus far carried on; and I cannot but
take occasion to express my grateful acknowledgment of the
respect that has been shewed me, by those who have encouraged
this undertaking. If it may answer their expectation, and
subserve their spiritual advantage, I shall count my labour well
employed, and humbly offer the glory thereof, as a tribute due
to God, whose interest is the only thing that demands all our
time, strength, and utmost abilities. If I may but have a testimony
from him that I have spoken nothing concerning him
that is a dishonour to his name, unbecoming his perfections, or
that has a tendency to lead his people out of the right way to
the glorifying and enjoying of him, my end is fully answered.
Whatever weakness I have discovered, arising from mine inequality
to the greatness of the subjects insisted on, I hope to
obtain forgiveness thereof from God, whose cause I have endeavoured
to maintain; and, to be excused by men, as I may
truly say, I have not offered, either to him or them, what cost
me nothing. I have, as far as I am able, adapted my method
of reasoning to the capacities of those who are unacquainted
with several abstruse and uncommon words and phrases, which
have been often used by some who have treated on these subjects,
which have a tendency rather to perplex, than improve
the minds of men: terms of art, as they are sometimes called,
or hard words, used by metaphysicians and schoolmen, have
done little service to the cause of Christ.
If I have explained any doctrine, or given the sense of any
scripture in a way somewhat different from what is commonly
received, I have never done it out of the least affectation of
singularity, nor taken pleasure in going out of the beaten path,
having as great a regard to the footsteps of the flock, as is consistent
with that liberty of thinking and reasoning, which we
are allowed to use, who conclude nothing to be an infallible
rule of faith, but the inspired writings.
As to what I have advanced concerning the eternal generation
of the Son, and the procession of the Holy Ghost, I have
thought myself obliged to recede from some common modes of
explication, which have been used, both by ancient and modern
// File: a005.png
.pn +1
writers, in insisting on these mysterious doctrines, which, probably,
will appear, if duly weighed, not to have done any great
service to the cause, which, with convincing evidence, they
have maintained; since it is obvious that this is the principal
thing that has given occasion to some modern Arians to fill the
margins of their books with quotations, taken out of the writings
of others, whom they have either, without ground, pretended
to have been on their side of the question, or charged
with plucking down with one hand, what they have built up
with the other.
Whether my method of explaining these doctrines be reckoned
just, or no, I cannot but persuade myself, that if what I have
said, concerning the subordination of these divine persons, be
considered in any other view, than as an explication of the Sonship
of Christ, and the procession of the Holy Ghost, it will
not be reckoned a deviating from the common faith of those
who have defended the doctrine of the ever-blessed Trinity;
and, if it be an error to maintain that these divine persons, as
well as the Father, are independent, as to their personality, as
well as their essence, or to assert that the manner of their having
the divine essence, as some express it, is independent, as
well as the essence itself, then what I have delivered, on that
subject, is to no purpose, which, when I am convinced of, I
shall readily acknowledge my mistake, and count it an happiness
to be undeceived.
As to what respects the decrees of God, and more particularly
those that relate to angels and men, and his providence,
as conversant about sinful actions, and the origin of moral evil,
I have endeavoured to account for them in such a way, as, I
trust, does not in the least, infer God to be the author of sin;
nor have I, in any instance, represented God as punishing sin,
or determining to do it, out of his mere sovereignty, as though
he designed to render his creatures miserable, without considering
them as contracting guilt, and thereby procuring this to
themselves. And, when I have been led to insist on the freeness
of divine grace, and the covenant of grace, as made with
Christ, and, in him, with the elect, and maintained the absoluteness
and independency hereof on the will of man to render
it effectual to salvation, I have, notwithstanding, said as much
as is necessary concerning the conditionality of our claim to the
blessings thereof, and the inseparable connexion that there is
between practical religion and salvation, which fences against
the charge that is often brought against this doctrine, as though
it led to licentiousness. This I could not omit to mention, that
the reader might not entertain groundless prejudices against
some of the doctrines insisted on, before he duly weighs the
method in which they are handled, or considers whether my
// File: a006.png
.pn +1
defence of them against the popular objections, of that or any
other kind, be just or no. Some, it may be, will see reason to
conclude that it is; and others, who think that there are many
unsurmountable difficulties on our side of the question, may be
convinced, that there are difficulties of another nature, as great,
if not greater, attending the opposite scheme, which they themselves
maintain. But this I rather chuse to submit to the impartial
judgment of those who are not disposed to condemn a
doctrine, without desiring to know what may be said in its defence.
As to what concerns the work in general, it may be observed,
that when I have occasion to illustrate an argument, by
making use of any criticism that may be of advantage to it, or
to give the sense of ancient writers, either for or against what
I have laid down, I have inserted it in Italics in the notes, that
it might not appear to be a digression, or break the thread of
the discourse.
Though the title of every page mentions only the general
subject of the question, there is a table prefixed to each volume,
that comprises the contents thereof, laid down in such a
form, as that the reader may easily see the heads of argument,
under every question, in their proper method and connexion.
And, at the end, there is an index of scriptures, in which
only those are inserted that are either more largely or concisely
explained. This, together with the table, was drawn up by a
kind brother, which I thankfully acknowledge, as having afforded
me more leisure to attend to the work itself.[1]
As to what concerns the second edition,[2] it was undertaken at
the request of some who did not expect that the former would
be so soon out of print. That which gives me great satisfaction
is, the acceptance it has met with from many judicious divines
and others, in North-Britain; and I cannot but reckon the
honour that the learned professors in the university of Aberdeen
did me, in signifying their approbation of it, much more
to be desired, than the highest titles that could have been conferred
upon me without it.
I have nothing farther to trouble the reader with in this preface;
but would only request of him, that, what thoughts soever
he may entertain concerning the way in which I have endeavoured
to state and defend some great and important truths, he
would search the scriptures, and explain them agreeably to the
divine perfections, and not think the worse of the gospel, which
stands upon a firmer basis, than the weak efforts of fallible men,
who use their best endeavours to defend it. If we had not a
// File: a007.png
.pn +1
surer rule of faith, than the methods of human reasoning, religion
would be a matter of great uncertainty, and we should
be in danger of being tossed to and fro, and carried about with
every wind of doctrine. But our best security against this, will
be our having hearts established with grace, and rightly disposed
to make a practical improvement of what we learn; and,
if we are enabled to follow on to know the Lord with minds
free from prejudice, and, if under a due sense of our weakness,
we humbly present our supplications to him, who is able to
make us wise to salvation, we may then hope to attain to that
knowledge of the truth, as it is in Jesus, which shall be attended
with peace and comfort here, and crowned with blessedness
and glory hereafter.
May the great God, in whose hand is the life and usefulness
of all men, succeed, with his blessing, what is humbly offered
to his service, so far as it is adapted thereunto, and approved
of by him, that hereby it may be conducive to the spiritual advantage
of professing families, and the rising generation.
.fn 1
And besides the above-mentioned Indexes there are now added to this edition an
alphabetical index to the whole matters contained in the work.
.fn-
.fn 2
And the same reason may be assigned why this third is now offered to the public.
.fn-
// File: a008.png
.pn +1
// File: b001.png
.pn 1
.sp 4
.h2 title='Contents'
THE CONTENTS OF THE FIRST VOLUME.
.sp 2
Quest. I. Of glorifying God, and the enjoyment of him.
.sp 2
With what distinction the glorifying and enjoyment of God
may both be said to be man’s chief and highest end, Page #13#
What it is to glorify God ibid
.in +4
How God glorifies himself ibid
How creatures glorify him #14#
.in -4
What it is to enjoy God #17#
.in +4
The connexion between glorifying God and the enjoyment of
him #18#
.in -4
Contentedness to perish, that God may be glorified, unjustly
made a mark of grace #19#
To be quickened to duty by a respect to the heavenly glory, no
sign of a mercenary spirit #20#
.sp 2
Quest. II. Of the Being of a God.
.sp 2
Reasons why we should be able to prove this by arguments #21#
The Being of a God may be evinced,
From the light of nature ibid
.in +4
What meant thereby ibid
How it proves the Being of a God #22#
.in -4
From the works of creation #24#
.in +4
from creatures below man #32#
from the structure of man’s body #33#
from the nature of his soul #34#
from the nature and office of conscience #35#
from the boundless desires of the soul #37#
.in -4
From the consent of all nations ibid
.in +4
Objection, That there have been some speculative Atheists,
answered #38#
The belief of a God took not its rise from human policy #40#
It was not propagated merely by tradition ibid
.in -4
From the works of providence #41#
From the foretelling future events #42#
From the provision made for all #43#
.in +4
Particularly for man’s safety #44#
.in -4
// File: b002.png
.pn +1
The objections taken from the prosperity of the wicked, answered #45#
Nothing short of revelation sufficient to give a saving discovery
of God #47#
.sp 2
Quest. III. Of the Holy Scripture.
.sp 2
The names given to it #48#
.in +4
Why called a Testament #50#
.in -4
How the want of a written word was supplied to the church before
Moses #52#
Whether the church, under the Old Testament, understood the
spiritual meaning of the laws contained in it #53#
Whether the prophets understood their own predictions #54#
How far the Old Testament is still a rule #56#
How the scriptures are a complete revelation of the will of
God #58#
The scripture a sufficient rule of faith and obedience #59#
.in +4
Its properties as a rule #61#
It is the only rule ibid
.in -4
Human traditions of no divine authority #62#
.in +4
The Popish doctrine of them confuted ibid
.in -4
The Canon of scripture preserved entire #65#
.in +4
Is not perverted #66#
.in -4
.sp 2
Quest. IV. Of the Divine Authority of the Scriptures.
.sp 2
In what respects called divine #69#
A divine revelation necessary #71#
Not contrary to God’s perfections ibid
Inspiration not impossible #72#
The scripture proved to be the word of God ibid
From the majesty of its style #73#
From the purity of its doctrines #74#
.in +4
Its holiness considered absolutely ibid
And as compared with other writings #76#
.in -4
From the harmony of all its parts #78#
Dr. Paley on the genuineness of the scriptures, in a note #79#
.in +4
Its harmony shewn in the accomplishment of many predictions #86#
It doth not contradict itself #87#
Various objections answered #88#
Rules for reconciling seeming contradictions in scripture #94#
.in +4
Grotius on their authority, in a note #97#
.in -8
From its scope and design #98#
From the character of the penmen #102#
.in +4
These were faithful ibid
They were not imposed on #106#
// File: b003.png
.pn +1
How they might know they were under inspiration #108#
They mistook not the devil’s impressions for divine revelation #109#
The words as well as matter of scripture were given by inspiration #110#
.in -4
From its antiquity and preservation #112#
From the testimony of God by miracles ibid
.in +4
Two objections answered #114#, #115#
By the conviction and conversion of sinners #116#
.in -4
How Christians come to a full persuasion of the divinity of
scripture #118#
The inward testimony of the Spirit explained ibid
.sp 2
Quest. V, VI. The principal matters contained in
scripture.
.sp 2
Quest. VII. Of the nature and perfections of God.
.sp 2
How we may conceive aright of the divine perfections ibid
Of the communicable and incommunicable perfections of God #122#
Nothing common between God and the creature ibid
God is a Spirit; what a Spirit is #123#
.in +4
Difference between other spiritual substances and God #124#
Independent #124#. Infinitely perfect #126#
All-sufficient #127#. When this perfection is in effect denied #127#
Eternal #129#. His eternal duration not successive #132#. How
the parts of time are attributed to God #133#
Immutable. When immutability is a perfection. How peculiar
to God #135#. Arguments to prove him so #136#
Incomprehensible #138#
Omnipresent #139#, and Almighty #140#
.in +4
Wherein his power appears #141#
What things God cannot do #142#
The improvement of this subject #143#
.in -4
Omniscient #145#. He knows all future contingencies #147#
.in +4
Properties of God’s knowledge #149#. Its improvement #150#
When it is practically denied, ibid.
.in -4
Wisdom of God infinite #152#
Different from knowledge ibid
Wherein it appears ibid
In Creation #154#. Providence #155#. Redemption #156#
In the constant government of the church ibid
Inferences from God’s wisdom #158#
.in -4
Holiness of God infinite #159#
.in +4
What it is, ibid. Instances of it #160#
His suffering the entrance of sin, was no refection on it #161#
’Tis the standard of doctrines #162#
Instances of doctrines which lead to licentiousness #162#, #163#
// File: b004.png
.pn +1
When God’s holiness is contemned #163#
.in -4
Justice of God infinite #164#
.in +4
How distinguished from his holiness ibid
Glory, how called a reward #167#
Afflictions of believers not properly a punishment ibid
.in -4
Mercy and grace of God infinite #168#
.in +4
Difference between goodness, mercy, grace, and patience #169#
Mercy is either common or special #171#
Grace free and sovereign #172#
.in +4
Discriminating #173#. Instances of it, ibid. Afflictions not
inconsistent with it #174#
Leads not to licentiousness ibid
.in -8
Patience of God, what it is #176#
.in +4
Whether devils are objects of it ibid
Instances of God’s patience #178#
Wherein manifested to the wicked #179#
Not inconsistent with justice #181#
How to be improved #183#
By whom it is abused #184#
.in -4
Truth, God is abundant therein #186#
.in +4
How he is called a God of truth #187#
.in -4
Faithfulness of God, ibid. No impeachment hereof that some
threatenings have not been executed #188#. Nor that some
promises have not presently been performed #190#
.in +4
How this perfection is to be improved #191#
.in -4
.sp 2
Quest. VIII. Of the Unity of the Godhead.
.sp 2
How God is styled the living God #194#
Unity of the Godhead proved ibid
.in +4
Abernethy on that subject, in a note #197#
Was not denied by the wiser Heathen #200#
Inferences from it #202#
How we should conceive of it #203#
.in -4
Different modes used in speaking of the perfections of God #204#
.sp 2
Quest. IX, X, XI. Of the Doctrine of the Trinity.
.sp 2
Calvin on the word Person, in a note #207#
The doctrine of the highest importance #209#
.in +4
How to determine the importance of a doctrine #211#
What knowledge of it necessary to salvation #213#
.in -4
It is a great mystery, #214#. What a mystery is, ibid.
It is incomprehensible #216#
.in +8
Dr. Bates on mysteries, in a note #217#
.in -4
Objections on this account answered #220#
Whether to receive it be to use words without ideas ibid
Whether the revelation of it be unintelligible #221#
// File: b005.png
.pn +1
Whether that which is unintelligible be the object of faith #222#
.in -4
How this doctrine promotes religion #223#
.in +4
In what sense revelation is an improvement of the light of
nature #224#
.in -4
Not contrary to reason, though above it #226#
.in +4
When a doctrine is contrary to reason ibid
.in -4
It is not chargeable with Tritheism #227#
.in +4
The use of reason in proving doctrines of pure revelation #229#
.in -4
It cannot be known by the light of nature #230#
.in +4
How it was made known to Adam ibid
Whether the heathen knew it #231#
.in +4
Whitaker on the word Logos used by the Jews, in a
note #233#
.in -8
Trinity, not to be illustrated by similitudes #235#
.in +4
Rules for interpreting scriptures relating to it #236#
The word Trinity explained #239#
.in -4
Person, the word explained #239#
.in +4
The difference between divine and human persons #242#
.in -4
Sacred Three, in what respect One #243#
.in +8
Dr. Jamieson on the Trinity, in a note #243#
.in -4
How their glory equal, how the same ibid
.in -4
Personality of the Son, #248#. Of the Spirit #250#
.in +4
Not metaphorically ascribed to either #252#
.in -4
Eternal generation of the Son, how understood by many #259#
.in +4
Another method of accounting for it #261#
This account thereof proved #264#
Scriptures relating to Christ’s sonship explained #274#
Christ’s sonship as Mediator, considered #276#
Another view of the subject, in a note #279#
.in -4
Procession of the Spirit, how understood by many, #260#. What
it is #261#
.in +4
The scripture doctrine of it #280#
.in -4
Œconomy of the sacred Three explained #291#
.in +4
How distinct works are ascribed to them #292#
.in -4
The Deity of the Son proved ibid
From his divine names #295#
.in +4
Jehovah God’s incommunicable name #296#
.in +4
Never given to creatures #297#
It is not applied to angels #301#
Christ’s Deity proved from it #302#
.in -4
God and Lord, how applied in scripture #304#
.in +4
Christ’s Deity proved thereby #306#
This argued from 1 Tim. iii. 16. #311#
And from Acts xx. 28. #313#. Rom. ix. 5. ibid.
From 1 John v. 20. 315. Isa. ix. 6. #317#
From Titus ii. 13. ibid. John xx. 28. #319#
.in -4
When the word God is used absolutely #321#
.in +4
Its meaning when so used #321#
.in -4
// File: b006.png
.pn +1
In what sense Christ is styled God by the Socinians #322#
.in -4
From the ascription of the divine nature to him in Col. ii. 9. #325#
.in +4
In Philip, ii. 6. this explained and defended #326#
Genuineness of 1 John v. 7. defended #329#
.in -4
From his conference with the Jews #335#
From his Attributes #342#
.in +4
Eternity, #343#. Immutability, ibid.
Omnipresence #345#
.in +4
This proved from John iii. 13. #347#
.in -4
Omniscience, #349#. Objections answered #350#
Omnipotency #352#
.in -4
From his glorious titles #353#
From his work of creation #357#
.in +8
The Socinian account thereof #359#
.in -4
Christ no instrument in creation #361#
How the Father made the world by him #362#
Men only moral instruments in miracles #365#
.in -4
From his works of providence #366#
.in +4
Christ the Governor of all things #367#
.in -4
From his acting as Judge #368#
.in +4
Subserviency of his kingdom to the Father #371#
Christ as Mediator below, yet equal with the Father #374#
Inferiority of Christ, how to be understood in scripture #376#
.in -4
From the worship paid him #377#
.in +4
Christ the Object of religious worship #379#
.in -4
From Baptism #382#
From the doxologies applied to him #386#
.in +4
Anti-Trinitarians differ about the worship due to Christ #388#
.in -4
Right to divine worship is incommunicable #389#
.in +4
Objections against the deity of Christ answered #391#
Dr. Priestley’s disingenuity, in a note #397#
.in -4
Of the divinity of the Holy Ghost #398#
.in +4
His divinity proved ibid
From Acts v. 3, 4. #400#
From his divine Attributes #404#
From his divine works #405#
.in +4
Such works performed by him #407#
.in -4
From the worship given to him #408#
.in +4
Objections answered #410#
.in -8
Practical inferences from the doctrine of the Trinity #414#
.sp 2
Quest. XII, XIII. Of God’s Decrees.
.sp 2
Some things premised in general #417#
.in +4
Dissuasives from prejudices #419#
.in -4
The general method laid down #421#
In what sense God fore-ordained all things #422#
.in +4
That he did so, proved #424#
.in +4
Dr. Smalley on the origin of sin #425#
.in -8
// File: b007.png
.pn +1
Purpose of God free, wise, holy #432#
.in +4
How it renders salvation necessary #484#
It is unchangeable #481#
Repentance, how ascribed to God #483#
.in -4
Predestination, the word explained #433#
.in +4
Consequences of denying it #499#
.in -4
Election, the word explained #434#
.in +4
How used in the Old Testament #438#
How in the New #441#
Fathers, their sense about this doctrine #507#
.in -4
Election to salvation asserted in scripture #442#
.in +4
Churches, how styled elect #443#
.in -4
Chosen, part of mankind were so #447#
.in +8
These styled a Remnant #449#
.in -4
A Remnant chosen out of the Jews #450#
Men elected to sanctification as well as salvation #461#
Acts xiii. 48. explained and defended #463#
Men chosen in Christ #467#
.in -4
Supra-lapsarian and Sub-lapsarian schemes differ #446#
Proofs of the doctrine of Election ibid.
.in +8
from God’s fore-knowledge #452#
from his giving the means of grace #454#
.in -4
Jacob loved, Esau hated, explained #456#
.in +4
Objections answered #458#
.in -4
The opposite doctrine, how defended #501#
.in -4
Properties of Election #469#
.in +4
Misrepresentations of it answered #465#
.in -4
Reprobation, how to be explained #486#
.in +4
Preterition a branch of it (vide the note, #529#) #488#
.in -4
Predamnation considered from Jude, ver. 4. #491#
.in +4
Rom. ix. 22. and xi. 7-10. explained #492#
2 Thes. ii. 11, 12. Psal. lxxxi. 12. John xii. 39, 40. explained #494#
.in -4
Wicked, how made for the day of evil #495#
Will of God secret and revealed #471#
.in +4
Is free, sovereign, and unconditional #476#
Its absoluteness #477#
That it is conditional, cannot be proved from scripture #480#
Conditional propositions, how understood there #479#
How God will have all saved #501#
.in -4
Expectation of God not disappointed by the will of man #505#
.in +4
God not really disappointed, grieved, or resisted #506#
.in -4
Bounds of life fixed by him #508#
Stoical fate, how it differs from God’s decrees #516#
Objections against Election answered #507#
.in +4
Practical improvement of it #526#
.in -4
Dr. Williams on election, in a note #529#
// File: b008.png
.pn +1
// File: b009.png
.pn +1
.sp 4
.h2 title='The Introduction.'
THE INTRODUCTION.
.sp 2
Before we enter on our present undertaking, we shall premise
a few things leading to the subject matter thereof; and
that we may begin with what is most obvious, let it be considered,
I. That it is a duty incumbent on all who profess the Christian
name, to be well acquainted with those great doctrines on
which our faith, hope, and worship are founded; for, without
the knowledge hereof, we must necessarily be at a loss as to the
way of salvation, which none has a right to prescribe, but he
who is the author thereof.[3]
// File: b010.png
.pn +1
II. This knowledge of divine truth must be derived from the
holy scriptures, which are the only fountain of spiritual wisdom,
whereby we are instructed in those things that could have been
known no other way, but by divine revelation.
III. It will be of singular use for us not only to know the
doctrines that are contained in scripture; but to observe their
connexion and dependence on one another, and to digest them into
such a method, that subsequent truths may give light to them
that went before; or to lay them down in such a way, that the
whole scheme of religion may be comprised in a narrow compass,
and, as it were, beheld with one view, which will be a very
great help to memory: and this is what we call a system of divine
truths, or a methodical collection of the chief articles of our
religion, adapted to the capacity of those who need to be taught
the first principles of the oracles of God: and if they are designed
to give the world a specimen of that form of sound words,
which the church thinks itself obliged to hold fast, and stedfastly
to adhere to, then we call it a confession of faith; or, if digested
into questions and answers, we call it a catechism. And
though systems of divinity, confessions of faith, and catechisms,
are treated with contempt, instead of better arguments, by many
who are no friends to the doctrines which they contain, and who
appear to be partial in their resentment, in as much as they do
not dislike those treatises which are agreeable to their own
sentiments, by whatever name they are called; yet we are bound
to conclude that the labours of those who have been happy in the
sense they have given of scripture, and the method in which they
have explained the doctrines thereof, in what form soever they
have been, are a great blessing to us; though we are far from
concluding that they are of equal authority with scripture, or
that every word which they use is infallible; nor do we regard
them any farther than as they are agreeable to, or sufficiently
proved from scripture.
IV. Confessions of faith and catechisms are not to be reckoned
a novel invention, or not consonant to the scripture rule, since
they are nothing else but a peculiar way of preaching or instructing
us in divine truths. Therefore, since scripture lays down no
certain invariable rule concerning this matter, the same command
that warrants preaching the word in any method, includes the
explaining of it, as occasion serves, in a catechetical one.
V. As there are many excellent bodies of divinity printed in
our own and foreign languages, and collections of sermons on
the principal heads thereof; so there are various catechisms, or
methodical summaries of divine truths, which, when consonant to
scripture, are of great advantage to all Christians, whether elder
or younger.
VI. The catechisms composed by the Assembly of Divines at
// File: b011.png
.pn +1
Westminster, are esteemed as not inferior to any that are extant,
either in our own or foreign languages, the doctrines therein
contained being of the highest importance, and consonant to
scripture; and the method in which they are laid down is so
agreeable, that it may serve as a directory for the ranging our
ideas of the common heads of divinity in such an order, that
what occurs under each of them may be reduced to its proper
place. It is the larger of them that we have attempted to explain
and regulate our method by; because it contains several heads of
divinity not touched on in the shorter. And if, in any particular
instance, we are obliged to recede from the common mode of speaking,
(though it is to be hoped not from the common faith,
once delivered to the saints) we submit our reasoning to the
judgment of those who are disposed to pardon less mistakes, and
improve what comes with sufficient evidence to the best purposes.
The work indeed is large, but the vast variety of subjects
will render it more tolerable; the form in which it appears is
somewhat differing from that in which it was first delivered, in
a public audience, though that may probably be no disadvantage
to it, especially since it is rather designed to be read in families
than committed to memory, and repeated by different persons, as
it has been. The plainness of the style may contribute to its
usefulness; and its being less embarrassed with scholastic terms
than some controversial writings are, may render it more intelligible
to private Christians, whose instruction and advantage is
designed thereby. It would be too great a vanity to expect that
it should pass through the world without that censure which is
common to all attempts of the like nature, since men’s sentiments
in divinity differ as much as their faces; and some are not disposed
to weigh those arguments that are brought to support any
scheme of doctrine, which differs from what they have before received.
However, the work comes forth with this advantage, that
it has already conflicted with some of the difficulties it is like to
meet with, as well as been favoured with some success, and therefore
the event hereof is left in his hand whose cause and truth
is endeavoured to be maintained.
.fn 3
“Christianity,” it hath been said, “is not founded in argument.” If it were
only meant by these words, that the religion of Jesus could not, by the single aid
of reasoning, produce its full effect upon the heart; every true Christian would
cheerfully subscribe to them. No arguments unaccompanied by the influences of
the Holy Spirit, can convert the soul from sin to God; though even to such conversion,
arguments are, by the agency of the Spirit, rendered subservient. Again,
if we were to understand by this aphorism, that the principles of our religion
could never have been discovered, by the natural and unassisted faculties of man;
this position, I presume would be as little disputed as the former. But if, on the
contrary, under the cover of an ambiguous expression, it is intended to insinuate,
that those principles, from their very nature, can admit no rational evidence of
their truth, (and this, by the way, is the only meaning which can avail our antagonists)
the gospel, as well as common sense, loudly reclaims against it.
“The Lord Jesus Christ, the author of our religion, often argued, both with his
disciples and with his adversaries, as with reasonable men, on the principles of
reason, without this faculty, he well knew, they could not be susceptible either
of religion or of law. He argued from prophecy, and the conformity of the event
to the prediction. Luke xxiv. 25, &c. John v. 39, & 46. He argued from the testimony
of John the Baptist, who was generally acknowledged to be a prophet. John
v. 32, & 33. He argued from the miracles which he himself performed, John v. 36.
x. 25, 37, 38. xiv. 10, 11. as uncontrovertible evidences, that God Almighty operated
by him, and had sent him. He expostulates with his enemies, that they did
not use their reason on this subject. Why, says he, even of yourselves judge ye not
what is right? Luke xii. 57. In like manner we are called upon by the apostles of
our Lord, to act the part of wise men and judge impartially of what they say. 1 Cor.
x. 15. Those who do so, are highly commended, for the candour and prudence
they discover, in an affair of so great consequence. Acts xvii. 11. We are even
commanded, to be always ready to give an answer to every man that asketh us a reason
of our hope; 1 Pet. iii. 15. in meekness to instruct them that oppose themselves;
2 Tim. ii. 25. and earnestly to contend for the faith which was once delivered to the
saints. Jude 3. God has neither in natural nor revealed religion, left himself without
a witness; but has in both given moral and external evidence, sufficient to
convince the impartial, to silence the gainsayer, and to render inexcusable the
atheist and the unbeliever. This evidence it is our duty to attend to, and candidly
to examine. We must prove all things, as we are expressly enjoined in holy
writ, if we would ever hope to hold fast that which is good. 1 Thess. v. 21.”
Campbell.
.fn-
// File: b012.png
.pn +1
// File: b013.png
.pn +1
.sp 4
.h2
Quest. I.
.sp 2
.pm letter-start
Quest. I. What is the chief and highest end of man?
Answ. Man’s chief and highest end is to glorify God, and
fully to enjoy him for ever.
.pm letter-end
.sp 2
1. It is supposed, in this answer, that every intelligent creature,
acting as such, designs some end, which excites endeavours
to attain it.
2. The ends for which we act, if warrantable, may be considered
as to their degree of excellency, and, in proportion to it,
are to be pursued by proper means conducing thereto.
3. There is one that may be termed the chief and highest
end, as having an excellency and tendency to make us blessed
above all others: this consists, as it is observed in this answer,
in the glorifying and eternal enjoyment of God, the fountain of
blessedness.
If it be enquired with what propriety these may both be called
chief and highest, the answer is obvious and easy, viz. That
the former is absolutely so, beyond which nothing more excellent
or desirable can be conceived; the latter is the highest or
best in its kind, which, notwithstanding, is referred, as a means
leading to the other; and both these ends, which, with this distinction,
we call chief and highest, are to be particularly considered
by us, together with the connexion that there is between
them.[4]
I. We are to consider what it is to glorify God. In order
to our understanding of this, let it be premised,
// File: b014.png
.pn +1
1. That there is a great difference between God’s glorifying
himself and our glorifying him; he glorifies himself when he
demonstrates or shews forth his glory; we glorify him by ascribing
to him the glory that is his due: even as the sun discovers
its brightness by its rays, and the eye beholds it. God
glorifies himself, by furnishing us with matter for praise; we
glorify him when we offer praise, or give unto him the glory due
to his name.
2. Creatures are said to glorify God various ways: some
things do it only objectively, as by them, angels and men are
led to glorify him; thus the heavens declare his glory, Psal. xix.
1. The same might be said of all other inanimate creatures
which glorify God, by answering the end of their creation,
though they know it not: but intelligent creatures, and particularly
men, are said to glorify God actively; and this they do
by admiring and adoring his divine perfections: these, as incomprehensible,
are the object of admiration; and accordingly
the apostle admires the divine wisdom, Rom. xi. 33. O the depth
of the riches, both of the wisdom and knowledge of God; how
unsearchable are his judgments, and his ways past finding out!
and as they are divine, so they are the object of adoration: God
is to be admired in all the displays of his relative or manifestative
glory; and his work which men behold, is to be magnified,
Job xxxvi. 24. But he is to be adored more especially for his
essential perfections.
We are to glorify God, by recommending, proclaiming, and
setting forth his excellency to others. What we have the highest
value for, we desire that others may have the same regard to
it with ourselves: thus it is observed by the evangelist, that
when the disciples received their first conviction that Jesus
was the Messiah, they imparted this to others; as Andrew to
Peter, and Philip to Nathanael, John i. 41, 45. so the woman
of Samaria being convinced hereof, endeavoured to persuade
all her neighbours to believe in him, as she did, John iv. 28, 29.
Thus we glorify God by making mention of his name with reverence,
proclaiming his goodness with thankfulness, and inviting
others, as the Psalmist does, Psal. xxxiv. 8. to taste and
see that he is good.
But since this is a very comprehensive duty including in it
the whole of practical religion, it may be considered under the
following particulars.
1. We glorify God by confessing and taking shame to ourselves
for all the sins we have committed, which is interpretatively
to acknowledge the holiness of his nature, and of his law,
which the apostle asserts to be holy, just, and good, Rom. vii.
12. This Joshua advises Achan to do; to give glory to God,
by making confession to him, Josh. vii. 19. And thus the penitent
// File: b015.png
.pn +1
thief, who was crucified with our Saviour, glorified God,
by confessing that he received the due reward of his deeds, Luke
xxiii. 40, 41. So did the Levites, in their prayer recorded by
Nehemiah, when they said to God, Thou art just in all that is
brought upon us, for thou hast done right, but we have done
wickedly, Neh. ix. 33.
2. By loving and delighting in him above all things, which
is to act as those who own the transcendent amiableness of his
perfections, as the object of their highest esteem. Thus the
Psalmist says, Psal. lxxiii. 25. Whom have I in heaven but thee;
and there is none, or nothing, upon earth, that I desire besides
thee.
3. By believing and trusting in him, committing all our concerns,
both in life and death, for time and eternity, into his
hands: thus Abraham is said to be strong in faith, giving
glory to God, Rom. iv. 20. And the apostle Paul, 2 Tim. i.
12. to have committed his all to him.
4. By a fervent zeal for his honour; and that either for the
honour of his truth and gospel, when denied, disbelieved, or
perverted; or for the honour of his holiness, or any of his other
perfections, when they are reflected on, or reproached, either
by the tongues or actions of those who set themselves against
him.
5. By improving our talents, and bringing forth fruit in proportion
to the means we enjoy; herein, says our Saviour, is
my Father glorified, that ye bear much fruit, John xv. 8.
6. By walking humbly, thankfully, and chearfully before
God. Humility acknowledges that infinite distance which is
between him and us; retains a due sense of our own unworthiness
of all we have or hope for; and owns every thing we receive
to be the gift of grace; By the grace of God, says the
apostle, I am what I am, 1 Cor. xv. 10. Thankfulness gives
him the glory, as the author of every mercy; and accordingly
sets a due value on it, in that respect. And to walk chearfully
before him, is to recommend his service as most agreeable,
whereby we discover that we do not repent that we were engaged
therein; which is what the Psalmist intends, when he
says, Psal. c. 2. Serve the Lord with gladness.
7. By heavenly-mindedness; when we desire to be with him
to behold his glory. To which we must add, that all this is to be
done in the name of Christ, our great Mediator, and by strength
derived from him.
8. As we are to glorify God, by yielding obedience to his
commanding will, as in the aforesaid instances, so we are to do
it by an entire submission to his disposing will; particularly,
when under afflictive dispensations of providence, we must own
his sovereignty and right to do what he will with us as his own,
// File: b016.png
.pn +1
Matth. xx. 15. and that these afflictions are infinitely less than
our iniquities deserve, Ezra ix. 13. And we must adore his
wisdom and goodness in trying our graces hereby, and dealing
with us in such a way as is needful, and that only for a season,
1 Pet. i. 6. And we are to own his goodness in suiting our
strength to our burdens, and over-ruling all this for our spiritual
advantage. It also consists in an easy, patient, and contented
frame of spirit, without the least murmuring or repining
thought; concluding, that whatever he does is well done, Psal.
cxix. 65. And, which is something more, in rejoicing that we
are counted worthy to suffer the loss of all things, yea, even of
life itself, if called to it, for his sake; of which we have various
instances in scripture, Acts v. 41. Heb. x. 34. Acts xx. 24.
Moreover, we ought to glorify God in all the natural, civil,
and religious actions of life, which are to be consecrated or devoted
to him. We enjoy the blessings of life to no purpose if
we do not live to the Lord, and thankfully acknowledge that we
receive them all from his hand; and whatever the calling be,
wherewith we are called, we must therein abide with him, and
see that we have his warrant to engage in it, and expect success
from his blessing attending it, or else it will be to no purpose.
Thus says Moses, It is the Lord thy God that giveth thee power
to get wealth, Deut. viii. 18. And, in all our dealings with
men, we are to consider ourselves as under the inspection of the
all-seeing eye of God, to whom we are accountable for all we
do, and should be induced hereby, to exercise ourselves always
to keep consciences void of offence towards God and man.
As for religious duties, wherein we have more immediately
to do with God, we are to glorify him, by taking up a profession
of religion in general, as being influenced by his authority, encouraged
by his promised assistance, and approving ourselves to
him, as the searcher of hearts: and we must take heed that we
do not rest in an outward form or shew of godliness, without
the power thereof; or in having a name to live without a principal
of spiritual life, by which we may be enabled to put forth
living and spiritual actions agreeable thereunto: and all these
religious duties must be performed by faith, whereby we depend
on Christ, our great Mediator, both for assistance and
acceptance; by which means we glorify him, as the fountain of
all grace, in whom alone both our persons and services are accepted
in the sight of God, and redound to his glory. And
this is to be done at all times; so that when our thoughts are
not directly conversant about any of the divine perfections, as it
often happens, when we are engaged in some of the more minute,
or indifferent actions of life; yet we are to glorify him
habitually, as having our hearts right with him; so that whatever
we do may refer ultimately to his glory. As every step
// File: b017.png
.pn +1
the traveller takes is toward his journey’s end, though it may
not be every moment in his thoughts; so the less important
actions of life should be subservient to those that are of greater
consequence, in which the honour of God and religion is more
immediately concerned; in which sense we maybe said to
glorify him therein.
Thus having considered, that it is our indispensable duty to
make the glory of God our highest end in all our actions, we
might farther add, as a motive to enforce it, that God is the
first cause of all things, and his own glory was the end he designed
in all his works, whether of creation or providence: and
it is certain, that this is the most excellent end we can propose
to ourselves; therefore the most valuable actions of life ought
to be referred to it, and our hearts most set upon it; otherwise
we act below the dignity of our nature; and, while other creatures,
designed only to glorify him objectively, answer the end
for which they were made, we, by denying him that tribute of
praise which is due from us, abuse our superior faculties, and
live in vain.
II. The next thing to be considered is what it is to enjoy
God.
1. This supposes a propriety in, or claim to him, as our God.
We cannot be said to enjoy that which we have no right or
claim to, as one man cannot be said to enjoy an estate which
belongs to another; so God must be our God in covenant, or we
cannot enjoy him; and that he is so, with respect to all that
fear him, is evident, inasmuch as he gives them leave to say,
Psal. xlviii. 14, This God is our God; and, Psal. lxvii, 6. God,
even our God, shall bless us.
2. To enjoy God, is to have a special gracious communion
with him, to converse or walk with him, and to delight in him;
as when we can say, 1 John i. 3. Truly our fellowship is with
the Father, and with his Son Jesus Christ. This enjoyment of
God, or communion with him, is,
(1.) That which we are blessed with in this world, which is
but imperfect, as we know and love him but in part, and our
communion with him is often interrupted and weakened,
through the prevalency of indwelling sin: and that joy and
delight which arises from thence is often clouded and sullied;
and, at best, we enjoy him here but in a mediate way, in and
under his ordinances, as agreeable to this present state.
(2.) Believers shall enjoy him perfectly and immediately in
heaven, without intermission or abatement, and that for ever;
this is called, Seeing him as he is, 1 John iii. 2. and being with
him where he is, to behold his glory, John xvii. 24. And in
order hereto, their souls shall be made capable or receptive
hereof, by the removal not only of all sinful but natural imperfections,
// File: b018.png
.pn +1
and shall be more enlarged, as well as have brighter
discoveries of the divine glory: and this shall be attended with
a perfect freedom from all the consequences of sin; such as
sorrow, divine desertion, and the many evils that attend us in
this present life; as well as from all temptations to it. So that
their happiness shall be confirmed and secured to them, and
that with this advantage, that it shall be impossible for them to
be dispossessed of it. This is certainly the most desirable end,
next to the glory of God, that can be intended or pursued by
us.[5]
III. This leads us to consider the connexion that there is
between our glorifying God and enjoyment of him. God has
joined these two together, so that one shall not be attained
without the other. It is the highest presumption to expect to
be made happy with him for ever, without living to his glory
here. For in as much as heaven is a state of perfect blessedness,
they, who shall hereafter be possessed of it, must be trained
up, or made meet for it; which is the grand design of all the
means of grace. How preposterous would it be to suppose,
that they, who have no regard to the honour of God here, shall
be crowned with glory, honour, immortality, and eternal life, in
his presence hereafter! Therefore a life of holiness is absolutely
necessary to the heavenly blessedness; and since these
two are so connected together, they who experience the one,
shall not fail of the other; for this is secured to them by the
faithfulness of God, who has promised to give grace and glory,
Psal. lxxxiv. 11. Therefore, he who begins a good work in
them, will perform it, Phil. i. 6. and give them the end of their
faith, even the salvation of their souls, 1 Pet. i. 8.
From the connexion that there is between our glorifying and
enjoying God, we may infer,
1. That it is a very preposterous thing for any one to assign
this as a mark of grace, that persons must be content to perish
eternally, that God may be glorified. It is true, it is alleged in
favour of this supposition, that Moses, and the apostle Paul,
seem to give countenance to it; one by saying, Exod. xxxii. 32.
If thou wilt forgive their sin; and, if not, blot me, I pray thee,
out of the book which thou hast written; the other, Rom. ix. 3.
I could wish that myself were accursed from Christ, for my
brethren and kinsmen according to the flesh.
But to this it may be answered, that Moses, in desiring to be
blotted out of the book which God had written, must not be
supposed to be willing to perish eternally for Israel’s sake; but he
// File: b019.png
.pn +1
is content to be blotted out of the book of the living, or to have
his name no more remembered on earth; and seems to decline
the honour which God had offered him, when he said, Exod.
xxxii. 10. Let me alone, that I may consume them; and I will
make of thee a great nation; he desires not the advancement of
his own family, if Israel must cease to be a people, to whom
God had promised to be a God.
As for the apostle Paul’s wish, it is either, as some suppose,
a rash and inconsiderate flight of zeal for God, and so not warrantable,
though in some respects proceeding from a good principle;
or rather, as I humbly conceive the meaning is, he could
wish himself accursed from Christ, so far as is consistent with
his love; or he is content to be under the external marks of
God’s displeasure; or deprived of the comfortable sensation of
his love, or many of those fruits and effects thereof, which the
believer enjoys in this life: for I cannot, in the least, think he
desires to be deprived of a real interest in it, or to be eternally
separated from Christ, on any condition whatsoever.[6]
// File: b020.png
.pn +1
2. Since the eternal enjoyment of God is one great end
which we ought to have in view, it is no sign of a mercenary
spirit to have an eye to the heavenly glory, to quicken us to
duty; seeing this is promised by God to those who are faithful,
thus, Psal. lxxxiii. 24. Thou shalt guide me with thy counsel,
and afterward receive me to glory. The like promises we
have in many other scriptures, which are designed to excite
our desire and hope of this blessedness; therefore the exercise
of these graces, from such motives, is far from being unlawful:
yea, it is commended in the saints, who are said, Heb. xi. 16.
to desire a better country, that is, an heavenly. And Moses is
commended for having the recompence of reward in view, when
he preferred the reproach of Christ before the treasures of
Egypt, ver. 26.
Nevertheless, when this respect to future blessedness is warrantable,
it must be considered as an expedient for our glorifying
God, while we behold his glory; and when we consider it
as a reward, we must not look upon it as what is merited by
our service, or conferred in a way of debt, but as a reward of
grace, given freely to us, though founded on the merits of
Christ.
.fn 4
He who glorifies God intentionally, thereby promotes his own happiness.
Our enjoying God is glorifying him. The two objects coalesce. Vide note on
page #19#.
.fn-
.fn 5
The answer connected with this question makes the glorifying and enjoyment
but one end; and thus the enjoyment is supposed to consist in the glorifying
God.
.fn-
.fn 6
It is not probable that the idea of a book of life, which is not to be understood
literally, was at all in use in the days of Moses. The term ηυχομην used
by Paul is not hypothetical, but affirmative, and in the past tense, I did wish, or
rather I was wishing to be separated from Christ. The truth of this assertion
no one, who is acquainted with his history, can doubt; for he had been a persecutor.
Such a wish, made after he was a subject of saving grace, would have
been unnatural, irrelevant, impious and impossible. It has been nevertheless,
zealously contended by some learned and pious modern divines that, “the benevolent
person is disposed, and willing to give up, and relinquish his own interest
and happiness, when inconsistent with the public good, or the greatest good
of the whole.”[7] By benevolence they mean love to being in general, without regard
to any excellency in that being, “unless mere existence”[8] be such. In this
they place all virtue, and all religion. And that they may the more clearly distinguish
this species of love from that of complacency and gratitude, in which the
party ever has his eye upon his own advantage, they usually adopt the phrase
disinterested benevolence, yet not wholly discarding the idea of the party’s own
interest, but viewing it only on the general scale with that of all other beings.
True holiness consists in a disposition, and suitable expressions of it, in conformity
to the revealed will of God; so far as this accords with the good of the
whole, such benevolence will run parallel with holiness; but every attempt to
substitute any other rule of action or ground of obligation than the authoritatively
expressed will of God, approaches the crime of idolatry. It is certainly a very
high stand we assume, when we profess to pass by all the amiableness, and excellency
of the divine character; and all his goodness, and mercy to us; and to
love his being only together with created existences, with the same independent,
and dignified love of benevolence, which he exercises towards his helpless creatures.
All the displays of his perfections and compassions seem designed rather
to elicit the affections of complacency and gratitude. That the advantages of religion
in this world, and the next may be sought from selfish, and mercenary
views is a lamentable truth; but because carnal minds may find their own destruction
in aiming at the blessings which the spiritual only can enjoy, this is no
reason wherefore the saints should not find their ultimate interest to accompany
their duty in every instance. Accordingly, for their encouragement, the blessings
of peace, and spiritual consolations here, and of eternal happiness, are exhibited
to their view in glowing colours. But this would not have been done if it
were essential to the character of their love, that they should be willing to be
separated from Christ. That we have by nature a fearful propensity to earthly
good, which is vain, illusory, disgusting and debasing, must be acknowledged;
and that we are therefore required to deny our natural selves is known unto every
Christian. But it by no means results, that because we must turn away from the
temptations of temporal things, we may not aspire to those blessings which are
spiritual and eternal. God himself is eternally happy in his own self complacency,
and has encouraged us to expect everlasting happiness from the same source.
Jesus Christ, whose benevolence towards us is an eternal appeal to our gratitude,
which supposes a regard to our own interest; in suffering death had respect also
to the joy which was set before him, and shall see of the travail of his soul and
shall be satisfied. Love is essential to duty, without which it is forced, and cannot
be deemed obedience in the view of him who searches the heart. This has
been noticed by the Saviour, but he has omitted those distinctions, which are
accounted so important in modern times; yet his doctrines are not less spiritual,
than ours after we have sublimated the gospel to the highest pitch of refinement.
.fn-
.fn 7
Dr. Hopkins.
.fn-
.fn 8
President Edwards.
.fn-
.sp 4
.h2
Quest. II.
.sp 2
.pm letter-start
Quest. II. How doth it appear that there is a God?
Answ. The very light of nature in man, and the works of
God, declare that there is a God; but his word and Spirit
only, do sufficiently and effectually reveal him unto men for
their salvation.
.pm letter-end
.sp 2
Before we enter on the proof of this important doctrine,
let it be premised, that we ought to be able to prove by
arguments, or give a reason of our belief that there is a God.
// File: b021.png
.pn +1
1. Because it is the foundation of all natural and revealed
religion; and therefore it must not be received merely by tradition,
as though there were no other reason why we believe it,
but because others do so, or because we have been instructed
herein from our childhood; for that is unbecoming the dignity
and importance of the subject, and would be an instance of
great stupidity, especially seeing we have so full and demonstrative
an evidence thereof, taken from the whole frame of
nature; in which there is nothing but what affords an argument
to confirm our belief that there is a God.
2. There is a great deal of atheism in our hearts, by reason
whereof we are prone sometimes to call in question the being,
perfections, and providence of God. To which we may also
add, that the Devil frequently injects atheistical thoughts into
our minds; which is a great affliction to us, and renders it necessary
that we should use all possible means for our establishment
in this great truth.
3. The abounding of atheism in the world, and the boldness
of many in arguing against this truth, renders it necessary that
we should be able to defend it, that we may stop the mouths of
blasphemers, and so plead the cause of God, and assert his
being and perfections against those that deny them; as Psal. xiv.
1. The fool, who saith in his heart there is no God.
4. This will greatly tend to establish our faith in those comfortable
truths that arise from our interest in him, and give us a
more solid foundation for our hope, as excited by his promises,
which receive all their force and virtue from those perfections
which are implied in the idea of a God.
5. This will make us set a due value on his works, by which
we are led to conclude his eternal power and Godhead, and so
to admire him in them, Job xxxvi. 24. Remember that thou
magnify his work, which men behold.
We shall now consider those arguments mentioned in this
answer, by which the being of a God may be evinced; as,
I. From the light of nature in man, by which we understand
that reason which he is endowed with, whereby he is distinguished
from, and rendered superior to, all other creatures in
this lower world, whereby he is able to observe the connexion
of things, and their dependence on one another, and infer those
consequences which may be deduced from thence. These reasoning
powers, indeed, are very much sullied, depraved, and
weakened, by our apostacy from God, but not wholly obliterated;
so that there are some remains thereof, which are common
to all nations, whereby, without the help of special revelation
it may be known that there is a God.
But this either respects the principle of reasoning, which we
were born with, upon the account whereof infants are called intelligent
// File: b022.png
.pn +1
creatures; or the exercise thereof in a discursive way,
in the adult, who only are capable to discern this truth, which
they do more or less, in proportion to their natural capacity,
as they make advances in the knowledge of other things. Now
for the proof of the being of a God from the light of nature,
let the following propositions be considered in their respective
order.
1. There hath been, for many ages past, a succession of
creatures in the world.[9]
2. These creatures could not make themselves, for that
which is nothing cannot act; if it makes itself, it acts before it
// File: b023.png
.pn +1
exists; it acts as a creator before it exists as a creature; and
it must be, in the same respect, both a cause and an effect, or
it must be, and not be, at the same time, than which nothing
can be more absurd; therefore creatures were made by another,
upon which account we call them creatures.
3. These creatures could not make one another; for to create
something out of nothing, or out of matter altogether unfit
to be made what is produced out of it, is to act above the natural
powers of the creature, and contrary to the fixed laws of
nature; and therefore is too great a work for a creature, who
can do nothing but in a natural way, even as an artificer,
though he can build an house with fit materials, yet he cannot
produce the matter out of which he builds it; nor can he build
it of matter unfit for his purpose, as water, fire, air, &c. All
creatures act within their own sphere, that is, in a natural way:
but creation is a supernatural work, and too great for a creature
to perform; therefore creatures cannot be supposed to have
made one another.
4. If it was supposed possible for one creature to make another,
then superiors must have made inferiors; and so man, or
some other intelligent creature, must have made the world:
but where is the creature that ever pretended to this power or
wisdom, so as to be called the Creator of the ends of the earth.
5. If any creature could make itself, or other creatures of the
same species, why did he not preserve himself; for he that can
give being to himself, can certainly continue himself in being?
or why did he not make himself more perfect? Why did he
make himself, and other creatures of the same species, in such
a condition, that they are always indigent, or stand in need of
support from other creatures.
// File: b024.png
.pn +1
Or farther, supposing the creature made himself, and all
other things, how comes it to pass that no one knows much of
himself comparatively, or other things? Does not he that makes
things understand them? therefore man could not make himself,
or other creatures.
6. It follows therefore from hence, that there must be a God,
who is the first cause of all things, necessarily existing, and not
depending on the will of another, and by whose power all things
exist; Of him, and through him, and to him are all things, Rom.
xi. 36. In him we live, and move, and have our being, Acts
xvii. 28.
Thus much concerning the more general method of reasoning,
whereby the light of nature evinces the being of a God;
we proceed,
II. To consider more particularly how the being of God
may be evinced from his works. The cause is known by its
effects; since therefore, as was but now observed, creatures
could not produce themselves, they must be created by one
who is not a creature.
Now, if there be no medium between God and the creature,
or between infinite and finite, between a self-existent or underived,
and a derived being; and if all creatures exist, as has
been shewn, by the will and power of their Creator, and so are
finite and dependent; then it follows, that there is one from
whom they derived their being, and on whom they depend for
all things; that is, God. This is usually illustrated by this similitude.
Suppose we were cast on an unknown island, and
there saw houses built, but no men to inhabit them, should we
not conclude there had been some there that built them? Could
the stones and timber put themselves into that form in which
they are? Or could the beasts of the field build them, that are
without understanding? Or when we see a curious piece of
workmanship, as a watch, or a clock, perform all its motions
in a regular way, can we think the wheels came together by
chance?[10] should we not conclude that it was made by one
// File: b025.png
.pn +1
of sufficient skill to frame and put them together in that order,
and give motion to them? Shall the clay say to him that fashioned
// File: b026.png
.pn +1
it, What makest thou, or thy work, He hath no hands? Isa.
xlv. 9.
// File: b027.png
.pn +1
This leads us to consider the wisdom of God in his works,
which demonstrates his being. This the Psalmist mentions
// File: b028.png
.pn +1
with admiration, Psal. civ. 24. O Lord, how manifold are thy
works; in wisdom hast thou made them all! When we see letters
// File: b029.png
.pn +1
put together, which make words or sentences, and these a
book, containing the greatest sense, and the ideas joined together
in the most beautiful order, should we not conclude that some
man, equal to this work, had put them together? Even so the
wisdom that shines forth in all the parts of the creation, proves
that there is a God. This appears,
In the exact harmony and subserviency of one part of the
creation to another, Hos. ii. 21, 22. I will hear, saith the Lord;
I will hear the heavens, and they shall hear the earth. And the
earth shall hear the corn, and the wine, and the oil, and they
shall hear Jezreel. One part of this frame of nature ministers
to another. Thus the sun, and other heavenly bodies, give light
to the world, which would be no better than a cave or dungeon
without them; and afford life and influence to plants and
trees; and maintain the life of all living creatures. The clouds
send down rain that moistens the earth, and makes it fruitful;
and this is not poured forth by whole oceans together, but by
small drops, Job xxxvi. 27. He maketh small the drops of water;
they pour down rain according to the vapour thereof; and these
are not perpetual, for that would tend to its destruction. The
moist places of the earth, and the sea supply the clouds with
water, that they may have a sufficient store to return again to
it. The air fans and refreshes the earth, and is necessary for
the growth of all things, and the maintaining the life and health
of those that dwell therein. This subserviency of one thing to
another is without their own design or contrivance; for they
are not endowed with understanding or will; neither doth this
depend on the will of the creature. The sun doth not enlighten
or give warmth to the world, or the clouds or air refresh the
earth at our pleasure; and therefore all this is subject to the
order and direction of one who is the God of nature, who commands
the sun, and it shineth, and the clouds to give rain at his
// File: b030.png
.pn +1
pleasure. It is he that gave the regular motion to the heavenly
bodies, and, by his wisdom, fixed and continues the various seasons
of the year, summer and winter, seed-time and harvest, day
and night, and every thing that tends to the beauty and harmony
of nature; therefore these curious, and never-enough to
be admired, works, plainly declare that there is a God. This is
described with unparalleled elegancy of style, Job xxxvii. 9,
&c. Out of the south cometh the whirlwind; and cold out of the
north. By the breath of God, frost is given; and the breadth of
the waters is straitened. Also by watering he wearieth the
thick cloud; he scattereth his bright cloud. Dost thou know the
balancings of the clouds, the wondrous works of him which is
perfect in knowledge? How thy garments are warm when he
quieteth the earth by the south-wind?[11]
// File: b031.png
.pn +1
But that we may farther evince this truth, we shall lay down
the following arguments to prove the being of a God, which
appears,
// File: b032.png
.pn +1
I. From those creatures that are endowed with a lower kind
of life than man.
1. No creature can produce a fly or the least insect, but according
to the fixed laws of nature; and that which we call life,
or the principle of their respective motion and actions, none but
a God can give; so that his being is plainly proved, from all
living creatures below man, which are subservient, many of
them, to one another, and all to man, and that not by our ordering;
therefore this is done by the hand of him who is the God
of nature.
2. The natural instinct of living creatures, every one acting
according to its kind; and some of the smallest creatures producing
things that no human art can imitate, plainly proves a
God. Thus the bird in building its nest; the spider in framing
its web; the bee in providing store-houses for its honey; and
the ant in those provisions which it lays up in summer against
// File: b033.png
.pn +1
winter; the silk-worm in providing cloathing for man, and in
being transformed into various shapes, and many others of
smaller sort of creatures, that act in a wonderful way, without
the exercise of reason or design, these all prove the being of
God.
3. The greater, fiercer, or more formidable sort of living
creatures, as the lion, tiger, and other beasts of prey, are so ordered,
that they fly from man, whom they could easily devour,
and avoid those cities and places where men inhabit, that so we
may dwell safely. They are not chased into the woods by us;
but these are allotted, as the places of their residence by the
God of nature.
4. Those living creatures that are most useful to men, and
so subject to them, viz. the horse, camel, and many others,
these know not their own strength, or power, to resist or rebel
against them; which is ordered by infinite wisdom: and there
are many other instances of the like nature, all which are very
strong arguments to prove that there is a God, whose glory
shines forth in all his works.
II. From the structure of human bodies, in which respect
we are said to be fearfully and wonderfully made; this, if it
be abstractedly considered without regard to the fixed course and
laws of nature, exceeds the power and skill of all creatures, and
can be no other than the workmanship of a God, and therefore
is a demonstration of his being and perfections. No man ever
pretended to give a specimen of his skill therein. The finest
statuaries or limners, who have imitated or given a picture, or
representation of human bodies, have not pretended to give life
or motion to them; herein their skill is baffled. The wisest
men in the world have confessed their ignorance of the way
and manner of the formation of human bodies; how they are
framed in their first rudiments, preserved and grow to perfection
in the womb, and how they are increased, nourished, and
continued in their health, strength, and vigour for many years.
This has made the inquiries of the most thoughtful men issue
in admiration: herein we plainly see the power and wisdom of
God, to which alone it is owing.
Here it may be observed, that there are several things very
wonderful in the structure of human bodies, which farther
evince this truth. As,
1. The organs of sense and speech.
2. The circulation of the blood, and the natural heat which
is preserved for many years together, of which there is no instance
but in living creatures. Even fire will consume and
waste itself by degrees, and all things, which have only acquired
heat, will soon grow cold; but the natural heat of the body
of man is preserved in it as long as life is continued.
// File: b034.png
.pn +1
3. The continual supply of animal spirits, and their subserviency
to sense and motion.[13]
4. The nerves, which, though small as threads, remain unbroken,
though every one of these small fibres performs its office,
and tends to convey strength and motion to the body.
5. The situation of the parts in their most proper place: the
internal parts, which would be ruined and destroyed if exposed
to the injuries that the external ones are: these are secured
in proper inclosures, and so preserved, Job x. 11. Thou hast
cloathed me with skin and flesh, and hast fenced me with bones
and sinews.
6. All the parts of the body are so disposed, that they are
fitted for their respective uses, as being situate in those places
which render them most fit to perform their proper actions.
7. The differing features of different bodies, so that we
scarce see persons in all respects alike, is wonderful, and the
result of divine wisdom: for even this is necessary for society,
and our performing the duties we owe to one another.
8. The union of this body with the soul, which is a spirit of
a very different nature, can never be sufficiently admired or
accounted for; but gives us occasion herein to own a superior,
infinitely wise being. Which leads us,
III. To consider how the being of God may be evinced from
the nature of the soul of man. He is said, Zech. xii. 1. To have
formed the spirit of man within him. And hereby his power and
wisdom, and consequently his being, is declared. For,
1. The nature of a spiritual substance is much less known
than that of bodies; and therefore that which we cannot fully
understand, we must admire.
If the wisdom and power of God is visible in the structure
of our bodies, it is much more so in the formation of our souls;
and since we cannot fully describe what they are, and know
little of them but by their effects, certainly we could not form
them; and therefore there is a God, who is the Father of spirits.
2. The powers and capacities of the soul are various, and
very extensive.
(1.) It can frame ideas of things superior to its own nature,
and can employ itself in contemplating and beholding the order,
beauty, and connexion of all those things in the world,
which are, as it were, a book, in which we may read the divine
perfections, and improve them to the best purposes.
(2.) It takes in the vast compass of things past, which it can
reflect on and remember, with satisfaction, or regret: and it can
look forward to things to come, which it can expect, and accordingly
conceive pleasure or uneasiness in the forethoughts thereof.
// File: b035.png
.pn +1
(3.) It can chuse or embrace what is good, or fly from and
reject what is evil and hurtful to it.
(4.) It is capable of moral government, of conducting itself
according to the principles of reason, and certain rules enjoined
it for the attaining the highest end.
(5.) It is capable of religion, and so can argue that there is a
God, and give him the glory that is due to his name, and be
happy in the enjoyment of him.
(6.) It is immortal, and therefore cannot be destroyed by any
creature; for none but God has an absolute sovereignty over the
spirits of men; No man hath power over the spirit to retain the
spirit; neither hath he power in the day of death, Eccles. viii. 8.
IV. From the nature and office of conscience, which is that
whereby the soul takes a view of itself, and its own actions, as
good or evil; and considers itself as under a law to a superior
being, from whom it expects rewards or punishments; and this
evidently proves a God. For,
1. Conscience is oftentimes distressed or comforted by its
reflection on those actions, which no man on earth can know:
and therefore when it fears punishment for those crimes, which
come not under the cognizance of human laws, the uneasiness
that it finds in itself, and its dread of punishment, plainly discovers
that it is apprehensive of a divine being, who has been
offended, whose wrath and resentment it fears. All the endeavours
that men can use to bribe, blind, or stupify their consciences,
will not prevent these fears; but the sad apprehension
of deserved punishment, from one whom they conceive to know
all things, even the most secret crimes committed, this makes
persons uneasy, whether they will or no. Whithersoever they
fly, or what amusement soever they betake themselves to, conscience
will still follow them with its accusations and dread of
divine wrath: The wicked are like the troubled sea, when it cannot
rest, Isa. lvii. 20. A dreadful sound is in his ears; in prosperity
the destroyer shall come upon him, Job xv. 21. Terrors
take hold of him as waters, a tempest stealeth him away in the
night. The east-wind carrieth him away, and he departeth;
and as a storm hurleth him out of his place. For God shall cast
upon him, and not spare; he would fain flee out of his hand, Job
xxvii. 20, 21, 22. The wicked flee when no man pursueth,
Prov. xxviii. 1.
And this is universal, there are none but are, some time or
other, liable to these fears, arising from self-reflection, and the
dictates of conscience; the most advanced circumstances in the
world will not fortify against, or deliver from them, Acts xxiv.
25. As Paul reasoned of righteousness, temperance, and judgment
to come, Felix trembled. Even Pharaoh himself, the most
hard-hearted sinner in the world, who would fain have forced
// File: b036.png
.pn +1
a belief upon himself that there is no God, and boldly said, Who
is the Lord, that I should obey him? yet he could not ward off
the conviction that there is a God, which his own conscience
suggested. Therefore he was forced to say, Exod. ix. 27. I
have sinned this time; the Lord is righteous, and I and my people
are wicked. And indeed all the pleasures that any can take
in the world, who give themselves up to the most luxurious
way of living, cannot prevent their trembling, when conscience
suggests some things terrible to them for their sins. Thus Belshazzar,
when in the midst of his jollity and drinking wine,
having made a great feast to a thousand of his lords, when he
saw the finger of a man’s hand upon the wall, it is said, Dan. v.
6. The king’s countenance was changed, and his thoughts troubled
him; so that the joints of his loins were loosed, and his
knees smote one against another.
Thus concerning those dictates of conscience, which make
men very uneasy, whereby wicked men are forced to own that
there is a God, whether they will or no; we now proceed to
consider good men, as having frequently such serenity of mind
and peace of conscience, as affords them farther matter of conviction
concerning this truth. It is, indeed, a privilege that
they enjoy, who have the light of scripture revelation, and so it
might have been considered under a following head; but since
it is opposed to what was but now brought, as a proof of the
being of a God, we may here observe, that some have that
composure of mind, in believing and walking closely with God,
as tends to confirm them yet more in this truth. For,
(1.) This composure of mind abides under all the troubles
and disappointments they meet with in the world: those things
which tend to disturb the peace of other men, do not so much
affect them; He shall not be afraid of evil tidings; his heart is
fixed, trusting in the Lord, Psal. cxii. 7. And as this peace
abides under all the troubles of life, so it does not leave them,
but is sometimes more abundant, when they draw nigh to death.
(2.) It is a regular and orderly peace that they have, accompanied
with grace, so that conscience is most quiet when the
soul is most holy; which shews that there is a hand of God in
working or speaking this peace, as designing thereby to encourage
and own that grace which he has wrought in them: Rom.
x. 13. thus the God of hope is said to fill us with all joy and
peace in believing.
(3.) Let them labour never so much after it, they can never
attain this peace, without a divine intimation, or God’s speaking
peace to their souls; therefore when he is pleased, for wise
ends, to withdraw from them, they are destitute of it; so that
God is hereby known by his works, or by those influences of
his grace, whereby he gives peace to conscience.
// File: b037.png
.pn +1
V. The being of a God appears from those vast and boundless
desires, which are implanted in the soul; so that it can take
up its rest, and meet with full satisfaction, in nothing short of a
being of infinite perfection: therefore there is such an one,
which is God. This will farther appear if we consider,
1. We find, by experience, that though the soul, at present,
be entertained, and meets with some satisfaction in creature-enjoyments,
yet it still craves and desires more, of what kind
soever they be; and the reason is, because they are not commensurate
to its desires; The eye is not satisfied with seeing,
nor the ear with hearing, Eccles. i. 8. That which is wanting
cannot be numbered, ver. 15.
2. We cannot rationally suppose that such boundless desires
should be implanted in the soul, and yet that there should be
nothing sufficient to satisfy them; for then the most excellent
creature in this lower world would be, in some respects, more
miserable than other creatures of a lower order, which obtain
their ultimate desire. Thus the Psalmist, speaking of the brute
creatures, says, Psal. civ. 28. They are filled with good; that is,
they have all that they crave. Therefore,
3. There must be one that is infinitely good, who can satisfy
these desires, considered in their utmost extent; and that is
God, the fountain of all blessedness.
VI. The being of a God may be farther evinced, from the
consent of all nations to this truth. Now that which all mankind
agrees in, must be founded in the nature of man, and that
which is so, is evident from the light of nature. It is true,
there are many who have thus known God, who have not worshipped
and glorified him as God; but have been vain in their
imaginations, and have changed the truth of God into a lie, and
worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator, as
the apostle says, Rom. i. 21, 25. But it doth not follow from
hence, that the heathen, who were guilty of idolatry, had no
notion of a God in general, but rather the contrary; that there
is something in the nature of man, which suggests, that they
ought to worship some divine being, whom they could not, by
the light of nature, sufficiently know, and therefore they did
service to those who were by nature no gods; however, this
proves that they were not wholly destitute of some ideas of a
God, which therefore are common to all mankind. Now that
all nations have had some discerning that there is a God, appears,
1. From the credit that is to be given to all ancient history;
which sufficiently discovers that men, in all ages, have owned
and worshipped something that they called a God, though they
knew not the true God.
2. The heathen themselves, as may easily be understood
// File: b038.png
.pn +1
from their own writings, reckoned atheism a detestable crime,
for this reason, because contrary to the light of nature; and
therefore some of them have asserted, that there is no nation in
the world so barbarous, and void of reason, as to have no notion
of a God.
3. We may consider also, that no changes in the world, or in
the circumstances of men, have wholly erased this principle:
whatever changes there have been in the external modes of worship,
or in those things which have been received by tradition,
still this principle has remained unalterable, that there is a God.
Therefore the being of a God may be proved by the consent of
all nations.
Object. 1. But it is objected to this, that there have been
some speculative atheists in the world. History gives us an
account of this; and we are informed, that there are some whole
countries in Africa and America, where there is no worship,
and, as to what appears to us, no notion of a God. Therefore
the being of a God cannot be proved by the consent of all nations.
Answ. 1. As to the first branch of this objection, that there
have been some speculative atheists in the world; it is true,
history furnishes us with instances of persons who have been
deemed so, yet their number has been very inconsiderable; so
that it will not follow from hence, that the idea of a God is not
some way or other, impressed upon the heart of man. Might
it not as well be said, that, because some few are born idiots,
therefore reason is not natural to man, or universal? And it
may be farther observed, that they who are branded with the
character of atheists in ancient history, or such as appear to be
atheists in our day by their conversation, are rather practical
atheists than speculative. We do not deny, that many in all
ages have, and now do, assert, and pretend to prove, that there
is no God; but it is plain that they discover, at some times, such
fear and distress of conscience, as is sufficient to disprove what
they pretend to defend by arguments.
2. As to the second branch of the objection, that there are
some parts of the world, where the people seem to be so stupid,
as not to own or worship a God; this is hard to be proved;
neither have any, that have asserted it, had that familiarity
with them, as to be able to determine what their sentiments are
about this matter.
But suppose it were true in fact, that some nations have no
notion of a God or religion, nothing could be argued from it,
but that such nations are barbarous and brutish, and though
they have the principle of reason, do not act like reasonable
creatures; and it is sufficient to our purpose to assert, that all
men, acting like reasonable creatures, or who argue from those
// File: b039.png
.pn +1
principles of reason, that they are born with, may from thence
conclude that there is a God.
Object. 2. It is farther objected by atheists against the being
of God, and indeed against all religion, which is founded thereon,
that both one and the other took its rise from human policy,
that hereby the world, being amused with such-like speculations,
might be restrained from those irregularities, which were
inconsistent with the well-being of civil government; and that
this was readily received, and propagated by tradition, and so
by an implicit faith transmitted from one generation to another,
among those who enquired not into the reason of what they
believed; and that all this was supported by fear, which fixed
their belief in this matter: so that human policy invented, tradition
propagated, and fear rooted in the minds of men, what
we call the natural ideas of God and religion.
Answ. This is a vile insinuation, but much in the mouths of
atheists, without any shadow of reason, or attempt to prove it;
and indeed it may be easily disproved. Therefore,
1. It appears that the notices we have of the being of a God,
are not in the least founded in state policy, as a trick of men, to
keep up some religion in the world, as necessary for the support
of civil government. For,
If the notion of a God, and religion consequential hereon,
were a contrivance of human policy, it would follow,
(1.) That it must be either the invention of one single man,
or else it was the result of the contrivance of many convened
together in a joint assembly of men, in confederacy, to impose
on the world.
If it was the invention of one man, who was he? when and
where did he live? What history gives the least account of
him? or when was the world without all knowledge of a deity,
and some religion, that we may know, at least, in what age this
notion first sprang up, or was contrived? Or could the contrivance
of one man be so universally complied with, and yet none
pretend to know who he was, or when he lived? And if it was
the contrivance of a number of men convened together, how
was this possible, and yet the thing not be discovered? or how
could the princes of the earth, who were at the head of this
contrivance, have mutual intelligence, or be convened together?
By whose authority did they meet? or what was the occasion
thereof?
(2.) It is morally impossible, that such a piece of state policy
should be made use of to deceive the world, and universally
take place, and yet none in any age ever discover the imposture.
The world could never be so imposed on, and yet not
know by whom; the plot would certainly have been confessed
by some who were in the secret.
// File: b040.png
.pn +1
(3.) If human policy had first invented this notion, certainly
the princes and great men of the world, who had a hand in it,
would have exempted themselves from any obligation to own a
God, or any form of worship, whereby they acknowledge him
their superior; for impostors generally design to beguile others,
but to exempt themselves from what they bind them to. If any
of the princes, or great men of the world, had invented this
opinion, that there is a God, and that he is to be worshipped,
their pride would have led them to persuade the world that they
were gods themselves, and ought to be worshipped; they would
never have included themselves in the obligation to own a subjection
to God, if the notion of a God had, for political ends,
been invented by them.
(4.) If the belief of a God was invented by human policy,
how came it to be universally received by the world? It is
certain, that it was not propagated by persecution; for though
there has been persecution to inforce particular modes of worship,
yet there never was any such method used to inforce the
belief of a God, for that took place without any need thereof, it
being instamped on the nature of man.
If therefore it was not propagated by force, neither was the
belief of a God spread through the world by fraud, what are
those arts which are pretended to have been used to propagate
it? It took its rise, say they, from human policy; but the politicians
not known, nor the arts they used to persuade the
world that there is a God found out. How unreasonable therefore
is this objection, or rather cavil, against a deity, when the
atheists pretend that it was the result of human policy!
2. It appears that the belief of a God was not propagated in
the world merely by tradition, and so received by implicit faith.
For,
(1.) Those notions that have been received with implicit
faith by tradition, from generation to generation, are not pretended
to be proved by reason; but the belief of a God is
founded on the highest reason; so that if no one in the world
believed it besides myself, I am bound to believe it, or else
must no longer lay claim to that reason which is natural to
mankind, and should rather shew myself a brute than a man.
(2.) No schemes of religion, that were propagated merely by
tradition, have been universally received; for tradition respects
particular nations, or a particular set of men, who have propagated
them. But as has been before considered the belief of a
God has universally prevailed. Moreover, if the belief of a
God was thus spread by tradition through the world, why was
not the mode of worship settled, that so there might be but one
religion in the world? The reason is, because their respective
modes of worship were received, by the heathen, by tradition:
// File: b041.png
.pn +1
whereas the belief of a God was not so, but is rooted in the nature
of man.
(3.) Whatever has been received only by tradition, has not
continued in the world in all the turns, changes, and overthrow
of particular nations, that received it; but the belief of a God
has continued in the world throughout all the ages and changes
thereof: therefore it is not founded in tradition, but by the light
of nature.
3. It appears, moreover, that the belief of a God could not
take its first rise merely from fear of punishment, which men
expected would be inflicted by him, though that be a strong argument
to establish us in the belief thereof. For,
(1.) A liableness to punishment for crimes committed, supposes
that there is a God, who is offended by sin, and from
whom punishment is expected. Therefore as the effect cannot
give being to the cause, so fear could not be the first ground
and reason of the belief of a God. But,
(2.) The principal idea which mankind has of God, and that
which is most natural to us, is, that of an infinitely amiable
object, and so we conceive of him, as a being of infinite goodness,
1 John iv. 8. God is love. Thus we conceive of him, as the
spring of all we enjoy and hope for; and as for fear, that is
only what arises in the breasts of wicked men, and is founded
in the secondary ideas we have of him; to wit, as taking vengeance,
supposing he is offended. But they who do not offend
him are not afraid of his vengeance; and the sentiments of the
worst of men are not to be our rule in judging concerning the
being of a God. If these believe that there is a God, only because
they fear him, others believe him to be the fountain of all
blessedness, and as such they love him: therefore the ideas
that men have of the being of a God, did not arise from fear.
VII. The being of a God, may be proved from the works of
providence, whereby the world is governed, as well as preserved
from returning to its first nothing. It is that which supplies all
creatures with those things that their respective natures or necessities
require: creatures could no more provide for themselves
than they could make themselves; therefore he that provides
all things for them is God. All finite beings have their
respective wants, whether they are sensible thereof or no; and
he must be all-sufficient that can fill or supply the necessities of
all things, and such an one is God.
Thus the Psalmist speaks of this God, as supplying the necessities
of beasts and creeping things; who are said, to wait
upon him, that he may give them their meat in due season, Psal.
civ. 25, 27. Psal. cxlv. 15,16.
In considering the providence of God, whereby his being is
evinced, we may observe,
// File: b042.png
.pn +1
1. The extraordinary dispensations thereof, when things
happen contrary to the common course, and fixed laws of nature,
as when miracles have been wrought. These are undeniable
proofs of the being of a God; for herein a check or stop
is put to the course of nature, the fixed order or laws thereof
controuled or inverted; and this none can do but he who is the
God and author thereof. To deny that miracles have been
wrought, is little better than scepticism; since it hath been
proved, by the most unquestionable testimony, contained not
only in scripture, but in other writings, and is confessed, even
by those who deny the principal things designed to be confirmed
thereby. It is true, they were never wrought with an immediate
design to prove that there is a God, since that is sufficiently
demonstrated without them; but in as much as they have
been wrought with other views, the being of a God, whose immediate
power has been exerted therein, appears beyond all
contradiction.
2. This may be proved from the common dispensations of
providence, which we daily behold and experience in the world.
These we call common, because they contain nothing miraculous,
or contrary to the laws of nature: they are indeed
wonderful, and have in them the traces and footsteps of infinite
wisdom and sovereignty, and therefore prove that there is a
God. For,
(1.) It cannot otherwise be accounted for, that so many
things should befal us, or others in the world, that are altogether
unlooked for. Thus one is cast down, and a blast thrown
on all his endeavours, and another raised beyond his expectation,
Psal. lxxv. 6, 7. Promotion cometh neither from the east,
nor from the west, nor from the south. But God is the judge;
he putteth down one, and setteth up another.
(2.) The wisest and best concerted schemes of men are often
baffled, and brought to nought, by some unexpected occurrence
of providence, which argues a divine controul, as God
says, 1 Cor. i. 19. I will destroy the wisdom of the wise, and
will bring to nothing the understanding of the prudent. And
who is it that can turn the counsels of men into foolishness;
but an infinitely wise God?
VIII. The being of a God may be proved by the foretelling
future events, which have come to pass accordingly. For,
1. No creature can, by his own wisdom or sagacity, foretel
future contingent events with a certain peremptory and infallible
knowledge, and not by mere conjecture, Isa. xli. 24. Shew
the things that are to come hereafter, that we may know that ye
are gods. And the reason is plain, because our knowledge
reaches no farther than to see effects, and judge of them in and
by their causes. Thus we may easily foretel that necessary
// File: b043.png
.pn +1
causes will produce those effects that are agreeable to their nature:
but when the effect is not necessary, but contingent, or
purely arbitrary, then we have nothing to judge by, and therefore
cannot come to the knowledge of things future, without
an intimation given us thereof, by him who orders and disposes
of all things, and that is God: and therefore to foretel things to
come in this sense, is an evident proof of the being of God.
2. That there have been such predictions, and that the things
foretold have come to pass accordingly, is very obvious from
scripture: and if it be highly reasonable to believe that which
is so well attested, as scripture is, we are bound from hence to
conclude that there is a God.
But since we are arguing, at present, with those who deny a
God, and consequently all scripture-revelation, we will only
suppose that they whom we contend with will allow that some
contingent events have been foretold; and then it will follow,
that this could be done no other way, but by some intimation
from one that is omniscient, and that is God.
IX. The being of a God appears from his providing for the
necessities of all living. Here let us consider,
1. That there is a natural instinct in all creatures, to take care
of and provide for their young, before they are capable of providing
for themselves. This is not only observable in mankind,
as the prophet says, Isa. xlix. 15. Can a woman forget her
sucking child? but also in the lower sort of creatures; and
among them in those who are naturally most fierce and savage,
even they provide for their young with extraordinary diligence,
and sometimes neglect, and almost starve, themselves to provide
for them, and sometimes endanger their own lives to defend
them.
2. They bring forth their young at the most convenient season
of the year, when the grass begins to spring to supply them
with food, and when the fowls of the air may get a livelihood
by picking up the seed that is sown, and not covered by the
earth, and when the trees begin to put forth their fruits to supply
and feed them.
3. When they bring forth their young, there is a providence
that provides the breast, the paps, the udder replenished with,
milk to feed them; and there is a natural instinct in their
young, without instruction, to desire to receive their nourishment
that way.
4. Providence has furnished many of the beasts of the fields
with weapons for their defence, and has given others a natural
swiftness to fly from danger, and has provided holes and caverns
in the earth to secure them from those that pursue them.
And this cannot be the effect of mere chance, but it is an evident
proof of the being of a God.
// File: b044.png
.pn +1
5. Providence is, in a peculiar manner, concerned for the
supply of man, the noblest of all creatures in the world; He
giveth food to all flesh, Psal. cxxxvi. 25. Thou preservest man
and beast, Psal. xxxvi. 6. The earth is stored with variety of
food; and whereas the poor, which is the greater part of mankind,
cannot purchase those far-fetched, or costly dainties,
which are the support of luxury, these may, by their industry,
provide that food which is most common, and with which the
earth is plentifully stored, whereby their lives and health are as
well maintained, as the rich, who fare deliciously every day;
and if their families increase, and a greater number is to be provided
for, they generally have a supply in proportion to their
increasing number.
6. Providence has stored the earth with various medicines,
and given skill to men to use them as a relief against the many
sicknesses that we are exposed to. All these things, and innumerable
other instances that might be given, argue the care
and bounty, and consequently prove the being of God, whose
tender mercies are over all his works.
Here let us consider how the providence of God provides for
the safety of man against those things that threaten his ruin.
The contrariety and opposition of things one to another
would bring with them inevitable destruction, did not providence
prevent it. As,
(1.) Those things, which are the greatest blessings of nature,
would be destructive, were there not a providence: as
the sun that enlightens and cherishes the world by its heat and
influence, would be of no advantage, were it situate at too great
a distance, and would burn it up if it were too near. So the sea
would swallow up, and bring a deluge on the earth, if God had
not, by his decree, fixed it within certain bounds, and made the
shore an inclosure to it, and said hitherto shalt thou go and no
farther.
(2.) The elements are advantageous to us, by their due temperature
and mixture; but, were it otherwise, they would be
destructive. So the various humours and jarring principles in
our bodies would tend to destroy us, but that they are so mixed,
as the God of nature, has tempered and disposed them, for
the preservation of life and health.
(3.) The wild beasts would destroy us, had not God put the
fear and dread of man into them, or, at least, caused them not
to desire to be where men live; the forests and desert places,
remote from cities, being allotted for them; and some creatures
would be destructive to men, by the increase of their number,
did they not devour one another. And insects would destroy
the fruits of the earth, did not one season of the year help forward
their destruction, as another tends to breed them.
// File: b045.png
.pn +1
(4.) Men by reason of their contrary tempers and interests,
and that malice and envy, which is the consequence of our first
apostacy, would destroy one another, if there were not a providence
that restrains them, and gives a check to that wickedness
that is natural to them, whereby the world is kept in a
greater measure of peace than otherwise it would be; hence,
the Psalmist says, Psal. lxxvi. 10. Surely the wrath of man shall
praise thee; the remainder of wrath shalt thou restrain.
Object. It is objected, by atheists, against the being of a God,
that the wicked are observed to prosper, in the world, and the
righteous are oppressed. This temptation the Psalmist was almost
overcome by; as he says, my feet were almost gone; my
steps had well nigh slipt. For I was envious at the foolish, when
I saw the prosperity of the wicked, Psal. lxxiii. 2, 3.
Answ. To this it may be answered,
1. That the idea of infinite sovereignty is included in that of
a God; and this distribution of good and evil, if made at any
time, without regard to the deserts of men, argues the sovereignty
of providence; and therefore proves that there is a
God, who gives no account of his matters, but has an absolute
right to do what he will with his own.
2. There is a display of infinite wisdom in these dispensations
of providence, in that the good man is made better by affliction,
as hereby the kindness and care of providence appears;
and the wicked man is forced to own, by his daily experience,
that all the outward blessings he enjoys in this world, cannot
make him easy or happy, or be a sufficient portion for him.
3. Outward prosperity doth not prevent or remove inward
remorse, or terror of conscience, which embitters the joys of
the wicked; A dreadful sound is in his ears; in prosperity the
destroyer shall come upon him, Job xv. 21. Even in laughter
the heart is sorrowful; and the end of that mirth is heaviness,
Prov. xiv. 13. And, on the other hand, outward trouble in the
godly is not inconsistent with spiritual joy and inward peace,
which is more than a balance for all the distresses they labour
under; it is said, The heart knoweth his own bitterness, and a
stranger doth not intermeddle with his joy, Prov. xiv. 10. He
shall be satisfied from himself, ver. 14.
4. We are not to judge of things according to their present
appearance, when we determine a person happy or miserable,
but are to consider the end thereof, since every thing is well that
ends well. Thus the Psalmist, who, as was before observed,
was staggered at the prosperity of the wicked, had his faith established,
by considering the different events of things. Concerning
the wicked he says Psal. lxxiii. 18, 19, 20. Thou didst
set them in slippery places; thou castedst them down to destruction.
How are they brought into desolation, as in a moment!
// File: b046.png
.pn +1
they are utterly consumed with terrors. As a dream when one
awaketh: so, O Lord, when thou awakest, thou shalt despise their
image; which is a very beautiful expression, representing all
their happiness as imaginary, a vain dream, and such as is worthy
to be contemned: but as for the righteous, he represents
them as under the special protection and guidance of God here,
and at last received to glory, and there enjoying him as their
everlasting portion.
Having considered how the light of nature, and the works of
God prove his being, we shall proceed to shew how this appears
from scripture, as it is observed in this answer, that the word
and Spirit only do sufficiently and effectually reveal him unto
men for their salvation. The arguments hitherto laid down are
directed more especially to those who are not convinced that
there is a God, and consequently deny the divine original of
scripture: but this argument supposes a conviction of both; but
yet it must not be supposed unnecessary, in as much as we are
oftentimes exposed to many temptations, which tend to stagger
our faith; so that though we may not peremptorily deny that
there is a God, yet we may desire some additional evidence of
his being and perfections, beyond what the light of nature affords;
and this we have in scripture. Herein the glory of God
shines forth with the greatest lustre, and we have an account of
works more glorious than those of nature, included in the way
of salvation by a Mediator. The light of nature, indeed, proves
that there is a God; but the word of God discovers him to us
as a reconciled God and Father to all who believe, and is also
attended with those internal convictions and evidences of this
truth, which are the peculiar gifts and graces of the Holy Spirit;
and therefore it is well observed, that this knowledge only
is sufficient and effectual to salvation; which leads us to consider
the insufficiency of the light of nature to answer this end.
The knowledge of God, that may be attained thereby, is sufficient,
indeed, in some measure, to restrain our corrupt passions,
and it is conducive to the peace and welfare of civil societies:
it affords some conviction of sin, and, in some respects, leaves
men without excuse, and renders their condemnation less aggravated
than that of those who sin against gospel light; but
yet it is insufficient to salvation, since it is a truth of universal
extent, that there is salvation in no other, but in Christ, Acts
iv. 12. and that it is life eternal to know not only the true God,
but Jesus Christ, whom he hath sent, John xvii. 3. and this cannot
be known by the light of nature, but by divine revelation;
which leads us to consider in what respect the knowledge of
God, as it is contained in and derived from scripture, is sufficient
to salvation.
Here we do not assert the sufficiency thereof, exclusive of the
// File: b047.png
.pn +1
aids of divine grace, so as to oppose the word to the Spirit:
therefore it is said, in this answer, that the word and Spirit of
God alone can reveal him to men sufficiently to their salvation.
The word is a sufficient rule, so that we need no other to be a
standard of our faith, and to direct us in the way to eternal life;
but it is the Spirit that enables us to regard, understand, and
apply this rule, and to walk according to it: these two are not
to be separated; the Spirit doth not save any without the
word,[14] and the word is not effectual to salvation, unless made
so by the Spirit.
That nothing short of scripture-revelation is sufficient to salvation,
will appear, if we compare it with the natural knowledge
we have of God. For,
1. Though the light of nature shews us that there is a God,
it doth not fully display his perfections, so as they are manifested
in scripture, wherein God is beheld in the face of Christ.
2. Neither doth it discover any thing of the doctrine of a
Trinity of persons in the divine essence, who are equally the
object of faith: nor doth it give us any intimation of Christ, as
the Lord our righteousness, in whom we obtain forgiveness of
sins: this is known only by scripture-revelation; therefore,
since this is necessary to salvation, we are bound to conclude
that the scripture alone is sufficient to lead to it.
3. The light of nature suggests, it is true, that God is to be
worshipped; but there is an instituted way of worshipping him,
which depends wholly on divine revelation; and since this is
necessary, it proves the necessity of scripture.
4. There is no salvation without communion with God; or
he that does not enjoy him here, shall not enjoy him for ever
hereafter. Now the enjoyment of God is what we attain by
faith, which is founded on scripture. Thus the apostle says,
1 John i. 3. That which we have seen and heard, declare we
unto you, that ye also may have fellowship with us; and truly
our fellowship is with the Father, and with his son Jesus Christ.
But since it is one thing to say, that the knowledge of God,
which is derived from scripture, is sufficient to salvation in an
objective way; that is, that it is a sufficient rule to lead us to
salvation, and another thing to say, that it is made effectual
thereunto: we are now to inquire when it is made so. In answer
to which, let us consider, that the doctrines contained in
scripture are made effectual to salvation; not by all the skill or
wisdom of men representing them in their truest light, nor by
all the power of reasoning, which we are capable of, without
the aids of divine grace, but they are made effectual by the
Spirit; and this he does,
// File: b048.png
.pn +1
(1.) By the internal illumination of the mind, giving a spiritual
discerning of divine truth, which the natural man receiveth
not, as the apostle says, 1 Cor. ii. 14. and it is called, 2 Cor.
iv. 6. a shining into our hearts, to give the light of the knowledge
of the glory of God, in the face of Jesus Christ.
(2.) By subduing the obstinate will of man, and so enabling
it to yield to a ready, chearful, and universal obedience to the
divine commands contained in scripture; and, in particular, inclining
it to own Christ’s authority, as king of saints; and to
say, as converted Paul did, Lord, what wilt thou have me to
do? Acts ix. 6.
(3.) He works upon our affections, exciting in us holy desires
after God and Christ, and a very high esteem and value
for divine truth, and removes all those prejudices which
are in our minds against it, opens and enlarges our hearts to receive
the word, and comply with all the commands thereof,
thus, Acts xvi. 14. The Lord opened the heart of Lydia, that
she attended to the things that were spoken of Paul. So David
prays, Psal. cxix. 18. compared with v. 5. Open thou mine
eyes, that I may behold wondrous things out of thy law. O that
my ways were directed to keep thy statutes!
.fn 9
“As for our own existence, we perceive it so plainly, and so certainly, that
it neither needs, nor is capable of any proof. For nothing can be more evident to
us than our own existence; I think, I reason, I feel pleasure and pain: can any of
these be more evident to me, than my own existence? If I doubt of all other
things, that very doubt makes me perceive my own existence, and will not suffer
me to doubt of that. For if I know I feel pain, it is evident I have as certain perception
of my own existence, as of the existence of the pain I feel: or, if I know
I doubt, I have as certain perception of the existence of the thing doubting, as of
that thought which I call doubt. Experience then convinces us, that we have
an intuitive knowledge of our own existence, and an internal infallible perception
that we are. In every act of sensation, reasoning or thinking, we are conscious to
ourselves of our own being, and, in this matter, come not short of the highest degree
of certainty.”——
“In the next place, man knows by an intuitive certainty, that bare nothing can
no more produce any real being, than it can be equal to two right angles. If a man
knows not that non-entity, or the absence of all being, cannot be equal to two
right angles, it is impossible he should know any demonstration in Euclid. If,
therefore, we know there is some real being, and that non-entity cannot produce
any real being, it is an evident demonstration, that from eternity there has been
something; since what was not from eternity, had a beginning, and what had a
beginning, must be produced by something else.
“Next, it is evident, that what had its being and beginning from another, must
also have all that which is in, and belongs to its being from another too. All the
powers it has must be owing to, and received from the same source. This eternal
source, then, of all being, must also be the source and original of all power;
and so this eternal Being must be also the most powerful.
“Again, a man finds in himself perception and knowledge. We have then got one
step farther; and we are certain now, that there is not only some being, but some
knowing intelligent being in the world.
“There was a time, then, when there was no knowing being, and when knowledge
began to be; or else there has been also a knowing being from eternity. If it
be said, there was a time when no being had any knowledge, when that eternal
Being was void of all understanding: I reply, that then it was impossible there
should ever have been any knowledge; it being as impossible that things wholly
void of knowledge, and operating blindly, and without any perception, should
produce a knowing being, as it is impossible that a triangle should make itself
three angles bigger than two right ones. For it is as repugnant to the idea of
senseless matter, that it should put into itself sense, perception and knowledge,
as it is repugnant to the idea of a triangle, that it should put into itself greater
angles than two right ones.
“Thus, from the consideration of ourselves, and what we infallibly find in our
own constitutions, our reason leads us to the knowledge of this certain and evident
truth, that there is an eternal, most powerful, and most knowing being; which
whether any one will please to call God, it matters not. The thing is evident, and
from this idea duly considered, will easily be deduced all those other attributes,
which we ought to ascribe to this eternal Being. If, nevertheless, any one should
be found so senselessly arrogant, as to suppose man alone knowing and wise, but
yet the product of mere ignorance and chance; and that all the rest of the universe
acted only by that blind hap-hazard: I shall leave with him that very rational
and emphatical rebuke of Tully, l. 2. de leg. to be considered at his leisure.
“What can be more sillily arrogant and misbecoming than for a man to think
that he has a mind and understanding in him, but yet in all the universe beside
there is no such thing? Or that those things, which with the utmost stretch of
his reason he can scarce comprehend, should be moved and managed without
any reason at all?” Quid est enim verius, quam neminem esse oportere tam stulte
arrogantem, ut in se mentem et rationem putet inesse, in cœlo mundoque non putet?
Aut ea quæ vix summa ingenii ratione comprehendat, nulla ratione moveri putet?
“From what has been said, it is plain to me, we have a more certain knowledge
of the existence of a God, than of any thing our senses have not immediately discovered
to us. Nay, I presume I may say, that we more certainly know that there
is a God than that there is any thing else without us. When I say we know, I mean
there is such a knowledge within our reach, which we cannot miss, if we will but
apply our minds to that, as we do to several other inquiries.”
Locke.
.fn-
.fn 10
“In crossing a heath, suppose I pitched my foot against a stone, and were asked
how the stone came to be there, I might possibly answer, that, for any thing I
knew to the contrary, it had lain there for ever; nor would it, perhaps, be very
easy to shew the absurdity of this answer. But suppose I had found a watch upon
the ground, and it should be enquired how the watch happened to be in that
place, I should hardly think of the answer which I had before given, that, for any
thing I knew, the watch might have always been there. Yet, why should not
this answer serve for the watch, as well as for the stone? Why is it not as admissible
in the second case, as in the first? For this reason, and for no other, viz.
that, when we come to inspect the watch, we perceive (what we could not discover
in the stone) that its several parts are framed, and put together for a purpose,
e. g. that they are so formed and adjusted as to produce motion, and that
motion so regulated as to point out the hour of the day; that, if the several parts
had been differently shaped from what they are, of a different size from what they
are, or placed after any other manner, or in any other order, than that in which
they are placed, either no motion at all would have been carried on in the machine,
or none which would have answered the use, that is now served by it. To
reckon up a few of the plainest of these parts, and of their offices, all tending to
one result: We see a cylindrical box, containing a coiled elastic spring, which,
by its endeavour to relax itself, turns round the box. We next observe a flexible
chain (artificially wrought for the sake of flexure) communicating the action of
the spring from the box to the fusee. We then find a series of wheels, the teeth
of which catch in, and apply to, each other, conducting the motion from the fusee
to the balance, and from the balance to the pointer; and at the same time, by
the size and shape of those wheels, so regulating that motion, as to terminate in
causing an index, by an equable and measured progression, to pass over a given
space in a given time. We take notice that the wheels are made of brass, in order
to keep them from rust; the springs of steel, no other metal being so elastic;
that over the face of the watch there is placed a glass, a material employed in no
other part of the work, but, in the room of which, if there had been any other than
a transparent substance, the hour could not be seen without opening the case.
This mechanism being observed (it requires indeed an examination of the instrument,
and perhaps some previous knowledge of the subject, to perceive and understand
it; but being once, as we have said, observed and understood,) the inference,
we think, is inevitable; that the watch must have had a maker; that
there must have existed, at some time, and at some place or other, an artificer,
or artificers who formed it for the purpose which we find it actually to answer;
who comprehended its construction, and designed its use.
“I. Nor would it, I apprehend, weaken the conclusion that we had never seen a
watch made; that we had never known an artist capable of making one; that we
were altogether incapable of executing such a piece of workmanship ourselves,
or of understanding in what manner it was performed: all this being no more
than what is true of some exquisite remains of some ancient art, of some lost arts,
and, to the generality of mankind, of the more curious productions of modern
manufacture. Does one man in a million know how oval frames are turned? Ignorance
of this kind exalts our opinion of the unseen and unknown artist’s skill,
if he be unseen and unknown, but raises no doubts in our minds of the existence
and agency of such an artist, at some former time, and in some place or other.
Nor can I perceive that it varies at all, the inference, whether the question arise
concerning a human agent, or concerning an agent of a different species, or an agent
possessing, in some respects, a different nature.
“II. Neither, secondly, would it invalidate our conclusion, that the watch sometimes
went wrong, or that it seldom went exactly right. The purpose of the machinery,
the design, and the designer, might be evident, and in the case supposed
would be evident, in whatever way we accounted for the irregularity of the movement,
or whether we could account for it or not. It is not necessary that a machine
be perfect, in order to shew with what design it was made: still less necessary,
where the only question is, whether it were made with any design at all.
“III. Nor, thirdly, would it bring any uncertainty into the argument, if there
were a few parts of the watch, concerning which we could not discover, or had
not yet discovered, in what manner they conduced to the general effect; or even
some parts, concerning which we could not ascertain, whether they conduced to
that effect in any manner whatever. For, as to the first branch of the case; if,
by the loss, or disorder, or decay of the parts in question, the movement of the
watch were found in fact to be stopped, or disturbed or retarded, no doubt would
remain in our minds as to the utility or intention of these parts, although we
should be unable to investigate the manner according to which, or the connection
by which, the ultimate effect depended upon their action or assistance: and the
more complex is the machine, the more likely is this obscurity to arise. Then,
as to the second thing supposed, namely, that there were parts which might be
spared without prejudice to the movement of the watch, and that we had proved
this by experiment; these superfluous parts, even if we were completely assured
that they were such, would not vacate the reasoning which we had instituted concerning
other parts. The indication of contrivance remained, with respect to
them, nearly as it was before.
“IV. Nor, fourthly, would any man in his senses think the existence of the watch,
with its various machinery, accounted for, by being told that it was one out of
possible combinations of material forms; that whatever he had found in the place
where he found the watch, must have contained some internal configuration or
other; and that this configuration might be the structure now exhibited, viz. of
the works of a watch, as well as of a different structure.
“V. Nor, fifthly, would it yield his enquiry more satisfaction to be answered,
that there existed in things a principle of order, which had disposed the parts of
the watch into their present form and situation. He never knew a watch made
by the principle of order; nor can he even form to himself an idea of what is
meant by a principle of order, distinct from the intelligence of the watch-maker.
“VI. Sixthly, he would be surprised to hear, that the mechanism of the watch
was no proof of contrivance, only a motive to induce the mind to think so.
“VII. And not less surprised to be informed, that the watch in his hand was
nothing more than the result of the laws of metallic nature. It is a perversion of
language to assign any law, as the efficient, operative, cause of any thing. A law
presupposes an agent; for it is only the mode, according to which an agent proceeds:
it implies a power; for it is the order, according to which that power acts.
Without this agent, without this power, which are both distinct from itself, the
law does nothing; is nothing. The expression, ‘the law of metallic nature,’
may sound strange and harsh to a philosophic ear; but it seems quite as justifiable
as some others which are more familiar to him, such as ‘the law of vegetable
nature,’ ‘the law of animal nature,’ or indeed as ‘the law of nature’, in general,
when assigned as the cause of phænomena, in exclusion of agency and power; or
when it is substituted into the place of these.
“VIII. Neither, lastly, would our observer be driven out of his conclusion, or
from his confidence in its truth, by being told that he knew nothing at all about
the matter. He knows enough for his argument. He knows the utility of the
end: he knows the subserviency and adaptation of the means to the end. These
points being known, his ignorance of other points, his doubts concerning other
points, affect not the certainty of his reasoning. The consciousness of knowing
little, need not beget a distrust of that which he does know.”——
“Suppose, in the next place, that the person who found the watch, should, after
some time, discover, that, in addition to all the properties which he had hitherto
observed in it, it possessed the unexpected property of producing, in the course
of its movement, another watch like itself; (the thing is conceivable;) that it
contained within it a mechanism, a system of parts, a mould for instance, or a
complex adjustment of laths, files, and other tools, evidently and separately calculated
for this purpose; let us enquire, what effect ought such a discovery to
have upon his former conclusion!
“I. The first effect would be to increase his admiration of the contrivance, and
his conviction of the consummate skill of the contriver. Whether he regarded
the object of the contrivance, the distinct apparatus, the intricate, yet in many
parts intelligible, mechanism by which it was carried on, he would perceive, in
this new observation, nothing but an additional reason for doing what he had already
done; for referring the construction of the watch to design, and to supreme
art. If that construction without this property, or, which is the same thing, before
this property had been noticed, proved intention and art to have been employed
about it; still more strong would the proof appear, when he came to the
knowledge of this further property, the crown and perfection of all the rest.
“II. He would reflect, that though the watch before him were, in some sense,
the maker of the watch, which was fabricated in the course of its movements, yet
it was in a very different sense from that, in which a carpenter, for instance, is
the maker of a chair; the author of its contrivance, the cause of the relation of its
parts to their use. With respect to these, the first watch was no cause at all to
the second: in no such sense as this was it the author of the constitution and order,
either of the parts which the new watch contained, or of the parts by the aid
and instrumentality of which it was produced. We might possibly say, but with
great latitude of expression, that a stream of water ground corn: but no latitude
of expression would allow us to say, no stretch of conjecture could lead us to
think, that the stream of water built the mill, though it were too ancient for us
to know who the builder was. What the stream of water does in the affair, is
neither more nor less than this: by the application of an unintelligent impulse to
a mechanism previously arranged, arranged independently of it, and arranged by
intelligence, an effect is produced, viz. the corn is ground. But the effect results
from the arrangement. The force of the stream cannot be said to be the cause or
author of the effect, still less of the arrangement. Understanding and plan in the
formation of the mill were not the less necessary, for any share which the water
has in grinding the corn: yet is this share the same, as that which the watch
would have contributed to the production of the new watch, upon the supposition
assumed in the last section. Therefore,
“III. Though it be now no longer probable, that the individual watch which
our observer had found, was made immediately by the hand of an artificer,
yet doth not this alteration in any wise affect the inference that an artificer
had been originally employed and concerned in the production. The argument
from design remains as it was. Marks of design and contrivance are
no more accounted for now, than they were before. In the same thing, we
may ask for the cause of different properties. We may ask for the cause of the
colour of a body, of its hardness, of its heat; and these causes may be all different.
We are now asking for the cause of that subserviency to an use, that relation
to an end, which we have remarked in the watch before us. No answer is
given to this question by telling us that a preceding watch produced it. There
cannot be design without a designer; contrivance without a contriver; order
without choice; arrangement, without any thing capable of arranging; subserviency
and relation to a purpose, without that which could intend a purpose;
means suitable to an end, and executing their office in accomplishing that end,
without the end ever having been contemplated, or the means accommodated to
it. Arrangement, disposition of parts, subserviency of means to an end, relation
of instruments to an use, imply the presence of intelligence and mind. No one,
therefore, can rationally believe, that the insensible, inanimate watch, from which
the watch before us issued, was the proper cause of the mechanism we so much
admire in it; could be truly said to have constructed the instrument, disposed
its parts, assigned their office, determined their order, action, and mutual dependency,
combined their several motions into one result, and that also a result connected
with the utilities of other beings. All these properties therefore, are as
much unaccounted for as they were before.
“IV. Nor is any thing gained by running the difficulty further back, i. e. by
supposing the watch before us to have been produced by another watch, that from
a former, and so on indefinitely. Our going back ever so far brings us no nearer
to the least degree of satisfaction upon the subject. Contrivance is still unaccounted
for. We still want a contriver. A designing mind is neither supplied
by this supposition, nor dispensed with. If the difficulty were diminished the
further we went back, by going back indefinitely we might exhaust it. And this
is the only case to which this sort of reasoning applies. Where there is a tendency,
or, as we increase the number of terms, a continual approach towards a limit,
there, by supposing the number of terms to be what is called infinite, we may conceive
the limit to be attained: but where there is no such tendency or approach,
nothing is effected by lengthening the series. There is no difference as to the
point in question, (whatever there may be as to many points) between one series
and another; between a series which is finite, and a series which is infinite. A
chain composed of an infinite number of links, can no more support itself, than a
chain composed of a finite number of links. And of this we are assured, (though
we never can have tried the experiment) because, by increasing the number of
links, from ten for instance to a hundred, from a hundred to a thousand, &c. we
make not the smallest approach, we observe not the smallest tendency, towards
self-support. There is no difference in this respect (yet there may be a great difference
in several respects) between a chain of a greater or less length, between
one chain and another, between one that is finite and one that is indefinite. This
very much resembles the case before us. The machine, which we are inspecting,
demonstrates, by its construction, contrivance and design. Contrivance must have
had a contriver; design, a designer; whether the machine immediately proceeded
from another machine, or not. That circumstance alters not the case. That
other machine may, in like manner, have proceeded from a former machine: nor
does that alter the case: contrivance must have had a contriver. That former one
from one preceding it: no alteration still: a contriver is still necessary. No tendency
is perceived, no approach towards a diminution of this necessity. It is the
same with any and every succession of these machines; a succession of ten, of a
hundred, of a thousand; with one series as with another; a series which is finite,
as with a series which is infinite. In whatever other respects they may differ, in
this they do not. In all equally, contrivance and design are unaccounted for.
“The question is not simply, How came the first watch into existence? which
question, it may be pretended, is done away by supposing the series of watches
thus produced from one another to have been infinite, and consequently to have
had no such first, for which it was necessary to provide a cause. This, perhaps,
would have been nearly the state of the question, if nothing had been before us
but an unorganized unmechanised substance, without mark or indication of contrivance.
It might be difficult to shew that such substance could not have existed
from eternity, either in succession (if it were possible, which I think it is not, for
unorganized bodies to spring from one another,) or by individual perpetuity. But
that is not the question now. To suppose it to be so, is to suppose that it made
no difference whether we had found a watch or a stone. As it is, the metaphysics
of that question have no place; for, in the watch which we are examining,
are seen contrivance, design; an end, a purpose; means for the end,
adaptation to the purpose. And the question, which irresistibly presses upon our
thoughts, is, whence this contrivance and design? The thing required is the intending
mind, the adapting hand, the intelligence by which that hand was directed.
This question, this demand, is not shaken off, by increasing a number or
succession of substances, destitute of these properties; nor the more, by increasing
that number to infinity. If it be said, that, upon the supposition of one watch
being produced from another in the course of that other’s movements, and by
means of the mechanism within it, we have a cause for the watch in my hand,
viz. the watch from which it proceeded, I deny, that for the design, the contrivance,
the suitableness of means to an end, the adaptation of instruments to an
use (all which we discover in the watch,) we have any cause whatever. It is in
vain, therefore to assign a series of such causes, or to allege that a series may
be carried back to infinity; for I do not admit that we have yet any cause at all
of the phænomena, still less any series of causes either finite or infinite. Here is
contrivance, but no contriver; proofs of design, but no designer.
“V. Our observer would further also reflect, that the maker of the watch before
him, was, in truth and reality, the maker of every watch produced from it;
there being no difference (except that the latter manifests a more exquisite skill)
between the making of another watch with his own hands by the mediation of
files, laths, chisels, &c. and the disposing, fixing, and inserting, of these instruments,
or of others equivalent to them, in the body of the watch already made, in
such a manner, as to form a new watch in the course of the movements which he
had given to the old one. It is only working by one set of tools, instead of another.
“The conclusion which the first examination of the watch, of its works, construction,
and movement suggested, was, that it must have had, for the cause and
author of that construction, an artificer, who understood its mechanism, and designed
its use. This conclusion is invincible. A second examination presents us
with a new discovery. The watch is found in the course of its movement to produce
another watch similar to itself: and not only so, but we perceive in it a system
of organization, separately calculated for that purpose. What effect would
this discovery have, or ought it to have, upon our former inference? What, as
hath already been said, but to increase, beyond measure, our admiration of the
skill, which had been employed in the formation of such a machine? Or shall it,
instead of this, all at once turn us round to an opposite conclusion, viz. that no
art or skill whatever has been concerned in the business, although all other evidences
of art and skill remain as they were, and this last and supreme piece of
art be now added to the rest? Can this be maintained without absurdity? Yet
this is atheism.”
Paley.
.fn-
.fn 11
“The works of nature want only to be contemplated. When contemplated,
they have every thing in them which can astonish by their greatness; for, of the
vast scale of operation, through which our discoveries carry us, at one end we
see an intelligent Power arranging planetary systems, fixing, for instance, the trajectory
of Saturn, or constructing a ring of a hundred thousand miles diameter,
to surround his body, and be suspended like a magnificent arch over the heads of
his inhabitants; and, at the other, bending a hooked tooth, concerting and providing
an appropriate mechanism, for the clasping and reclasping of the filaments
of the feather of a humming-bird. We have proof, not only of both these works
proceeding from an intelligent agent, but of their proceeding from the same
agent: for, in the first place, we can trace an identity of plan, a connexion of system,
from Saturn to our own globe; and when arrived upon our own globe, we
can, in the second place, pursue the connexion through all the organized, especially
the animated, bodies, which it supports. We can observe marks of a common
relation, as well to one another, as to the elements of which their habitation
is composed. Therefore one mind hath planned, or at least hath prescribed a
general plan for, all these productions. One being has been concerned in all.
“Under this stupendous Being we live. Our happiness, our existence, is in his
hands. All we expect must come from him. Nor ought we to feel our situation
insecure. In every nature, and in every portion of nature, which we can descry,
we find attention bestowed upon even the minutest parts. The hinges in the
wings of an earwig, and the joints of its antennæ, are as highly wrought, as if the
Creator had had nothing else to finish. We see no signs of diminution of care by
multiplicity of objects, or of distraction of thought by variety. We have no reason
to fear therefore, our being forgotten, or overlooked, or neglected.
“The existence and character of the Deity, is, in every view, the most interesting
of all human speculations. In none, however, is it more so, than as it facilitates
the belief of the fundamental articles of Revelation. It is a step to have it
proved, that there must be something in the world more than what we see. It
is a further step to know, that, amongst the invisible things of nature, there
must be an intelligent mind, concerned in its production, order, and support.
These points being assured to us by Natural Theology, we may well leave to Revelation
the disclosure of many particulars, which our researches cannot reach,
respecting either the nature of this Being as the original cause of all things, or
his character and designs as a moral governor; and not only so, but the more full
confirmation of other particulars, of which, though they do not lie altogether beyond
our reasonings and our probabilities, the certainty is by no means equal to
the importance. The true Theist will be the first to listen to any credible communication
of divine knowledge. Nothing which he has learnt from Natural
Theology, will diminish his desire of further instruction, or his disposition to receive
it with humility and thankfulness. He wishes for light: he rejoices in
light. His inward veneration of this great Being, will incline him to attend with
the utmost seriousness, not only to all that can be discovered concerning him by
researches into nature, but to all that is taught by a revelation, which gives reasonable
proof of having proceeded from him.
“But, above every other article of revealed religion, does the anterior belief of a
Deity, bear with the strongest force, upon that grand point, which gives indeed
interest and importance to all the rest—the resurrection of the human dead. The
thing might appear hopeless, did we not see a power under the guidance of an
intelligent will, and a power penetrating the inmost recesses of all substance. I
am far from justifying the opinion of those, who ‘thought it a thing incredible
that God should raise the dead;’ but I admit that it is first necessary to be persuaded,
that there is a God to do so. This being thoroughly settled in our minds,
there seems to be nothing in this process (concealed and mysterious as we confess
it to be,) which need to shock our belief. They who have taken up the opinion,
that the acts of the human mind depend upon organization, that the mind
itself indeed consists in organization, are supposed to find a greater difficulty
than others do, in admitting a transition by death to a new state of sentient existence,
because the old organization is apparently dissolved. But I do not see
that any impracticability need be apprehended even by these; or that the change,
even upon their hypothesis, is far removed from the analogy of some other operations,
which we know with certainty that the deity is carrying on. In the ordinary
derivation of plants and animals from one another, a particle, in many cases,
minuter than all assignable, all conceivable dimension; an aura, an effluvium, an
infinitesimal; determines the organization of a future body: does no less than
fix, whether that which is about to be produced, shall be a vegetable, a merely
sentient, or a rational being; an oak, a frog, or a philosopher; makes all these
differences; gives to the future body its qualities, and nature, and species. And
this particle, from which springs, and by which is determined a whole future nature,
itself proceeds from, and owes its constitution to, a prior body: nevertheless,
which is seen in plants most decisively, the incepted organization, though
formed within, and through, and by a preceding organization, is not corrupted
by its corruption, or destroyed by its dissolution; but, on the contrary, is sometimes
extricated and developed by those very causes; survives and comes into
action, when the purpose, for which it was prepared, requires its use.—Now an
œconomy which nature has adopted, when the purpose was to transfer an organization
from one individual to another, may have something analogous to it, when
the purpose is to transmit an organization from one state of being to another state:
and they who found thought in organization, may see something in this analogy applicable
to their difficulties; for, whatever can transmit a similarity of organization
will answer their purpose, because, according even to their own theory, it may be
the vehicle of consciousness, and because consciousness, without doubt, carries
identity and individuality along with it through all changes of form or of visible
qualities. In the most general case, that, as we have said, of the derivation of plants
and animals from one another, the latent organization is either itself similar to the
old organization, or has the power of communicating to new matter the old organic
form. But it is not restricted to this rule. There are other cases, especially in
the progress of insect life, in which the dormant organization does not much resemble
that which incloses it, and still less suits with the situation in which the
inclosing body is placed, but suits with a different situation to which it is destined.
In the larva of the libellula, which lives constantly, and has still long to live,
under water, are descried the wings of a fly, which two years afterwards is to
mount into the air. Is there nothing in this analogy? It serves at least to shew,
that, even in the observable course of nature, organizations are formed one beneath
another; and, amongst a thousand other instances, it shews completely,
that the Deity can mould and fashion the parts of material nature, so as to fulfil
any purpose whatever which he is pleased to appoint.
“They who refer the operations of mind to a substance totally and essentially
different from matter, as, most certainly, these operations, though affected by
material causes, hold very little affinity to any properties of matter with which
we are acquainted, adopt, perhaps, a juster reasoning and a better philosophy;
and by these the considerations above suggested are not wanted, at least in the
same degree. But to such as find, which some persons do find, an insuperable
difficulty in shaking off an adherence to those analogies, which the corporeal
world is continually suggesting to their thoughts; to such, I say, every consideration
will be a relief, which manifests the extent of that intelligent power which
is acting in nature, the fruitfulness of its resources, the variety, and aptness, and
success of its means; most especially every consideration, which tends to shew,
that, in the translation of a conscious existence, there is not, even in their own
way of regarding it, any thing greatly beyond, or totally unlike, what takes place
in such parts (probably small parts) of the order of nature, as are accessible to
our observation.
“Again; if there be those who think, that the contractedness and debility of
the human faculties in our present state, seem ill to accord with the high destinies
which the expectations of religion point out to us, I would only ask them,
whether any one, who saw a child two hours after its birth, could suppose that
it would ever come to understand fluxions;[12] or who then shall say, what further
amplification of intellectual powers, what accession of knowledge, what advance
and improvement, the rational faculty, be its constitution what it will, may not
admit of, when placed amidst new objects, and endowed with a sensorium, adapted,
as it undoubtedly will be, and as our present senses are, to the perception of
those substances, and of those properties of things, with which our concern may
lie.
“Upon the whole; in every thing which respects this awful, but, as we trust,
glorious change, we have a wise and powerful Being, (the author, in nature, of
infinitely various expedients for infinitely various ends,) upon whom to rely for
the choice and appointment of means, adequate to the execution of any plan which
his goodness or his justice may have formed, for the moral and accountable part
of his terrestrial creation. That great office rests with him: be it ours to hope
and prepare; under a firm and settled persuasion, that, living and dying, we are
his; that life is passed in his constant presence, that death resigns us to his merciful
disposal.”
Paley.
.fn-
.fn 12
See Search’s Light of Nature, passim.
.fn-
.fn 13
The theory of a nervous fluid, or animal spirits, is generally abandoned.
.fn-
.fn 14
See this doubtful doctrine discussed post Quest. 60.
.fn-
.sp 4
.h2
Quest. III.
.sp 2
.pm letter-start
Quest. III. What is the Word of God?
Answ. The holy scriptures of the Old and New Testament
are the word of God, the only rule of faith and obedience.
.pm letter-end
.sp 2
In speaking to this answer, we shall consider the several
names by which the scripture is set forth with the import
thereof, and more particularly that by which it is most known;
to wit, the Old and New Testament, and then speak of it as a
rule of faith and obedience.
I. There are several names given to the word of God, in
Psalm cxix. one of which is found in almost every verse
thereof.
It is sometimes called his law, statutes, precepts, commandments,
or ordinances,[15] to signify his authority and power to
// File: b049.png
.pn +1
demand obedience of his creatures which he does therein, and
shews us in what particular instances, and how we are to yield
obedience to it.
It is also called his judgments, implying that he is the great
Judge of the world, and that he will deal with men in a judicial
way, according to their works, as agreeable or disagreeable
to this law of his, contained in his word; and, for this reason,
it is also called his righteousness, because all that he commands
in his word is holy and just, and his service highly reasonable.
It is also called God’s testimonies, as containing the witness,
evidence, or record, that he has given to his own perfections,
whereby he has demonstrated them to the world. Thus we are
said, 2 Cor. iii. 18. To behold, as in a glass, the glory of the
Lord.
It is also called his way, as containing a declaration of the
glorious works that he has done, both of nature and grace; the
various methods of his dealing with men, or the way that they
should walk in, which leads to eternal life.
Moreover, it is called, Rom. iii. 2. The oracles of God, to
denote that many things contained in it could not have been
known by us till he was pleased to reveal them therein. Agreeably
// File: b050.png
.pn +1
hereto, the apostle speaks of the great things contained in
the gospel, as being hid in God; hid from ages and generations
past, but now made manifest to the saints, Eph. iii. 9, Col.
i. 26.
Again it is sometimes called the gospel, especially those
parts of scripture which contain the glad tidings of salvation by
Christ, or the method which God ordained for the taking away
the guilt, and subduing the power of sin; and particularly the
apostle calls it, The glorious gospel of the blessed God; 1 Tim.
i. 11. and the gospel of our salvation. Eph. i. 13.
And, in this answer, it is called the Old and New Testament;
that part of it which was written before our Saviour’s
incarnation, which contains a relation of God’s dealings with
his church, from the beginning of the world to that time, or a
prediction of what should be fulfilled in following ages, is called
the Old Testament. The other which contains an account of
God’s dispensation of grace, from Christ’s first to his second
coming is called the New.
A testament is the declared or written will of a person, in
which some things are given to those who are concerned or described
therein. Thus the scripture is God’s written will or testament,
containing an account of what he has freely given in
his covenant of grace to fallen man; and this is the principal
subject matter of scripture, as a testament; therefore it contains
an account,
1. Of many valuable legacies given to the heirs of salvation;
the blessings of both worlds, all the privileges contained in
those great and precious promises, with which the scripture so
abounds. Thus it is said, Thou shalt guide me with thy counsel,
and afterward receive me to glory; Psal. lxiii. 24. and the Lord
will give grace and glory, Psal. lxxxiv. 11.
2. It describes the testator Christ, who gives eternal life to
his people, and confirms all the promises which are made in
him; as they are said, 2 Cor. i. 20. To be in him yea and amen,
to the glory of God; and more especially he ratified this testament
by his death as the same apostle observes, which is a
known maxim of the civil law, that where a testament is, there
must of necessity be the death of the testator,[16] Heb. ix. 16,
17. upon which the force or validity thereof depends. And the
word of God gives us a large account how all the blessings,
which God bestowed upon his people, receive their validity from
the death of Christ.
3. It also discovers to us who are the heirs, or legatees, to
whom these blessings are given, who are described therein, as
// File: b051.png
.pn +1
repenting, believing, returning sinners, who may lay claim to
the blessings of the covenant of grace.
4. It has several seals annexed to it, viz. the sacraments under
the Old and New Testament, of which we have a particular
account in scripture.
This leads us to consider how the scripture is otherwise divided
or distinguished.
(1.) As to the Old Testament, it is sometimes distinguished
or divided into Moses and the prophets, Luke xvi. 29. or Moses,
the prophets, and the psalms, Luke xxiv. 44. And it may
be considered also as containing historical and prophetic writings,
and others that are more especially doctrinal or poetical;
and the prophets may be considered as to the time when they
wrote, some before and others after the captivity. They may
also be distinguished as to the subject matter of them: some
contain a very clear and particular account of the person and
kingdom of Christ, e. g. Isaiah who is, for this reason, by some,
called the evangelical prophet. Others contain reproofs, and
denounce and lament approaching judgments, as the prophet
Jeremiah. Others encourage the building of the temple, the
setting up the worship of God, and the reformation of the people
upon their return from captivity: thus Zechariah and Haggai.
As for the historical parts of scripture, these either contain
an account of God’s dealings with his people before the
captivity; as Joshua, Judges, Samuel, Kings, &c. or after it,
as Ezra and Nehemiah.
(2.) The books of the New Testament maybe thus divided.
Some of them are historical, viz. such as contain the life and
death of our Saviour, as the four gospels, or the ministry of the
apostles, and the first planting and spreading of the gospel, as
the Acts of the Apostles. Others are more especially doctrinal,
and are wrote in the form of an epistle by the apostle Paul,
and some other of the apostles.
One book is prophetical, as the Revelations, wherein is foretold
the different state and condition of the church, the persecutions
it should meet with from its Anti-christian enemies, its
final victory over them, and its triumphs, as reigning with
Christ in his kingdom.
This leads us to consider, when God first revealed his will
to man in scripture, and how this revelation was gradually enlarged,
and transmitted down to the church in succeeding ages.
There was no written word, from the beginning of the world,
till Moses’s time, which was between two and three thousand
years; and it was almost a thousand years longer before the
canon of the Old Testament was completed by Malachi the
last prophet, and some hundred years after that before the
canon of the New Testament was given; so that God revealed
// File: b052.png
.pn +1
his will, as the apostle says, in the beginning of the epistle to
the Hebrews, at sundry times, as well as in divers manners, and
by divers inspired writers.
Notwithstanding the church, before it had a written word,
was not destitute of a rule of faith and obedience, neither were
they unacquainted with the way of salvation; for to suppose
this, would be greatly to detract from the glory of the divine
government, and reflect on God’s goodness; therefore he took
other ways to supply the want of a written word, and hereby
shewed his sovereignty, in that he can make known his will
what way he pleases, and his wisdom and goodness, in giving
his written word at such a time when the necessities of men
most required it. This will appear, if we consider,
1. That when there was no written word, the Son of God
frequently condescended to appear himself, and converse with
man, and so revealed his mind and will to him.
2. There was the ministry of angels subservient to this end,
in which respect the word was often spoken by angels, sent to
instruct men in the mind and will of God.
3. The church had among them all this while, more or less,
the spirit of prophecy, whereby many were instructed in the
mind of God; and though they were not commanded to commit
what they received by inspiration to writing, yet they
were hereby furnished to instruct others in the way of salvation.
Thus Enoch is said to have prophesied in his day; Jude
ver. 14, 15. and Noah is called, a preacher of righteousness,
2 Pet. ii. 5. Heb. xi. 7.
4. Great part of this time the lives of men were very long,
(viz.) eight or nine hundred years, and so the same persons
might transmit the word of God by their own living testimony.
5. Afterwards in the latter part of this interval of time, when
there was no written word, the world apostatised from God,
and almost all flesh corrupted their way; not for want of a sufficient
rule of obedience, but through the perverseness and depravity
of their nature; and afterwards the world was almost
wholly sunk into idolatry, and so were judicially excluded from
God’s special care; and since Abraham’s family was the only
church that remained in the world, God continued to communicate
to them the knowledge of his will in those extraordinary
ways, as he had done to the faithful in former ages.
6. When man’s life was shortened, and reduced to the same
standard, as now it is, of threescore and ten years, and the
church was very numerous, increased to a great nation, and
God had promised that he would increase them yet more, then
they stood in greater need of a written word to prevent the inconveniences
that might have arisen from their continuing any
longer without one, and God thought fit, as a great instance of
// File: b053.png
.pn +1
favour to man, to command Moses to write his law, as a standing
rule of faith and obedience to his church.
This leads us to consider a very important question, viz.
whether the church, under the Old Testament dispensation,
understood this written word, or the spiritual meaning of those
laws that are contained therein? Some, indeed, have thought
that the state of the church, before Christ came in the flesh,
was attended with so much darkness, that they did not know
the way of salvation, though they had, in whole or in part, the
scriptures of the Old Testament. The Papists generally assert,
that they did not; and therefore they fancy, that all who lived
before Christ’s time, were shut up in a prison, where they remained
till he went from the cross to reveal himself to them,
and so, as their leader, to conduct them in triumph to heaven.
And some Protestants think the state of all who lived in those
times, to have been attended with so much darkness, that they
knew but little of Christ and his gospel, though shadowed forth,
or typified by the ceremonial law; which they found on suchlike
places of scripture as that, where Moses is said to have
put a vail over his face, that the children of Israel could not stedfastly
look to the end of that which is abolished; and that this
vail is done away in Christ, 2 Cor. iii. 13, 14. and those scriptures
that speak of the Jewish dispensation, as a night of darkness,
compared with that of the gospel, which is represented as
a perfect day, or the rising of the sun, Isa. xxi. 11. Cant. ii.
17. Malachi iv. 2. And as these extend the darkness of that
dispensation farther than, as I humbly conceive, they ought to
do, so they speak more of the wrath, bondage, and terror that
attend it, than they have ground to do, especially when they
make it universal; since there are several reasons, which may
induce us to believe that the church, at that time, understood a
great deal more of the gospel, shadowed forth in the ceremonial
law, and had more communion with God, and less wrath,
terror, or bondage, than these suppose they had; for which I
would offer the following reasons,
1. Some of the Old Testament saints have expressed a great
degree of faith in Christ, and love to him, whom they expected
to come in our nature; and many of the prophets, in their
inspired writings, have discovered that they were not strangers
to the way of redemption and reconciliation to God by him,
as the Lord our righteousness. A multitude of scriptures
might be cited, that speak of Christ, and salvation by him in
the Old Testament, Jer. xxiii. 5, 6. Zech. xiii. 7. Psal. xxxiii.
1, 2. compared with Rom. iv. 6. Thus Abraham is described,
as rejoicing to see his day, John viii. 56. and the prophet Isaiah
is so very particular and express in the account he gives of his
person and offices, that I cannot see how any one can reasonably
// File: b054.png
.pn +1
conclude him to have been wholly a stranger to the gospel
himself, Isa. xxii. 25. ch. lii. 13, 14, 15. Can any one think
this, who reads his 53d chapter, where he treats of his life,
death, sufferings, and offices, and of the way of salvation by him?
Object. It is objected hereunto that the prophets who delivered
these evangelical truths, understood but little of them
themselves, because of the darkness of the dispensation they
were under. Thus it is said, 1 Pet. i. 10, 11, 12. that the prophets,
indeed, searched into the meaning of their own predictions,
but to no purpose; for it was revealed to them, that not
unto themselves, but unto us, they ministered; that is, the account
they gave of our Saviour was not designed to be understood
by them, but us in this present gospel-dispensation.
Answ. The answer that may be given to this objection is,
that though the prophets are represented as enquiring into the
meaning of their own prophecies, yet it doth not follow from
thence that they had but little or no understanding of them:
all that can be gathered from it is, that they studied them, as
their own salvation was concerned therein; but we must not
suppose that they did this to no purpose, as what they were not
able to understand; and when it is farther said in this scripture,
that not unto themselves, but unto us, they did minister the
things that are now reported; the meaning is, not that they did
not understand those things, or had not much concern in them,
but that the glory of the gospel state, that was foretold in their
prophecies, was what we should behold with our eyes, and not
they themselves, in which sense they are said not to minister to
themselves, but to us; so that this objection hath no force in it
to overthrow the argument we are maintaining; we therefore
proceed to consider,
2. That it is certain, that the whole ceremonial law had a
spiritual meaning annexed to it; for it is said, That the law
was a shadow of good things to come, Heb. x. 1. and that all
those things happened to them for ensamples, [or types] and they
are written for our admonition, 1 Cor. x. 11.
3. It is unreasonable to suppose that the spiritual meaning
of the ceremonial law should not be known by those to whom
it was principally given; or that the gospel, wrapt up therein,
should not be seen through this shadow till the dispensation
was abolished, the ceremonial law abrogated, and the nation
cast off to whom it was given.
4. If the knowledge of the gospel, or faith in Christ, which
is founded upon it, be necessary for our salvation, it was necessary
for the salvation of those who lived in former ages; for
it was as much a truth then as it is now, that there is salvation
in no other; therefore the church of old were obliged to believe
in him to come, as much as we are to believe in him as already
// File: b055.png
.pn +1
come; but it is inconsistent with the divine goodness to require
this knowledge, and not to give them any expedient to attain
it; therefore we must either suppose this knowledge attainable
by them, and consequently that he was revealed to them, or
else they must be excluded from a possibility of salvation, when,
at the same time, they were obliged to believe in Christ, which
they could not do, because they did not understand the meaning
of that law, which was the only means of revealing him to
them; or if Christ was revealed in the ceremonial law, and
they had no way to understand it, it is all one as though he
had not been revealed therein.
5. They had sufficient helps for the understanding the spiritual
meaning thereof, viz. not only some hints of explication,
given in the Old Testament, but, besides these, there was,
(1.) Extraordinary revelation and inspiration, with which the
Jewish church more or less, was favoured, almost throughout
all the ages thereof; and hereby it is more than probable that,
together with the canon of the Old Testament, they received
the spiritual sense and meaning of those things which were
contained therein.
(2.) There was one whole tribe, viz. that of Levi, that was
almost wholly employed in studying and explaining the law of
God; therefore it is said, They shall teach Jacob thy judgments,
and Israel thy law, Deut. xxxiii. 10. and that the priest’s
lips should keep knowledge, and they should seek the law at his
mouth; Mal. ii. 7. that is, the priests should, by all proper
methods, understand the meaning of the law, that they might
be able to teach the people, when coming to be instructed by them.
(3.) There were among them several schools of the prophets
(in some ages at least of the Jewish church) in which some
had extraordinary revelations; and they that had them not,
made the scriptures their study, that they might be able to instruct
others; so that, from all this, it appears that they had a
great deal of knowledge of divine truths, and the spiritual meaning
of the Old Testament; though yet we will not deny that the
gospel dispensation hath a clearer light, and excels in glory.[17]
// File: b056.png
.pn +1
We shall now proceed to consider, how far the Old Testament
is a rule of faith and obedience to us, though that dispensation
// File: b057.png
.pn +1
be abolished; for we are not to reckon it an useless
part of scripture, or that it does not at all concern us. Since,
// File: b058.png
.pn +1
(1.) The greatest part of the doctrines contained therein are
of perpetual obligation to the church, in all the dispensations
or changes thereof.
(2.) As for the ceremonial law, which is abolished, with some
other forensick, or political laws, by which the Jews, in particular,
were governed, these, indeed, are not so far a rule of
obedience to us, as that we should think ourselves obliged to
observe them, as the Jews were of old: notwithstanding,
(3.) Even these are of use to us, as herein we see what was
then the rule of faith and obedience to the church, and how
far it agrees as to the substance thereof, or things signified
thereby, with the present dispensation; so that it is of use to us,
as herein we see the wisdom, sovereignty, and grace of God
to his church in former ages, and how what was then typified
or prophesied, is fulfilled to us. Thus it is said, that whatsoever
things were written afore-time, were written for our learning,
that we, through patience and comfort of the scriptures
might have hope, Rom. xv. 4.
The scriptures of the Old and New Testament contain a revelation
of the whole mind and will of God, and therefore are
very justly styled a perfect rule of faith and obedience. Nevertheless,
We do not hereby intend that they contain an account of
every thing that God hath done, or will do, in his works of
providence and grace, from the beginning to the end of time;
for such a large knowledge of things is not necessary for us to
attain. Thus it is said, John xx. 30. that Christ did many other
signs, that are not written in the gospel; but those things that
are contained therein, are written that we might believe; therefore
// File: b059.png
.pn +1
we have a sufficient account thereof to support our faith;
and that there were many other things which Jesus did, which,
if they should be written every one, the world would not contain
the books that should be written, John xxi. 25.[18]
Nor do we understand hereby, that God has given us an
account of all his secret counsels and purposes relating to the
event of things, or the final estate of particular persons, abstracted
from those marks on which our hope of salvation is
founded, or their outward condition, or the good or bad success
that shall attend their undertakings in the world, or the
time of their living therein: these, and many more events of
the like nature, are secrets which we are not to enquire into,
God having not thought fit to reveal them in his word, for
wise ends best known to himself, which shews his sovereignty,
with respect to the matter of revelation; Secret things belong
unto the Lord our God; but those things which are revealed belong
unto us, and to our children, Deut. xxix. 29. When Peter
was over-curious in enquiring concerning the future estate or
condition of John, our Saviour gives him this tacit reproof,
What is that to thee? John xxi. 21, 22.
Nor are we to suppose that the divine perfections, which are
infinite, are fully and adequately revealed to man, since it is
impossible that they should, from the nature of the thing; for
that which is in itself incomprehensible, cannot be so revealed
that we should be able fully to comprehend it, though that
which is possible, or at least necessary, to be known of God, is
clearly revealed to us.
Again, we do not suppose that every doctrine, that is to be
assented to as an article of faith, is revealed in express words
in scripture, since many truths are to be deduced from it by
just and necessary consequences, which thereby become a rule
of faith.
Nor are we to suppose that every part of scripture fully and
clearly discovers all those things which are contained in the
whole of it, since there was farther light given to the church,
by degrees, in succeeding ages, as it grew up, from its infant-state,
to a state of perfect manhood; therefore there is a clearer
and fuller revelation of the glorious mysteries of the gospel,
under the New Testament-dispensation, than there was before
it. The apostle uses the same metaphorical way of speaking,
when he compares the state of the church, under the ceremonial
law, to that of an heir under age, or of children under the
direction of tutors and governors, whose instruction and advances
in knowledge are proportioned to their age; so God
// File: b060.png
.pn +1
revealed his word at sundry times, as well as in divers manners,
Gal. iv. 1, 3. Heb. i. 1.
The word of God, accompanied with those additional helps
before mentioned, for the churches understanding the sense
thereof, was always, indeed, sufficient to lead men into the
knowledge of divine truth; but the canon being compleated,
it is so now in an eminent degree; and it is agreeable to the divine
perfections that such a rule should be given; for since salvation
could not be attained, nor God glorified, without a discovery
of those means, which are conducive thereto, it is not
consistent with his wisdom and goodness that we should be left
at the utmost uncertainty as to this matter, and, at the same
time, rendered incapable of the highest privileges which attend
instituted worship. Can we suppose that, when all other things
necessary to salvation are adjusted, and many insuperable difficulties
surmounted, and an invitation given to come and partake
of it, that God should lay such a bar in our way, that it
should be impossible for us to attain it, as being without a sufficient
rule?
And since none but God can give us such an one, it is inconsistent
with his sovereignty to leave it to men, to prescribe
what is acceptable in his sight. They may, indeed, give laws,
and thereby oblige their subjects to obedience; but these must
be such as are within their own sphere; their power does not
extend itself to religious matters, so that our faith and duty to
God should depend upon their will; for this would be a bold
presumption, and extending their authority and influence beyond
due bounds; therefore since a rule of faith is necessary,
we must conclude that God has given us such an one; and it
must certainly be worthy of himself, and therefore perfect, and
every way sufficient to answer the end thereof.
That it is so, farther appears from the event, or from the
happy consequences of our obedience to it; from that peace,
joy, and holiness, which believers are made partakers of, while
steadfastly adhering to this rule: thus it is said, that through
comfort of the scriptures they have hope, Rom. xv. 4. and that
hereby the man of God is made wise to salvation, and perfect,
thoroughly furnished unto all good works, 2 Tim. iii. 15, 17.
The perfection of the law is demonstrated, by the Psalmist, by
its effects, in that it converts the soul, makes wise the simple,
rejoices the heart, enlightens the eyes, Psal. xix. 7, 8.
We might farther argue, that the scripture is a perfect rule
of faith, from those threatnings which are denounced against
them, who pretend to add to, or take from it; this was strictly
forbidden, even when there was but a part of scripture committed
to writing. Thus says God; Ye shall not add to the
word which I command you; neither shall ye diminish ought
// File: b061.png
.pn +1
from it, Deut. iv. 2. And the apostle denounces an anathema
against any one who should pretend to preach any other gospel,
than that which he had received from God, Gal. i. 8, 9. And,
in the close of the scripture, our Saviour testifies, to every man,
that if any should add to these things, God would add to him the
plagues written in this book. And if any should take away
from this book, God would take away his part out of the book of
life, Rev. xxii. 18, 19.
Thus having considered the scripture as a rule of faith, we
proceed to shew what are the properties which belong to it as
such.
1. A rule, when it is designed for general use, must have
the sanction of public authority: thus human laws, by which a
nation is to be governed, which are a rule to determine the
goodness or badness of men’s actions, and their desert of rewards
or punishments accordingly, must be established by public
authority. Even so the scripture is a rule of faith, as it
contains the divine laws, by which the actions of men are to
be tried, together with the ground which some have to expect
future blessedness, and others to fear punishments threatened to
those who walk not according to this rule.
2. A rule by which we are to judge of the nature, truth, excellency,
perfection, or imperfection of any thing, must be infallible,
or else it is of no use; and, as such, nothing must be
added to, or taken from it, for then it would cease to be a perfect
rule: thus it must be a certain and impartial standard, by
which things are to be tried: Such a rule as this is scripture, as
was but now observed. And it is an impartial rule, to which, as
a standard, all truth and goodness is to be reduced and measured
by it; To the law, and to the testimony; if they speak not according
to this word, it is because there is no light in them, Isa.
viii. 20.
3. All appeals are to be made to a rule, and controversies to
be tried and determined by it. Thus the scripture, as it is a
rule of faith, is a judge of controversies; so that whatever
different sentiments men have about religion, all must be reduced
to, and the warrantableness thereof tried hereby, and a
stop put to growing errors by an appeal to this rule, rather
than to coercive power, or the carnal weapons of violence and
persecution.
Moreover, the judgment we pass on ourselves, as being sincere
or hypocrites, accepted or rejected of God, is to be formed
by comparing our conduct with scripture, as the rule by which
we are to try the goodness or badness of our state, and of our
actions.
4. A rule must have nothing of a different nature set up in
competition with, or opposition to it; for that would be to render
// File: b062.png
.pn +1
it useless, and unfit to be the standard of truth: thus scripture
is the only rule of faith, and therefore no human traditions
are to be set up as standards of faith in competition with it, for
that would be to suppose it not to be a perfect rule. This the
Papists do, and therefore may be charged, as the Pharisees
were of old by our Saviour, with transgressing and making the
commandment of none effect by their tradition, Mat. xv. 3, 6.
concerning whom he also says, that in vain they worship him,
teaching for doctrines the commandments of men, ver. 9. What
is this but to reflect on the wisdom, and affront the authority
and sovereignty of God, by casting this contempt on that rule
of faith which he hath given?
Having considered scripture as a rule of faith and obedience,
it is farther observed, that it is the only rule thereof, in opposition
to the Popish doctrine of human traditions, as pretended
to be of equal authority with it; by which means the law of
God is made void at this day, as it was by the Jews in our
Saviour’s time, and the scripture supposed to be an imperfect
rule; the defect whereof they take this method to supply; and
to give countenance thereto,
1. They refer to those Scriptures, in which, it is said, our
Saviour did many other signs in the presence of his disciples,
which are not written, John xx. 30. and his own words, wherein
he tells them, that he had many things to say unto them,
which they could not then bear, John xvi. 12. as also to the
words of the apostle Paul, Acts xx. 35. in which he puts the
church in mind of a saying of our Saviour, received by tradition,
because not contained in any of the evangels, viz. it is
more blessed to give than to receive.
To which it may be replied,
Answ. (1.) That though it is true there were many things
done, and words spoken by our Saviour, which are not recorded
in Scripture, and therefore we must be content not to know
them, being satisfied with this, that nothing is omitted therein
which is necessary to salvation, yet to pretend to recover, or
transmit them to us by tradition, is to assert and not to prove,
what they impose on us as matters of faith.
(2.) Those things which our Saviour had to say, which he
did not then impart to his disciples, because they were not able
to bear them, respected, as is more than probable, what he designed
to discover to them after his resurrection, during his
forty days abode here on earth, or by his Spirit, after his ascension
into heaven, concerning the change of the Sabbath, from
the seventh, to the first day of the week, the abolition of the
ceremonial law, the Spirituality of his kingdom, which they
were at that time less able to bear than they were afterwards,
and other things relating to the success of their ministry, the
// File: b063.png
.pn +1
gathering and governing of those churches, which should be
planted by them; these seem to be intended by that expression,
and not those doctrines which the Papists transmit by
oral traditions; such as the use of oil and spittle, together with
water in baptism, and the sign of the cross therein; the baptism
of bells, the lighting up of candles in churches at noon-day:
nor that of purgatory, or praying for the dead, or giving
divine adoration to images or relics, which are altogether unscriptural,
and such as he would not have, at any time, communicated
unto them.
(3.) Those words of our Saviour, It is more blessed to give
than to receive, though they are not contained in one distinct
proposition, or in express words in the gospels, yet he therein
exhorts his people to give to him that asketh; and speaks of the
blessing that attends this duty, that they might be, that is, approve
themselves to be the children of their Father, Mat. v. 42.
compared with 45. and exhorts them to hospitality to the poor,
and adds a blessing to it, Luke xiv. 12, 13, 14. Or, suppose
the apostle refers to a saying frequently used by our Saviour,
which might then be remembered by some who had conversed
with him; this is no sufficient warrant for any one to advance
doctrines contrary to those our Saviour delivered, under a pretence
of having received them by unwritten tradition.
2. This doctrine is farther defended from the words of the
apostle, in 1 Tim. vi. 20. where he advises Timothy to keep
that which was committed to his trust, viz. those traditions
which he was to remember and communicate to others: and
also the advice which he gives to the church, To hold the traditions
which they had been taught, either by word or by his
epistle, 2 Thess. ii. 15. the former respects, say they, unwritten
traditions, the latter is inspired writings.
Answ. That which was committed to Timothy to keep, was
either the form of sound words, or the gospel, which he was to
hold fast, 2 Tim. i. 13. or the ministry which he had received
of the Lord, or those gifts and graces which were communicated
to him, to fit him for public service. And as for those traditions
which he speaks of in the other scripture, the meaning is
only this: that they should remember not only the doctrines
they had received from him, which were contained in his inspired
epistles, but those which were agreeable to scripture, that
he had imparted in the exercise of his public ministry; the former
were to be depended upon as an infallible rule of faith, the
latter to be retained and improved as agreeable thereunto, and
3. They farther add, that it was by this means that God instructed
his church for above two thousand years before the
scripture was committed to writing.
Answ. To this it may be replied, that God communicated
// File: b064.png
.pn +1
his mind and will to them, during that interval, in an extraordinary
manner, as has been before observed, page #52#, #53#, which
cannot be said of any of those traditions which are pleaded for
by them.
4. It is farther argued, that the book of the law was formerly
lost in Josiah’s time; for it is said, that when it was found,
and a part of it read to him, he rent his clothes, and was astonished,
as though he had never read it before, 2 Kings xxii. 8.
to 11, yet he being a good man, was well instructed in the doctrines
of religion; therefore this must have been by tradition.
Answ. To this it may be answered, that the book, which was
then found, was doubtless, an original manuscript of Scripture,
either of all the books of Moses or Deuteronomy in particular,
but it is not to be supposed that he had never read it before;
for a person may be affected at one time in reading that portion
of scripture, which he has often read without its having the
like effect upon him; and doubtless, there were many copies
of scripture transcribed, by which he was made acquainted
with the doctrines of religion, without learning them from uncertain
traditions.
5. They farther allege, that some books of scripture are
lost, and therefore it is necessary that they should be supplied
this way; the instances they give of this are some books referred
to in scripture, viz. the book of the wars of the Lord, Numb.
xxi. 14. and another going under the name of Jasher, 2 Sam.
i. 18. compared with Josh. x. 13. and another called the book
of the acts of Solomon, 1 Kings xi. 41. and also his Songs and
Proverbs, and the account he gives of trees, plants, beasts,
fowls, creeping things, and fishes, 1 Kings, iv. 32, 33. There
are also other books said to be written by Samuel, Nathan, and
Gad, 1 Chron. xxix. 29. the prophecy of Ahijah the Shilonite,
and the visions of Iddo the seer, 2 Chron. ix. 29. and Jeremiah’s
lamentation for Josiah, is said to be written in the books of the
Lamentations, 2 Chron. xxxv. 25. whereas there is no mention
of Josiah in the book of scripture, which goes under that name;
therefore they suppose that there was some other book so called
which was written by that prophet, but is now lost.
Answ. 1. As to the argument in general, that some books
of scripture are lost, suppose we should take it for granted that
they are so, must this loss be supplied by traditions, pretended
to be divine, though without sufficient proof: however, I am
not willing to make this concession, though, indeed, some Protestant
divines have done it, as thinking it equally supposable,
that some books, written by divine inspiration, might be lost,
as well as many words spoke by the same inspiration: but even
these constantly maintain that whatever inspired writings may
have been lost, yet there is no doctrine necessary to the edification
// File: b065.png
.pn +1
of the church, in what immediately relates to salvation, but
what is contained in those writings, which are preserved, by
the care and goodness of providence, to this day; but, without
giving into this concession, I would rather adhere to the
more commonly received opinion, that no book designed to be
a part of the canon of scripture is lost, though many uninspired
writings have perished; and therefore as to those books but
now mentioned, they refer to some books of scripture, in
which we have no mention of the inspired writers thereof,
which, as is more than probable, were wrote by some noted
prophet that flourished in the church at that time, which their
respective histories refer to; therefore some suppose that the
books of Nathan and Gad, or Iddo, refer to those of Kings or
Chronicles, which are not lost. But since this is only a probable
conjecture, we pass it over, and add, that it is not unreasonable
to suppose that the books said to be written by them, as
also those of Solomon, that are not contained in scripture, were
not written by divine inspiration, which is not only a safe but
sufficient answer to the objection. As for Jeremiah’s lamentation
for Josiah, it is probable that the book of scripture, which
goes under that name, was written on the occasion of Josiah’s
death, in which, though he doth not mention the name of that
good king, yet he laments the desolating judgments which were
to follow soon after it.
Moreover, the Papists pretend, that some part of the New
Testament is lost; particularly the epistle from Laodicea, mentioned
in Col. iv. 16. and one written to the Corinthians, not
to company with fornicators, 1 Cor. v. 9. and another mentioned,
2 Cor. vii. 8. by which he made them sorry.
Answ. 1. As to the epistle from Laodicea that was probably
one of his inspired epistles, written by him when at Laodicea,
and not directed, as is pretended, to the Laodiceans.
2. As to that epistle, which he is supposed to have written to
the Corinthians, it is not expressly said that it was another epistle
he had wrote to them; but it is plainly intimated, ver. 12.
that he refers to the epistle, which he was then writing to them;
a part of which related to that subject, as this chapter, in particular
does,
3. As to the letter, which he wrote to them, which made
them sorry, it is not necessary to suppose that it was written by
divine inspiration; for as every thing he delivered by word of
mouth, was not by the extraordinary afflatus of the Holy Ghost,
why may we not suppose that there were several epistles written
by him to the churches, some to comfort, others to admonish,
reprove, or make them sorry, besides those that he was inspired
to write?
Having considered the arguments brought to prove that some
// File: b066.png
.pn +1
books of scripture are lost, we shall now prove, on the other
hand, that we have the canon thereof compleat and entire.
Some think this is sufficiently evident from what our Saviour
says, Till heaven and earth pass away, one jot, or tittle shall not
pass from the law, Mat. v. 18. and it is easier for heaven and
earth to pass, than for one tittle of the law to fail, Luke xvi. 17.
If God will take care of every jot and tittle of scripture, will he
not take care that no whole book, designed to be a part of the
rule of faith, should be entirely lost? It is objected, indeed, to
this, that our Saviour hereby intends principally the doctrines
or precepts contained in the law; but if the subject matter
thereof shall not be lost, surely the scripture that contains it
shall be preserved entire.
But this will more evidently appear, if we consider that the
books of the Old Testament were compleat in our Saviour’s
time; for it is said, That beginning at Moses, and all the prophets,
he expounded to them in all the scriptures, the things concerning
himself, Luke xxiv. 27. and this may also be proved
from what the apostle says, Whatsoever things were written
aforetime, were written for our learning, Rom. xv. 4. now it is
impossible that they should be written for our learning if they
are lost.
To this it may be added, that the goodness of God, and the
care of his providence, with respect to this church, farther
evinces this truth; for if he gave them ground to conclude that
he would be with them always, even to the end of the world,
Matth. xxviii. 20. surely this argues, that he would preserve
the rule he had given them to walk by, from all the injuries of
time, so that it should not be lost to the end of the world.
Again, the Jews were the keepers of the oracles of God,
Rom. iii. 2. now they are not reproved by our Saviour, or the
apostle Paul, for any unfaithfulness in not preserving them entire;
and certainly our Saviour, when he reproves them for
making void the law by their traditions, and threatens those
that should add to or take from it, if he had found them faulty,
in not having faithfully preserved all the scriptures committed
to them, he would have severely reproved them for this great
breach of trust.
Object. It is objected against the scriptures being a perfect
rule of faith, that they are in several places corrupted, viz. that
the Old Testament was so by the Jews, out of malice against
our Saviour, and the Christian religion, that they might conceal,
or pervert to another sense, some prophecies relating to
the Messiah, and the gospel-state. And as for the New Testament,
they pretend that it was corrupted by some heretics, in
defence of their perverse doctrines.
Answ. 1. As to the Old Testament, it is very improbable
// File: b067.png
.pn +1
and unreasonable to suppose that it was corrupted by the Jews.
For,
(1.) Before our Saviour’s time, no valuable end could be
answered thereby; for then they expected the Messiah to come,
according to what was foretold by the prophets, and understood
their predictions in a true sense.
(2.) After he was come, and Christianity took place in the
world, though malice might have prompted them to it, yet they
would not do it, because they had always been trained up in
this notion, that it was the vilest crime to add to, take from, or
alter it: so that one of their own writers[19] says concerning
them, that they would rather die an hundred deaths, than suffer
the law to be changed in any instance; yea, they have such
a veneration for the law, that if, by any accident, part of it
should fall to the ground, they would proclaim a fast as fearing
lest, for this, God would destroy the whole world, and reduce
it to its first chaos: and can any one think, that, under any
pretence whatever, they would designedly corrupt the Old Testament?
Yea, they were so far from doing it, that they took
the greatest care, even to superstition, to prevent its being corrupted,
through inadvertency, and accordingly numbered not
only the books and sections, but even the words and letters,
that not a single letter might be added to, or taken from it.
(3.) If they had any inclination to do this, out of malice
against Christianity, it would have been to no purpose, after
our Saviour’s time; for it was then translated into Greek, and
this translation was in the hands of almost all Christians; so
that the fallacy would soon have been detected. And if they
had corrupted some copies of the Hebrew Bible, they could
not have corrupted or altered them all; therefore to attempt
any thing of this kind, would have been to expose themselves
to no purpose.
(4.) It would not have been for their own advantage to pervert
it; for, in altering the texts that make for Christianity,
they would (especially if the fraud should have been detected)
have weakened their own cause so far, that the reputation of
scripture being hereby lost, they could not have made use of it
to that advantage, to prove their own religion from it.
But, notwithstanding all this out-cry of the scriptures being
perverted, they pretend to give no proof hereof, except in two
or three words, which do not much affect the cause of Christianity;
whereas, if the Jews had designed to pervert it, why did
they not alter the fifty-third of Isaiah, and many other scriptures,
// File: b068.png
.pn +1
which so plainly speak of the person and offices of the
Messiah?
2. As to the other part of the objection, that the New Testament
hath been corrupted by heretics since our Saviour’s
time, whatever charge hath been brought against the Arians,
and some others, of having out some words, or verses, which
tend to overthrow their scheme, they have not been able, even
when the empire was most favourable to their cause, to alter
all the copies; so that their fallacy has been detected, and the
corruption amended.
As for those various readings that there are of the same
text, these consist principally in literal alterations, which do
not much tend to pervert the sense thereof. It was next to
impossible for so many copies of scripture to be transcribed
without some mistakes, since they who were employed in this
work were not under the infallible direction of the Spirit of
God, as the first penmen were; yet the providence of God hath
not suffered them to make notorious mistakes; and whatever
mistakes there may be in one copy, they may be corrected by
another; so that the scripture is not, for this reason, chargeable
with the reproach cast upon it, as though it were not a perfect
rule of faith.
.fn 15
He who has created all things, with all their relations, and who is the universal
Sovereign, has a right to the allegiance of his rational creatures, and they
are under obligation to obey his laws, because it is his will that they should do
so. He has connected our interest with our duty, as a motive to obedience, and
because he is good; but if we should substitute utility for his authority, and conform
to his laws, merely because they are advantageous, we rebel against our Sovereign,
and renounce his authority, that we may pursue our own advantage. Virtue
is amiable for its intrinsic rectitude. If we choose to practice it merely because
beautiful, we please ourselves; and though the excellency of virtue is intended
as a motive, and it is well for the man who is charmed by it, yet, if this be
the only inducement, he has lost sight of the Divine authority, and his virtue is
no obedience to the laws of God. If the obligation of virtue be founded solely on
its utility, or beauty, we are at liberty to forego our advantage, or pleasure without
guilt, and remorse of conscience will be unaccountable. It is also fit and proper,
that we should practice virtue, but this is no more to be substituted for the
Divine authority, than the other motives of advantage or pleasure. If it be objected,
that the fitness of moral good is eternal, and a rule even to Deity, and so
may be deemed a foundation of the obligation of human virtue. It is conceded
that the fitness of virtue is eternal, for God is eternal, and has been always holy,
and just; in the same manner also the beauty of virtue is eternal; but to suppose
these to have existed anterior to thought and action, and to be independent of an
eternally and immutably holy God is to indulge the mind in speculations, which,
to say the least of them, are groundless. We may as well assign a cause to eternal
existence, as to eternal holiness. When the Creator formed the Universe of intelligent
creatures, he gave them, with their existence, the various relations and
circumstances which sprang up with them: and their obligations with respect to
him and his works originated at the same time, and from the same source; which
could be no other than the Divine pleasure; and the positive express appointments,
which have been since super-added, rest upon the same basis, the will of
God.
That we might discern his will and conform to it, he has set before us his own
character, which in all things is good. He has given us reason, or active intellectual
powers capable of pursuing the truth, and discovering his character, as a rule
of our conduct. And because reason is matured by slow degrees, and the advantages
for its improvement are unequal, he has given us a sense susceptible of the
impressions of good and evil, by which we can distinguish between moral good
and evil almost as easily, as by our natural senses we discern the differences between
light and darkness, sweetness and bitterness; and thus has he rendered the
judgment upon our own actions almost always unavoidable. The light of nature
has been confirmed by express revelation; and because the law of nature identifies
itself with the written law of God, the obligation of both rests upon the same
foundation, the Sovereign will.
.fn-
.fn 16
Where a covenant is, there should be the death of the devoted victim.
.fn-
.fn 17
PROPHETS BEFORE THE CAPTIVITY.
With the order and times of their Prophecies.
.ta r:7 l:30 l:30
Years before Christ.||
812| Amaziah king of Judah, Jeroboam II. king of Israel |Jonah sent with a message. 2 Kings xiii. 20. xiv. 25.
800| Uzziah king of Judah. Jeroboam II.| Joel i. ii. iii.
800| Jeroboam II. king of Israel. Uzziah king of Judah| Amos i.——ix.
800| Jeroboam II. Uzziah| Hosea i. ii. iii.
772| Menahem I.| Hosea iv.
770| Menahem II.| Jonah i. ii. iii. iv.
759| Uzziah 52. Pekah 1.| Isaiah vi. ii. iii. iv. v.
753| Jotham 5. Pekah 7.| Micah i. ii.
742| Ahaz 1. Pekah 18.| Isaiah vii.
| In the same year| Isaiah viii. ix. x.
| In the same year| Isaiah xvii.
740| Ahaz 3. Pekah 20.| Isaiah i.
| In the same year| Isaiah xxviii.
739| Aphaz 4.| Hosea v. vi.
726| Hezekiah 2.| Isaiah xiv. ver. 28, &c.
| In the same year| Isaiah xv. xvi.
725| Hezekiah 3. Hoshea 6.| Hosea vii.-xiv. Micah iii. iv. v. vi. vii.
720| Hezekiah 7.| Nahum i. ii. iii.
715| Hezekiah 13.| Isaiah xxiii.-xxvii.
714| Hezekiah 14.| Isaiah xxxviii. xxxix.
714| Hezekiah 14.| Isaiah xxix. xxx.-xxxv.
| In the same year| Isaiah xxii. ver. 1-15.
| In the same year| Isaiah xxi.
713| Hezekiah 15.| Isaiah xx.
| In the same year| Isaiah xviii. xix.
710| Hezekiah 18.| Isaiah x. ver. 5, &c. xi. xii. xiii. xiv. ver. 28, &c.
| In the same year| Isaiah xxxvi. xxxvii.
| In the same year| Isaiah xl.-xliii. &c.
698| Manasseh 1.| Isaiah xxii. ver. 15.
628| Josiah 13.| Jeremiah i. ii.
623| Josiah 18.| Jeremiah xi. ver. 1-18. Jeremiah iii.-x. xii.-xxi. Jeremiah xi. ver. 18, &c.
611| Josiah 31.| Habbakkuk i. ii. iii. Zephaniah i. ii. iii.
610| Jehoiakim 1.| Jeremiah xii. ver. 1-24.
| In the same year| Jeremiah xxvi.
606| Jehoiakim 4.| Jeremiah xxv.
| In the same year| Jeremiah xxxv.
| In the same year| Jeremiah xlvi.
| In the same year| Jeremiah xxxvi. ver. 1-9.
| In the same year| Jeremiah xlv.
| In the same year| Daniel i.
605| Jehoiakim 5.| Jeremiah xxxvi. ver. 9, &c.
603| Jehoiakim 7.| Daniel ii.
599| Zedekiah 1.| Jeremiah xxii. ver. 24, &c.
| In the same year| Jeremiah xxiii
| In the same year| Jeremiah xiii. ver. 13, &c.
| In the same year| Jeremiah xxiv.
| In the same year| Jeremiah xlix. ver. 34, &c.
598| Zedekiah 2.| Jeremiah xxix.
| In the same year| Jeremiah xxx. xxxi.
| In the same year| Jeremiah xxvii.
596| Zedekiah 4.| Jeremiah xxviii.
| In the same year| Jeremiah l. li.
595 | Zedekiah 5. Jehoiachin’s capt. 5| Ezekiel i.-vii.
594| Zedekiah 6. Jehoiachin’s capt. 6| Ezekiel viii.-xi.
593| Zedekiah 7. Jehoiachin’s capt. 7| Ezekiel xii.-xix.
| In the same year, fifth month| Ezekiel xx.-xxiii.
591| Zedekiah 9. Jehoiachin’s capt. 9| Jeremiah xxi. xxxiv ver. 1-8.
| In the same year| Jeremiah xlvii.
| In the same year| Jeremiah xlviii. xlix. ver. 1-34.
| In the same year| Ezekiel xxiv. xxv.
590| Zedekiah 10. Jehoiachin’s capt. 10| Jeremiah xxxvii. ver. 1-11.
| In the same year| Jeremiah xxxiv. ver. 8, &c.
| In the same year| Jeremiah xxxvii. ver. 11-16
| In the same year| Jeremiah xxxii. xxiii.
| In the same year| Ezekiel xxix. ver. 1-17. xxx.
| In the same year| Jeremiah xxxvii. ver. 17, &c.
| In the same year| Jeremiah xxxviii. ver. 1-14.
| In the same year| Jeremiah xxxix. ver. 15, &c.
| In the same year| Jeremiah xxxviii. ver. 14, &c.
589| Zedekiah 11. Jehoiachin’s capt 11. first month| Ezekiel xxxvi. xxxvii. xxxviii.
| In the same year, third month| Ezekiel xxxi.
| In the same year, fourth month| Jeremiah xxxix. ver. 1-11. lii. ver. 1-30.
| In the same year, fifth or sixth month| Jeremiah xxxix. ver. 11-15. xl. ver. 1-7.
| In the same year| Jeremiah xl. ver. 7. xli. xlii. xliii. xliv. ver. 1-8.
.ta-
PROPHETS AFTER THE DESTRUCTION OF THE TEMPLE, DURING THE CAPTIVITY.
.ta r:7 l:30 l:30
588| Jehoiachin’s captivity 12. tenth month| Ezekiel xxxiii.
| In the same year, twelfth month| Ezekiel xxxii.
| Between the 12 and 25 captivity| Ezekiel xxxiv. xxxvi. xxxvii. xxxviii. xxxix.
| In the same year| Obadiah
| In the same year| Ezekiel xxxv.
| In this year Nebuchadnezzar set up his golden image| Daniel iii.
574| Jehoiachin’s captivity 25.| Ezekiel xl. xli. &c.
569| Jehoiachin’s captivity 30.| Ezekiel xxxi. ver. 17, &c.
| In the same year| Daniel iv.
562| Jehoiachin’s captivity 37.| Jeremiah lii. ver. 31, &c.
555| Belshazzar 1.| Daniel vii.
553| Belshazzar 3.| Daniel viii.
539| Belshazzar 17.| Daniel v.
538| Darius the Mede 1.| Daniel vi.
| In the same year| Daniel ix.
536| Cyrus 1.| Ezra i. ii.
535| Cyrus 2.| Ezra iii.
.ta-
PROPHETS AFTER THE CAPTIVITY UNDER THE SECOND TEMPLE.
.ta r:6 l:30 l:30
535| Cyrus 2.| Ezra iv.
| In the third year of Cyrus, and third after the captivity| Daniel x. xi. xii
520| Darius Hystaspis 2. sixth month| Haggai i. ver. 1-12.
| In the same year and month| Haggai i. ver. 12, &c. Ezra v.
| In the same year, seventh month| Haggai ii. ver. 1-10.
| In the same year, eighth month| Zechariah i. ver. 1-7.
| In the same year, ninth month| Haggai ii. ver. 10, &c.
|In the same year, eleventh month| Zechariah i. ver. 7, &c. ii.-vi.
516| Darius 3.| Ezra v. ver. 3, &c.
518| Darius 4.| Ezra vi. ver. 1-15.
| In the same year, ninth month| Zech. vii. viii.
| Subsequent to the fourth year of Darius Hystaspes| Zechariah ix.-xiv.
515| Darius 6.| Ezra vi. ver. 15, &c.
462| Ahasuerus 3.| Esther i.
461| Ahasuerus 4.| Esther ii. ver. 1-16.
458| Ahasuerus 7.| Ezra vii.-x.
| In the same year| Esther ii. ver. 16-21.
457| Ahasuerus 8.| Esther ii. ver. 21, &c.
453| Ahasuerus 12.| Esther iii. iv. v. &c.
445| Ahasuerus 20.| Nehemiah i.-iii. &c.
433| Ahasuerus 32.| Nehemiah xiii. ver. 6.
429| Ahasuerus 36.| Malachi i.-iv.
428| Ahasuerus 37.| Nehemiah xiii. ver. 6, &c.
296| Ptolemy Soter 9.| The Canon of the Old Testament completed, by adding two books of Chronicles, Ezra, Nehemiah, Esther, and Malachi; by Simon the Just.
.ta-
Dr. Taylor.
.fn-
.fn 18
κοσμος is the unregenerate world, John vii. 7. and χωρησαι, is to receive kindly,
2 Cor. vii. 2.
.fn-
.fn 19
Vid. Philo. Jud. de Vit. Mosis; & eund. citat. ab Euseb. in Præp. Evang. l. viii.
c. 6. & Joseph, contr. App. l. ii.
.fn-
.sp 4
.h2
Quest. IV.
.sp 2
.pm letter-start
Quest. IV. How doth it appear that the scriptures are the
word of God?
Answ. The scriptures manifest themselves to be the word of
God by their majesty and purity; by the consent of all the
parts, and the scope of the whole, which is to give all glory
to God; by their light and power to convince and convert
sinners, to comfort and build up believers to salvation: but
the Spirit of God bearing witness by and with the scriptures
in the heart of man, is alone able fully to persuade it, that
they are the word of God.
.pm letter-end
.sp 2
Before we proceed to consider the arguments here
brought to prove the scriptures to be the word of God,
some things may be premised.[20]
// File: b069.png
.pn +1
1. When we speak of the scriptures as divine, we do not
only mean that they treat of God and divine things; to wit,
// File: b070.png
.pn +1
his nature and works, as referring principally to the subject
matter thereof; for this may be said of many human uninspired
writings, which, in proportion to the wisdom of their authors,
tend to set forth the divine perfections. And when, as the
consequence hereof, we assert that every thing contained therein
is infallibly true, we do not deny but that there are many
things, which we receive from human testimony, of which it
would be scepticism to entertain the least doubt of the truth;
notwithstanding, when we receive a truth from human testimony,
we judge of the certainty thereof, by the credibility
of the evidence, and, in proportion thereunto, there is a
degree of certainty arising from it: but when we suppose a
truth to be divine, we have the highest degree of certainty
equally applicable to every thing that is so, and that for this
reason, because it is the word of him that cannot lie. Thus we
consider the holy scriptures, as being of a divine original, or
given by the inspiration of God, or as his revealed will, designed
to bind the consciences of men; and that the penmen
were not the inventers of them, but only the instruments made
use of to convey these divine oracles to us, as the apostle says,
2 Pet. i. 21. Prophecy came not in old time by the will of man;
but holy men of God spake, as they were moved by the Holy
Ghost: and the apostle Paul says, Gal. i. 11, 12. I certify unto
you, that the gospel, which was preached of me, is not after
man; neither received I it of man; neither was I taught it, but
by the revelation of Jesus Christ: the former asserts this concerning
scripture in general, and the latter concerning that part
thereof which was transmitted to us by him: this is what we
mean when we say the scripture is the word of God.
2. It is necessary for us to know and believe the scriptures
to be the word of God, because they are to be received by us
as a rule of faith and obedience, in whatever respects divine
things, otherwise we are destitute of a rule, and consequently
our religion would be a matter of the greatest uncertainty; and
as this faith and obedience is divine, it is a branch of religious
worship, and as such, contains an entire subjection to God, a
firm and unshaken assent to whatever he reveals as true, and a
readiness to obey whatever he commands, as being influenced
by his authority; which is inconsistent with any hesitation or
doubt concerning this matter. Moreover, it is only therein
that we have an account of the way in which sinners may have
access to God; the terms of their finding acceptance in his
sight, and all the promises of eternal blessedness, on which
// File: b071.png
.pn +1
their hope is founded, are contained therein; if therefore we
are not certain that the scriptures are the word of God, our
faith and hope are vain; it is herein that life and immortality
is brought to light, and, by searching them, we think that we
have eternal life.
3. As divine revelation is necessary, so it is not impossible,
contrary to reason or the divine perfections, for God to impart
his mind and will to men in such a way as we call inspiration:
these things must be made appear, otherwise it is a vain thing
to attempt to give arguments to prove the scriptures to be the
word of God; and, in order hereto, let it be considered,
(1.) That divine revelation is necessary; this appears because
as religion is necessary, so there are some things contained
in it which cannot be known by the light of nature, to
wit, all those divine laws and institutions, which are the result
of God’s expressed will; and these could not be known by the
light of nature, or in a way of reasoning derived from it, therefore
they must be known by special revelation. Positive laws,
as opposed to those that are moral, depend upon a different
foundation; the glory of God’s sovereignty eminently appears
in the one, as that of his holiness doth in the other: now his
sovereign pleasure relating thereto could never have been
known without divine revelation, and then all that revenue of
glory, which is brought to him thereby, would have been entirely
lost, and there would have been no instituted worship in
the world; and the gospel, which is called the unsearchable
riches of Christ, Eph. iii. 8. must have been for ever a hidden
thing, and the condition of those who bear the Christian name
would have been no better than that of the heathen, concerning
whose devotion, the apostle Paul, though speaking of the wisest
and best of them says, Acts xvii. 23. that they ignorantly worshipped
an unknown God: and elsewhere, 1 Cor. i. 24. that the
world by wisdom knew not God; and the reason is, because they
were destitute of divine revelation.
(2.) It is not impossible, contrary to reason or the divine
perfections, that God should reveal his mind and will to man,
which may be argued from hence; it contains no impossibility,
for if it be possible for one creature to impart his mind and
will to another, then certainly God can do this, for there is no
excellency or perfection in the creature but what is eminently
in him; and if it be not unworthy of the divine majesty to be
omnipresent, and uphold all things by the word of his power, it
is not unbecoming his perfections to manifest himself to intelligent
creatures, who, as such, are fit to receive the discoveries
of his mind and will; and his endowing them with faculties
capable of receiving these manifestations, argues, that he designed
that they should be favoured with them; and therefore
// File: b072.png
.pn +1
whatever displays there may be of infinite condescension therein,
yet it is not unbecoming his perfections so to do.
(3.) As God cannot be at a loss for an expedient how to
discover his mind and will to man, and is not confined to one
certain way, so he may, if he pleases, make it known by inspiration;
it is not impossible, neither is there any thing in the
subjects that should hinder him from impressing whatever
ideas he designs to impart, on the minds of men. This a finite
spirit may do; and that there is such a thing as this, will hardly
be denied by any, but those who, with the Sadducees, deny
the nature and power of spirits: it hence follows, that God can
much more impress the souls of men, or immediately communicate
his mind to them in such a way, as we call inspiration;
and to deny that there is such a thing as inspiration, is not only
to deny the credibility of scripture history, as well as its divine
authority, but it is to deny that which the heathen, by the light
of nature, have universally believed to be consonant to reason,
and therefore they often represent their gods as conversing
with men; and they appear, in many of their writings, not to
have the least doubt whether there has been such a thing as inspiration
in the world.
These things being premised, we are now more particularly
to consider those arguments which are brought to prove the
scriptures to be the word of God, or that they were given by
divine inspiration: these are taken either from the internal evidence
we have hereof, viz. the subject matter of scripture, from
the majesty of the style, the purity of the doctrines, the harmony
or consent of all its parts, and the scope or tendency of
the whole to give all glory to God; or else external, taken from
the testimony which God himself gave to it, at first by miracles,
whereby the mission of the prophets, and consequently
what they were sent to deliver, was confirmed, and afterwards,
in succeeding ages, by the use which he hath made of it in convincing
and converting sinners, and building up believers to
salvation. These are the arguments mentioned in this answer,
which will be distinctly considered, and some others added, as
a farther proof of this matter, to wit, those taken from the character
of the inspired writers, particularly as they were holy
men, and so they would not impose on the world, or pretend
themselves to have been inspired, if they were not; and also, as
they were plain and honest men, void of all craft and subtilty,
and so could not impose on the world; and, had they attempted
to do so, they had a great many subtle and malicious enemies,
who would soon have detected the fallacy. To this we
shall also add an argument taken from the sublimity of the doctrine,
in which respect it is too great, and has too much wisdom
in it for men to have invented; and others taken from the antiquity
// File: b073.png
.pn +1
thereof, together with its wonderful preservation, notwithstanding
all the endeavours of its enemies to root it out of the
world; and then we shall consider how far the testimony of the
church is to be regarded, not as though it contained the principal
foundation of our faith, as the Papists suppose; but yet this
may be, if duly considered, an additional evidence to those that
have been before given; and then we shall speak something
concerning the witness of the Spirit with the scripture in the
heart of man, which inclines him to be persuaded by, and rest in
the other arguments brought to support this truth: and if all
these be taken together, they will, we hope, beget a full conviction
in the minds of men, that the scriptures are the word of
God; which leads us to consider the arguments in particular.
I. From the majesty of the style in which it is written. This
argument does not equally hold good with respect to all the
parts of scripture; for there is, in many places thereof, a great
plainness of speech and familiarity of expression adapted to the
meanest capacity, and sometimes a bare relation of things,
without that majesty of expression, which we find in other
places: thus in the historical books we do not observe such a
loftiness of style, as there is in Job, Psalms, Isaiah, and some
other of the prophets; so that there are arguments of another
nature to prove them to be of divine authority. However, we
may observe such expressions interspersed throughout almost
the whole scripture, which set forth the sovereignty and greatness
of God; as when he is represented speaking immediately
himself in a majestic way, tending not only to bespeak attention,
but to strike those that hear or read with a reverential
fear of his divine perfections; thus, when he gives a summons
to the whole creation to give ear to his words, Hear, O heavens;
and give ear, O earth, for the Lord hath spoken, Isa. i. 2.
or, swears by himself, that unto him every knee shall bow, and
every tongue shall swear, chap. xlv. 23. or when it is said,
Thus saith the Lord, the heaven is my throne, and the earth is
my footstool, chap. lxvi. 1. and elsewhere, The Lord reigneth,
let the earth rejoice; let the multitude of the isles be glad thereof.
Clouds and darkness are round about him; righteousness
and judgment are the habitation of his throne. A fire goeth before
him; his lightnings enlightened the world. The hills melted
like wax at the presence of the Lord; at the presence of the
Lord of the whole earth, Psal. xcvii. 1-5. And when he is
represented as casting contempt on all the great men of this
world, thus he is said to cut off the spirit of princes, and to be
terrible to the kings of the earth, Psal. lxxvi. 12. and to charge
even his angels with folly, Job iv. 18. or when the prophet
speaks of him, as one who had measured the waters in the hollow
of his hand, and meted the heavens with a span, and comprehended
// File: b074.png
.pn +1
the dust of the earth in a measure, and weighed the
mountains in scales, and the hills in a balance; and that the nations
of the earth are as a drop of the bucket, and are counted as
the small dust of the balance; yea, as nothing, less than nothing
and vanity, when compared with him, Isa. xl. 12, 15, 17.
It would be almost endless to refer to the many places of
scripture, in which God speaks in such a style, as is inimitable
by any creature; of this we have several instances in the book
of Job, especially in those chapters where he is represented as
answering Job out of the whirlwind, and speaking with such a
loftiness of style, as, it may be, the like cannot be found in any
human composure, Job, chap. xxxviii. to xli. where such expressions
are used, which argue the style to be divine, great
and magnificent; so that if it was not immediately from God,
it would be the most bold presumption for any creature to speak
in such a way: therefore this argument, taken from the majestic
style of scripture, is not without its proper weight; however,
it may serve to prepare us to receive those other arguments,
which, together with this, evince its divine original.
II. From the purity and holiness of its doctrines, and that
either, if we consider it absolutely, or compare it with all other
writings, whereby it will appear not only to have the preference
to them, but to be truly divine, and so is deservedly styled
the holy scripture, Rom. i. 2. and the words thereof pure
as silver tried in a furnace, purified seven times, Psal. xii. 6.
and to speak of right things, in which there is nothing froward
or perverse, Prov. viii. 6, 7, 8. Thus every one that duly
weighs the subject matter thereof, may behold therein the displays
of the glory of the holiness of God: here let us consider,
that the word of God appears to be divine from its purity and
holiness,
1. As considered absolutely, or in itself. For,
(1.) It lays open the vile and detestable nature of sin, to
render it abhorred by us. Thus the apostle says, Rom. vii. 7.
I had not known sin; that is, I had not so fully understood the
abominable nature thereof as I do, but by the law: for I had
not known lust, except the law had said, thou shalt not covet;
and hereupon he concludes, that the law is holy, and the commandment
holy, and just, and good.
(2.) It presents to our view the various instances of the divine
vengeance, and shews us how the wrath of God is revealed
against the unrighteousness of sinners to make them afraid
of rebelling against him. Thus it gives us an account how the
angels hereby fell from and lost their first habitation, and are
thrust down to hell, being reserved in chains under darkness,
unto the judgment of the great day, Jude 6. And also how
man hereby lost his primitive integrity and glory, and exposed
// File: b075.png
.pn +1
himself to the wrath and curse of God due to sin, and all the
miseries of this life consequent thereon; and how it has destroyed
flourishing nations, and rendered them desolate. Thus
it gives us an account how the Jews were first carried into
Babylon for their idolatry, and other abominations, and afterwards
cast off and made the sad monument of the divine wrath,
as at this day, for crucifying Christ, persecuting his followers,
and opposing the Gospel. It also gives an account of the distress
and terror of conscience, which wilful and presumptuous
sins have exposed particular persons to; such as Cain, Judas
and others; this is described in a very pathetic manner, when
it is said of the wicked man, who has his portion of the good
things of this life, that when he comes to die, Terrors take
hold of him as waters, a tempest stealeth him away in the night.
The east wind carrieth him away, and he departeth, and as a
storm hurleth him out of his place. For God shall cast upon him,
and not spare; he would fain flee out of his hand, Job xxvii. 20,
21, 22.
Moreover, the purity of the Scripture farther appears, in
that it warns sinners of that eternal ruin, which they expose
themselves to in the other world; Who shall be punished with
everlasting destruction from the presence of the Lord, and from
the glory of his power, 2 Thess. i. 9. All these things discover
the purity and holiness of the word of God.
(3.) It never gives the least indulgence or dispensation to
sin, nor in any of its doctrines, which are pure and holy,
doth it lead to licentiousness; it not only reproves sin in the
lives and outward conversations of men, but also discovers its
secret recesses in the heart, where its chief seat is; obviates
and guards against its first motions, tending thereby to regulate
the secret thoughts of men, and the principle of all their
actions, which it requires to be pure and holy. In this the
Scripture excels all other writings with respect to its holiness.
(4.) All the blessings and benefits which it holds forth, or
puts us in mind of, as the peculiar instances of divine favour
and love to man, are urged and insisted on as motives to holiness;
thus it is said, The goodness of God leadeth thee to repentance,
Rom. ii. 4. and when Moses had been putting the
Israelites in mind of God’s increasing them, as the stars of
heaven for multitude, Deut. x. 22. compared with chap. xi. 1.
he adds, therefore thou shalt love the Lord thy God, and keep
his charge and statutes, his judgments and commandments alway.
And when the loving kindness of God has been abused by
men, it severely reproves them for their vile ingratitude; as
when it is said, Deut. xxxii. 6. Do ye thus requite the Lord, oh
foolish people and unwise? Is not he thy Father that bought
thee? Hath not he made thee, and established thee?
// File: b076.png
.pn +1
(5.) All the examples proposed to our imitation therein, are
such as savour of, and lead to, holiness; and when it recommends
the actions or conversation of men, it is more especially
for that holiness which is discovered therein: and, on the
other hand, when it gives us the character of wicked men,
together with the dreadful consequences thereof, it is that we
may avoid and be deterred from committing the same sins that
will be their ruin in the end.
(6.) The rules laid down relating to civil affairs in the Old
Testament dispensation, and the behaviour of one man towards
another, have a vein of holiness running through them
all. Thus the government of the Jewish state, as described
in the books of Moses, and elsewhere, discovers it to be an
holy commonwealth; and they are often called an holy nation,
as governed by those laws which God gave them; so the government
of the church in the Gospel-dispensation, is a holy
government: visible holiness is a term of church-communion,
and apostacy and revolt from God excludes from it.
(7.) All the promises contained in Scripture, are, or will be
certainly fulfilled, and the blessings it gives us ground to expect,
conferred; and therefore it is a faithful word, and consequently
pure and holy.
2. If we compare the Scripture with other writings, which
are of a human composure, it plainly excels in holiness. For,
(1.) If we compare it with the writings of heathen moralists,
such as Plato, Seneca, and others, though they contain a
great many good directions for the ordering the conversations
of men agreeably to the dictates of nature and right reason, yet
most of them allow of, or plead for some sins, which the Scripture
mentions with abhorrence, such as revenging injuries, and
self-murder; several other instances of moral impurity, were
not only practised by those who laid down the best rules to inforce
moral virtue, but either countenanced, or, at least, not
sufficiently fenced against, by what is contained in their writings;
and even their strongest motives to virtue or the government
of the passions, or a generous contempt of the world,
are taken principally from the tendency which such a course of
life will have to free us from those things that tend to debase
and afflict the mind, and fill it with uneasiness, when we consider
ourselves as acting contrary to the dictates of nature,
which we have as intelligent creatures; whereas, on the other
hand, the Scripture leads us to the practice of Christian virtues
from better motives, and considers us not barely as men,
but Christians, under the highest obligations to the blessed
Jesus, and constrained hereunto by his condescending love expressed
in all that he has done and suffered for our redemption
and salvation; and it puts us upon desiring and hoping for communion
// File: b077.png
.pn +1
with God, through him, in the performance of those
evangelical duties, which the light of nature knows nothing of,
and so discovers a solid foundation for our hope of forgiveness
of sin, through his blood, together with peace of conscience
and joy resulting from it; it also directs us to look for that
life and immortality, which is brought to light through the
Gospel; in which respects, it far exceeds the writing of the
best heathen moralists, and so contains in it the visible marks
and characters of its divine original.
(2.) If we compare the scriptures with other writings among
Christians, which pretend not to inspiration, we shall find in
these writings a great number of impure and false doctrines,
derogatory to the glory of God, in many of the pretended expositions
of Scripture. If therefore men, who have the Scripture
in their hands, propagate unholy doctrines, they would do
so much more were there no Scripture to guide them: thus the
doctrine that grace is not necessary to what is spiritually good: the
merit of good works, human satisfactions, penances, indulgences,
and dispensations for sin, are all impure doctrines, which
are directly contrary to Scripture; and, as contraries illustrate
each other, so hereby the holiness and purity of Scripture,
which maintains the contrary doctrines, will appear to those
who impartially study it and understand the sense thereof.
(3.) If we compare the Scriptures with the imposture of
Mahomet, in the book called the Alcoran, which the Turks
make use of as a rule of faith, and prefer it to Scripture, and
reckon it truly divine, that contains a system not only of fabulous,
but corrupt and impure notions, accommodated to men’s
sensual inclinations. Thus it allows of polygamy, and many
impurities in this world, and promises to its votaries a sensual
paradise in the next, all which is contrary to Scripture; so
that composures merely human, whether they pretend to divine
inspiration or not, discover themselves not to be the word
of God, by their unholiness; as the Scripture manifests itself
to be divine, by the purity of its doctrine; and indeed, it cannot
be otherwise, considering the corruption of man’s nature,
as well as the darkness and blindness of his mind, which, if it
pretends to frame a rule of faith, it will be like himself, impure
and unholy; but that which has such marks of holiness,
as the Scripture has, appears to be inspired by a holy God.
Having considered the holiness of Scripture doctrines, we
proceed to shew the weight of this argument, or how far it
may be insisted on to prove its divine authority. It is to be
confessed, that a book’s containing holy things or rules for a
holy life, doth not of itself prove its divine original; for then
other books might be called the word of God besides the
Scripture, which is so called, not only as containing some
// File: b078.png
.pn +1
rules that promote holiness, but as being the fountain of all
true religion; and its being adapted above any book of human
composure, to answer this end, affords an argument of some
weight to prove it to be of God. For,
1. Man, who is prone to sin, naturally blinded and prejudiced
against divine truth and holiness, could never compose a
book that is so consonant to the divine perfections, and contains
such a display of God’s glory, and is so adapted to make
us holy.
2. If we suppose that man could invent a collection of doctrines,
that tended to promote holiness, could he invent doctrines
so glorious, and so much adapted to this end, as these
are? If he could, he that does this must either be a good or a
bad man: if we suppose the former, he would never pretend
the Scripture to be of divine authority, when it was his own
composure; and if the latter, it is contrary to his character, as
such, to endeavour to promote holiness; for then Satan’s kingdom
must be divided against itself: but of this, more in its
proper place, when we come to consider the character of the
penmen of Scripture, to give a further proof of its divine authority.
3. It is plain, that the world without Scripture could not arrive
to holiness; for the apostle says, 1 Cor. i. 21. That the
world by wisdom knew not God; and certainly where there is
no saving knowledge of God, there is no holiness; and the
same apostle, Rom. i. 29, 30, 31. gives an account of the great
abominations that were committed by the heathen; being destitute
of Scripture light, they were filled with all unrighteousness,
fornication, wickedness, covetousness, maliciousness, full
of envy, murder, debate, deceit, malignity, &c.
If therefore the doctrines contained in Scriptures are not
only pure and holy themselves, but tend to promote holiness in
us, this is not without its proper weight to prove their divine
original.
III. The scriptures farther manifest themselves to be the
word of God from the consent or harmony of all the parts
thereof.[22] This argument will appear more strong and conclusive,
// File: b079.png
.pn +1
if we compare them with other writings, in which there
is but little harmony. Thus, if we consult the writings of
// File: b080.png
.pn +1
most men uninspired, we shall find that their sentiments contained
therein often times very widely differ; and if, as historians,
// File: b081.png
.pn +1
they pretend to report matters of fact, their evidence,
or report, does not, in all respects, agree together, which shews
// File: b082.png
.pn +1
that they are fallible; but the exact and harmonious agreement
of scripture proves it divine. That other writings of human
// File: b083.png
.pn +1
composure agree not among themselves, is very evident; and
it is less to be wondered at if we consider,
// File: b084.png
.pn +1
(1.) That men are naturally blind and unacquainted with the
things of God; and therefore their writings will hardly be consistent
// File: b085.png
.pn +1
with themselves, much less with one another, as they
are oftentimes inconsistent with the standard of truth, by which
they are to be tried; nothing is more common than for men to
betray their weakness, and cast a blemish on their composures,
by contradicting themselves, especially if they are long, and consist
of various subjects.
(2.) Men are much more liable to contradict one another
when any scheme of doctrine is pretended to be laid down by
different persons; for when they attempt to represent matters of
fact, they often do it in a very different light: this may be more
especially observed in those accounts that are given of doctrines
that are new, or not well known by the world, or in historical
accounts, not only of general occurrences, but of particular circumstances
attending them, where trusting to their memory
and judgment, they often impose on themselves and others.
(3.) This disagreement of human writings will more evidently
appear, when their authors were men of no great natural wisdom,
especially if they lived in different ages, or places remote
from one another, and so could have no opportunity to consult
// File: b086.png
.pn +1
one another, or compare their writings together; we shall scarce
ever find a perfect harmony or agreement in such writings;
neither should we in scripture, were it not written by divine inspiration.
This will appear, if we consider that the penmen thereof
were in themselves as liable to mistake as other men; and had
they been left to themselves herein, they would have betrayed
as much weakness, confusion, and self-contradiction, as any
other writers have done; and it may be more, inasmuch as many
of them had not the advantage of a liberal education, nor
were conversant in human learning, but were taken from mean
employments, and made use of by God in this work, that so we
may herein see more of the divinity of the writings they were
employed to transmit to us: besides, they lived in different
ages and places, and so could not consult together what to impart,
and yet we find, as we shall endeavour to prove, that they
all agree together: therefore the harmony of their writings is
an evident proof that they were inspired by the same spirit, and
consequently that they are the word of God.
We might here consider the historical parts of scripture, and
the account which one inspired writer gives of matters of facts
as agreeing with what is related by another; and also the harmony
of all the doctrines contained therein, as not only agreeing
in the general scope and design thereof, but in the way and
manner in which they are laid down or explained: but we shall
more particularly consider the harmony of scripture, as what is
foretold in one part thereof, is related as accomplished in another.
And,
1. There are various predictions relating to the providential
dealings of God with his people, which had their accomplishment
in an age or two after. Thus the prophets Isaiah, Jeremiah,
and others, foretold the captivity and the number of years
they should be detained in Babylon, and their deliverance by
Cyrus, who is expressly mentioned by name. These prophecies,
and the accomplishment thereof are so obvious, that there is no
one who reads the Old Testament but will see an harmony between
them; so that what in one place is represented as foretold,
in another place, is spoken of as accomplished in its proper
time, Isa. xliv. 28. and Chap. xlv. 1, 4. compared with Ezra i.
2, 3.
And the revolt and apostacy of Israel, their turning aside
from God, to idolatry, which was the occasion of their desolation,
was foretold by Moses, Deut. xxxi. 29. and by Joshua,
Chap. xxiii. 15, 16. and Chap. xxiv. 19. And every one that
reads the book of Judges, will see that this was accomplished;
for when Moses and Joshua were dead, and that generation
// File: b087.png
.pn +1
who lived with them, they revolted to idolatry and were punished
for the same in various instances, Judg. ii. 8, 10, 11, 14.
And the prophecy of the great reformation which Josiah
should make, and in particular, that he should burn the bones of
the idolatrous priests on the altar at Bethel, 1 Kings xiii. 2. was
exactly accomplished above three hundred years after, 2 Kings
xxii. 15, 16.
2. There are various predictions under the Old Testament
relating to our Saviour, and the New Testament church, many
of which have had their accomplishment, and others are daily
accomplishing. It is said, Acts x. 43. To him gave all the prophets
witness, that through his name whosoever believeth in him,
shall receive remission of sins; and we shall find, that what is
foretold concerning him in the Old Testament, is related as accomplished
in the New; particularly,
(1.) That he should come in the flesh, was foretold in the
Old Testament, Hag. ii. 7. Mal. iii. 1. Isa. ix. 6. and is mentioned
as accomplished in the New, John i. 14. Gal. iv. 4.
(2.) That he should work miracles for the good of mankind,
and to confirm his mission, was foretold, Isa. xxxv. 5, 6. and accomplished,
Matth. xi. 4, 5.
(3.) That he should live in this world in a low and humbled
state, was foretold, Isa. lii. 14. and chap. liii. 3. and the whole
account of his life in the gospels bears witness that those predictions
were fully accomplished.
(4.) That he should be cut off, and die a violent death, was
typified by the brazen serpent in the wilderness, viz. that he
should be lifted up upon the cross, Numb. xxi. 9. compared
with John iii. 14. and foretold in several other scriptures, Isa.
liii. 7. and Dan. ix. 26. and this is largely insisted on, as fulfilled
in the New Testament.
(5.) That after he had continued some time in a state of humiliation,
he should be exalted, was foretold, Isa. lii. 13. chap.
liii. 11, 12. Psal. lxviii. 18. and fulfilled, Acts i. 9. Phil. ii. 9.
(6.) That his glory should be proclaimed and published in
the preaching of the gospel, was foretold, Isa. xi. 10. Psal. cx.
2. Isa. lx. 1, 2, 3. and fulfilled, 1 Tim. iii. 16. Mark xvi. 15.
as appears from many scriptures.
(7.) That he should be the spring and fountain of all blessedness
to his people, was foretold, Gen. xxii. 18. Psal. lxxii. 17.
Isa. xlix. 8, 9. and fulfilled, 2 Cor. vi. 2. Acts iii. 26. In these,
and many other instances, we may observe such a beautiful consent
of all the parts of scripture, as proves it to be the very word
of God.
But since it will not be sufficient, to support the divine authority
of scripture, to assert that there is such a harmony, as
we have observed, unless we can prove that it doth not contradict
// File: b088.png
.pn +1
itself in any instances; therefore the next thing we are to
consider, is the reproach cast upon it by those who would bring
all divine revelation into contempt, as though it contradicted itself
in several instances, and contained various absurdities;
which, were they able to make appear, would enervate the force
of the argument we are maintaining, to prove the scripture to
be the word of God from the consent of the parts thereof: therefore
we shall consider some of those contradictions, which many,
who pretend to criticise on the words of scripture, charge it
with, as so many objections against the harmonious consent,
and consequently the divine authority thereof, together with the
answers, which may be given to each of them.
Object. 1. If we compare our Saviour’s genealogy, as related
in the first of Matthew and the third of Luke, they allege that
there is a very great inconsistency between them, for one mentions
different persons, as his progenitors, from what the other
does; as, for instance, in Matth. i. he is said to be the son of
Joseph, and Joseph the son of Jacob, and he the son of Matthan;
but the other evangelist, viz. Luke, says that he was the son of
Joseph, which was the son of Heli, which was the son of Matthat:
and so we find the names of each genealogy very differing,
till we come to David; therefore they suppose both those
genealogies cannot be true, inasmuch as the one contradicts the
other.
Answ. It evidently appears, that there is no contradiction between
these two genealogies, since Matthew gives an account of
Joseph’s ancestors, and Luke of Mary’s, and so, both together,
prove that he was the son of David, by his reputed father’s, as
well as his mother’s side.
And if it be replied, that Luke, as well as Matthew, gives an
account of Joseph’s genealogy, and therefore this answer is not
sufficient: we may observe, that it is said, Luke iii, 23, 24. that
Jesus was, as it is supposed, the son of Joseph, which was the
son of Heli, &c. the meaning is, he was, indeed, the supposed
son of Joseph, but he really descended from Heli, the father of
the virgin Mary; and nothing is more common in scripture
than for grandsons to be called sons; and if we observe the
meaning of the Greek words, which we render, which was the
son, &c. it may better be rendered, who descended from Heli,
and then there is not the least absurdity in it, supposing Heli
to be his grandfather; and therefore there is no appearance of
contradiction between these two scriptures.
Object. 2. It is pretended, that there is a plain contradiction
between these two places, 2 Sam. xxiv. 24. and 1 Chron. xxi.
25. in the former whereof it is said, that David bought the
threshing-floor of Araunah the Jebusite, to build an altar on,
and the oxen for burnt-offerings, that the plague might be stayed,
// File: b089.png
.pn +1
for fifty shekels of silver; but in the other, viz. in Chronicles,
it is said, that he gave him for the place six hundred shekels
of gold; therefore they pretend that one of these places
must be wrong, inasmuch as they plainly contradict one another.
Answ. The answer that may be given to this objection, is,
that David paid Araunah (who is otherwise called Ornan) for
his threshing-floor, where he built an altar, and for the oxen,
which he bought for sacrifice, fifty shekels of silver, as it is expressed
in Samuel. But, beside this threshing-floor, he bought
the whole place, as it is said in Chronicles, i. e. the whole tract
of ground, or mountain, on which it stood, whereon he designed
that the temple should be built; and therefore he saith concerning
it, 1 Chron. xxii. 1. This is the house of the Lord God,
i. e. this place, or tract of land, which I have bought round about
the threshing-floor, is the place where the house of God
shall stand; and this is the altar of burnt-offering for Israel,
which was to be built in that particular place, where the threshing-floor
was: now, though he gave for the threshing-floor but
fifty shekels of silver, (which probably was as much as it was
worth) yet the whole place, containing ground enough for the
temple, with all its courts, and the places leading to it, was
worth a great deal more; or, if there were any houses in the
place, these were also purchased to be pulled down, to make
room for the building of the temple; and, for all this, he gave
six hundred shekels of gold, and we can hardly suppose it to
be worth less; so that there is no real contradiction between
these two places,
Object. 3. It is pretended, that there is a contradiction between
2 Sam. xxiv. 13. and 1 Chron. xxi. 12. in the former
of which Gad came to David, being sent to reprove him for his
numbering the people, and said, Shall seven years of famine
come unto thee in thy land? But, in Chronicles, he speaks of
but three years of famine.
Answ. To reconcile this seeming contradiction,
1. Some think, that in some ancient copies, it is not seven,
but three,[37] years of famine, in Samuel, as it is in Chronicles;
the reason of this conjecture is, because the LXX, or Greek
translation, have it so; and they think that these translators
would hardly have made so bold with scripture, as to put three
for seven, if they had not found it so in the copies that they
made use of, when they compiled this translation: but probably
this answer will not give satisfaction to the objectors; therefore,
2. The best way to account for this seeming contradiction,
is this: in Chronicles, Gad bids him chuse if he would have
three years of famine, viz. from that time; but in Samuel he
// File: b090.png
.pn +1
saith, shall seven years of famine come unto thee, that is, as
though he should say there hath been three years of famine already,
for Saul and his bloody house, because he slew the Gibeonites,
2 Sam. xxi. 1. Now, that famine ceased but the year before,
and the ground being so chaped and hard for want of rain
this year, which was the fourth, it was little better than a year
of famine. Now, said Gad, wilt thou have this famine continued
three years more (which, in all, makes up seven years) unto
thee in the land? And, if we take it in this sense, there is no
contradiction between these two scriptures, though one speaks
of three years, and the other of seven.
Object. 4. They pretend to find an inconsistency, or absurdity,
little better than a contradiction, by comparing 1 Sam.
xvi. 21, 22. and chap. xvii. 55. In the former it is said, David
came to Saul, and stood before him, and he loved him greatly;
and he sent to Jesse, with the intent that he might give him
leave to stand before him, inasmuch as he had found favour in
his sight. Now, say they, how can this be consistent with the
other scripture; where Saul seeing David going forth against
Goliath the Philistine, asked Abner, Whose son is this youth?
And Abner replied, He could not tell; and, in the next verse,
he is ordered to enquire who he was. Now how could this be,
when he had been his armour-bearer, stood before him, and
found favour in his sight; and he had sent to Jesse, to desire
that he might live with him?
Answ. I can see no appearance of absurdity, or defect of
harmony, between these two scriptures; for supposing Saul’s
memory had failed him, and he had forgot that David had
stood before him as a servant, shall the scripture, that gives an
account of this, be reflected on, as containing an inconsistency?
It is true, David had stood before Saul, as his armour-bearer;
yet he had, for some time, been sent home and dismissed from
his service, during which time he kept his father’s sheep; and
probably he lived not long in Saul’s family; therefore it is no
wonder if Saul had now forgot him. There is no master of a
family but may forget what servants have formerly lived with
him, and much more a king, who hardly knows the names of
the greatest part of the servants that are about him: besides,
at this time, David appeared in the habit of a shepherd, and
therefore Saul might well say, whose son is this youth? This
sufficiently accounts for the difficulty, and vindicates this scripture
from the charge of inconsistency; though some account for
it thus, by supposing that Saul knew David, (as having been
his armour-bearer) but did not know his father, and therefore
asks, whose son is this? or who is he that hath so bold and daring
a son, as this youth appears to be? If these things be considered,
there appears not the least absurdity in this scripture.
// File: b091.png
.pn +1
Object. 5. Another contradiction, which some charge the
scripture with, is, that when Israel, pursuant to the advice of
Balaam, committed idolatry, and went a-whoring after the
daughters of Moab, and God consumed them for it by the
plague, it is said, Numb. xxv. 9. Those that died in the plague
were twenty-four thousand; but the apostle Paul, referring to
the same thing, says, 1 Cor. x. 8. Neither let us commit fornication,
as some of them committed, and fell in one day three and
twenty thousand.
Answ. 1. The answer that may be given to this objection,
that the apostle Paul, when he says, three and twenty thousand
died, or fell, in one day, speaks of those who died by the immediate
hand of God, by the pestilential distemper that was sent
among them; but, besides these, there were many more that
died by the hand of public justice for this sin; for in that chapter
in Numbers, verse 4 and 5. we read of the heads of the people
being hanged up before the Lord, and the judges being ordered
to slay every man his men that were joined unto
Baal-peor. These died by the sword of justice, and it is no
great impropriety to say, that such died in a mediate way, by
the plague, or sword of God; the sword is one of his plagues,
as well as pestilential diseases, and is frequently so styled in
scripture: now we cannot suppose that fewer died of this latter
plague, if that be the import of the word, than a thousand; so
that Moses gives the number of all that died, whether by God’s
immediate hand, or by the sword of the magistrate, pursuant to
his command: but if it be reckoned too great a strain upon the
sense of the word plague, to admit of this solution, let it be farther
observed, that, in the 9th verse, where Moses gives the sum
total of those that died, it is not said that they were such who
died of the plague, but in the plague; that is, those that died in
or soon after the time that the plague raged among them, whose
death was occasioned by this sin, were four and twenty thousand;
so that these two places of scripture are so far from contradicting,
that they rather illustrate one another.
Object. 6. Another contradiction is pretended to be between
Gal. i. 8. where the apostle says, Though we, or an angel from
heaven, preach any other gospel unto you, than that which we
have preached unto you, let him be accursed; 2 Cor. xi. 4. If he
that cometh, preacheth another Jesus whom we have not preached,
or if ye receive another spirit, which ye have not received,
or another gospel, which ye have not accepted, ye might well
bear with him. In one place he speaks against those who preach
another gospel; in the other he says, they may be borne with;
which seems to be a contradiction.
Answ. For the reconciling and accounting for the sense of
these two scriptures, let us consider, that in the former of them
// File: b092.png
.pn +1
the apostle pronounces them that preached another gospel accursed,
and therefore, doubtless, they were not to be borne
with, or allowed of; therefore it must be enquired what he
means when he says, in the other scripture, that such may be
well borne with; now this scripture will, without the least strain
or force upon the words, admit of one of these two senses.
1. It may be considered as containing a sarcasm, by which
the apostle reproves their being too much inclined to adhere to
false teachers: if, says he, these bring you tidings of a better
Spirit, a better gospel, then bear with them; but this they cannot
do, therefore reject them; or,
2. The words may be rendered, instead of ye might well bear
with him, ye might well bear with me, as is observed in the
marginal reference; the word him being in an Italic character,
as will be elsewhere observed,[38] is not in the original, and
therefore me may as well be supplied as him, and so the meaning
is this; ye bear with false preachers, are very favourable to
them, and seem a little cold to us the apostles; so that I am
afraid, as is observed in the foregoing verse, lest your minds
should be corrupted from the simplicity that is in Christ; you
can bear with these false teachers, and will you not bear with
me? as he says, ver. 1. Would to God you could bear with me a
little in my folly, and indeed bear with me. It is a sign religion
is at a low ebb, when it is with some difficulty that professors
are persuaded to bear with those that preach the pure gospel of
Christ, who are too prone to turn aside to another gospel. Take
the words in either of these senses, and they exactly harmonize
with that text in Galatians, and not, as the objectors pretend,
contradict it.
Object. 7. Another charge of contradiction, which is brought
against scripture, is, that our Saviour saith, Matth, x. 34.
Think not that I am come to send peace on the earth; I came
not to send peace, but a sword: this is contrary to Christ’s general
character, as a prince of peace, Isa. ix. 6. and to the advice
he gives his disciples, not to use the sword, because such shall
perish by it, Mat. xxvi. 52. and what be saith else, My kingdom
is not of this world, John xviii. 36. and therefore not to be propagated
by might or power, by force or civil policy, or those
other carnal methods, by which the kingdoms of this world are
advanced and promoted.
Answ. For the reconciling this seeming contradiction, let it
be considered, that Christ did not come to put a sword into his
followers hands, or to put them upon making war with the powers
among whom they dwell, for the propagating the Christian
religion; his gospel was to be advanced by spiritual methods:
in this sense, the design of his coming was not to send a sword,
// File: b093.png
.pn +1
but to bring spiritual peace to his people; but when he saith, I
came to send a sword, it implies that his coming, his kingdom
and gospel, should occasion persecution and war, by reason of
the corruption of men; this the gospel may do, and yet not put
men upon disturbing their neighbours, or making war with
them; and this is not contrary to Christ’s general character of
coming to be the author of spiritual peace to his people.
Object. 8. Another contradiction is pretended to be between
1 Kings viii. 9. and Heb. ix. 4. in the former it is said, There
was nothing in the ark but the two tables, which Moses put
there; in the latter, that there was the golden pot, that had
manna, Aaron’s rod that budded, and the tables of the covenant.
Answ. This seeming contradiction may easily be reconciled:
for we suppose it true that there was nothing in the ark but
the two tables, as it is said in the former of these scriptures;
therefore to explain the latter agreeably to it, two senses may
be given of it.
1. It is not necessary to suppose, that the apostle means, in
the ark was the golden pot, &c. but in the holiest of all, which
he mentions in the foregoing verse; therefore the meaning is, as
in the holiest of all, there was the golden censer, and the ark of
the covenant, so in it was the golden pot and Aaron’s rod: but
because there may be an objection against this sense, from its
being said in the words immediately following, that over it were
the cherubims of glory shadowing the mercy-seat, where it refers
to the ark, and not to the tabernacle, or holiest of all; if
therefore the cherubims were over the ark, then the other things
must be supposed to be in it, which objection, indeed, is not
without its force, unless we suppose that the words[39] may be
rendered in the higher parts of it, to wit, of the holiest of all,
were the cherubims of glory above the mercy seat, and accordingly
the meaning is this; that within this second vail was not
only the ark, the golden pot of manna, Aaron’s rod, &c. but also
the cherubims of glory, which were above them all: but since
the grammatical construction, seems rather to favour the objection,
there is another sense given of the words, which sufficiently
reconciles the seeming contradiction, viz.
2. When it is said,[40] that therein, or in it, to wit, the ark, was
the golden pot that had manna, and Aaron’s rod that budded,
the meaning is, they were near it, or beside it, or some way or
other fastened, or adjoining to it, in some inclosure, in the outside
of the ark, whereas nothing was in it but the two tables;
so that there is no real contradiction between these two scriptures.
// File: b094.png
.pn +1
Many more instances of the like nature might have been
given, but, instead thereof, we shall rather chuse to lay down
some general rules for the reconciling seeming contradictions in
scripture, which may be applied by us in other cases, where we
meet with the like difficulties. As,
1. When two scriptures seem to contradict each other, we
sometimes find that this arises from the inadvertency of some
who have transcribed the copies of scripture, putting one word
for another; though it may be observed,
(1.) That this is not often found; for as great care has been
taken in transcribing the manuscripts of scripture, as in any
manuscripts whatever, if not greater.
(2.) If there have been mistakes in transcribing, it is only in
a few instances, where there is a likeness between two words, so
that one might easily be mistaken for the other; and this ought
not to prejudice any against the scripture, for it only argues,
that though the inspired penmen were infallible, the scribes
that took copies of scripture for common use were not so.
(3.) When there is any such mistake, it may generally be
rectified by some other copy, that has the word as it really
should be: it is so in our printed Bibles, in some editions of
them we find mistakes, as to some words, that may be rectified
by others, which are more correct; and if so, why may not this
be supposed to be in some written copies thereof, that were
used before printing, which is but a late invention, was known
in the world, from which all our printed copies are taken?
2. When the same action in scripture seems to be ascribed to
different persons, or the same thing said to be done in different
places, there is no contradiction, for the same person, or place,
is sometimes called by various names: thus Moses’s father-in-law,
who met him in the wilderness, and advised him in the
settling the government of the people, is called, in one place,
Jethro, Exod. xviii. 1. and in another Hobab, Numb. x. 29. So
the mountain, from which God gave the law to Israel, is sometimes
called mount Sinai, Exod. xix. 20. and at other times
Horeb, Deut. i. 6.
3. Chronological difficulties, or seeming contradictions, arising
from a differing number of years, in which the same thing
is said to be done, may be reconciled, by computing them
from the different epocha’s, or beginnings of computation: as it
is said, Exod. xii. 40. The sojourning of the children of Israel,
who dwelt in Egypt, was four hundred and thirty years; but,
when God foretels this sojourning, it is said, Gen. xv. 13. Thy
seed shall be strangers in a land that is not theirs, and shall serve
them, and they shall afflict them four hundred years: now the
four hundred and thirty years takes its beginning of computation
from Abraham’s being called to leave his country, and
// File: b095.png
.pn +1
sojourn in the land of promise, as in a strange land; this was
four hundred and thirty years before Israel went out of Egypt;
but the four hundred years mentioned in Genesis, during
which time his seed should sojourn, takes its beginning of computation
from his having the promised seed, or from the birth
of Isaac, which was twenty-five years after his leaving his
country; from that time to the children of Israel’s going out of
Egypt was four hundred and five years; and the five years
above four hundred are left out, as being an inconsiderable
number, which is very agreeable to our common way of computing
time, when a large even number is mentioned, to leave
out a small one of four or five years, more or less, as in the instance
here mentioned, especially when time is expressed by
centuries, as it is here; for it is said, in ver. 16. in the fourth
generation, that is, after the fourth century of years, they shall
come hither again.
4. When, by comparing the years of the reign of several of
the kings of Judah and Israel, mentioned in the books of Kings
and Chronicles, we find that some are said, in one of them, to
have reigned three or four years longer than the account of the
years of their reign, mentioned by the other, the seeming contradiction
may be reconciled, by considering him as beginning
to reign before his father’s death, as Solomon did before David
died; or from his being nominated as his father’s successor, and
owned as such by the people, which was sometimes done to
prevent disputes that might arise about the matter afterwards;
and sometimes, when a king was engaged in foreign wars, in
which he was obliged to be absent from his people, and the
event hereof was uncertain, he appointed his son to reign in his
absence, from which time he had the title of a king, though his
father was living: or when a king was superannuated, or unfit to
reign, as Uzziah was when smote with leprosy; or when he
was weary of the fatigue and burden of government, he would
settle his son, as his viceroy, in his life-time, on which account
the son is sometimes said to reign with his father: thus many
account for that difficulty, in 2 Chron. xxxvi. 9. where it is said,
Jehoiachin was eight years old when he began to reign; but in 2
Kings xxiv. 8. he is said to have been eighteen years old when
he began to reign: the meaning is, that when he was eight years
old, he was nominated as his father’s successor; but when he
was eighteen years old, he began to reign alone, his father being
then dead.
5. Scriptures that seem to contradict one another may not
treat of the same, but different subjects, as to the general design
thereof: thus, that seeming contradiction between the apostles
Paul and James is to be accounted for; the former says,
Gal. ii. 16. Knowing that a man is not justified by the works of
// File: b096.png
.pn +1
the law, but by the faith of Jesus Christ; but the other says,
Jam. ii. 24. That by works a man is justified, and not by faith
only. The apostle Paul speaks of a sinner’s justification, or
freedom from the condemning sentence of the law in the sight
of God, which gives him a right to eternal life, in which respect
he looks for it out of himself, and, by faith, depends alone
on Christ’s righteousness; in this sense, works do not justify:
whereas the apostle James, when he asserts, that a man is justified
by works, and not by faith only, intends that our profession
and sincerity therein is justified; that is evidenced, not by our
having just notions of things, or an historical faith, such as the
devils themselves have, but by those works of holiness, which
are the fruits of it; this is the only justification he treats of, and
therefore doth not in the least contradict the apostle Paul, who
treats of another kind of justification, in which works are excluded.
6. When two scriptures seem to contradict one another, they
may sometimes be reconciled, by considering the same thing
absolutely in one place, and comparatively in the other: thus,
in many scriptures, we are commanded to extend that love to
every one in their several relations, which is due; and yet our
Saviour says, Luke xiv. 26. If any man come to me, and hate not
his father and mother, and wife, and children, and brethren and
sisters, he cannot be my disciple: this is to be understood comparatively,
that is, our love to the creature ought to bear no proportion
to that which is due to God.
7. Scriptures that seem to contradict one another, often speak
of different persons, or persons of different characters: thus it
is said, Luke vi. 36. Be ye merciful, as your Father also is
merciful; or, Judge not, that ye be not judged, Matt. vii. 2.
This respects persons in a private capacity, and therefore doth
not contradict those other scriptures that are applied to magistrates
in the execution of public justice; to such it is said,
Deut. xix. 21. Thine eye shall not pity, but life shall go for
life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot.
8. Two contrary assertions may be both true in differing
respects; thus our Saviour says in one place, The poor ye have
always with you, but me ye have not always, Matt. xxvi. 11.
and in another, Lo, I am with you always, even to the end of
the world, chap. xxviii. 20. these are both true, one respecting
Christ’s bodily presence, as man, in which respect he is not
now with us; the other his spiritual and powerful influences,
whereby he is always present with his people as God.
9. We must take notice of different times or dispensations,
in which respect those laws or ordinances, which were to be
received and observed as a rule of faith and duty at one time,
may not be so at another; thus circumcision is recommended
// File: b097.png
.pn +1
as a duty, and a privilege to the Jews before Christ’s time, in
which respect the apostle reckons it among the advantages
which they formerly had above all other nations, Rom. iii. 1,
2. but when the gospel dispensation was erected, and the Jewish
œconomy abolished, it was so far from being an advantage,
that the observance of it was deemed no less than a subversion
of the gospel, as the apostle says, Gal. v. 2. If ye be circumcised,
Christ shall profit you nothing; and the same apostle
gives a very diminutive character of those institutes of the ceremonial
law, which he calls, in his time, weak and beggarly elements,
such as had a tendency to bring them again into bondage,
and blames them for observing the Jewish festivals, such as
days, months, times, and years; to wit, the new moons, feasts
of weeks, or of years, such as the seventh year, or the jubilees,
and tells them, on this occasion, I am afraid of you, lest I have
bestowed on you labour in vain, chap. iv. 9, 10, 11. so that what
was a duty and a privilege in one age of the church, and enjoined
with the greatest strictness, and severest punishments on
those that neglected it, is forbid, as a sin in another age thereof,
without the least shadow of contradiction between those
scriptures, which either enjoin or forbid it: thus, when our
Saviour first sent his twelve disciples to preach the gospel, he
commanded them, Not to go in the way of the Gentiles, Matt.
x. 5. to wit, so long as he was here upon earth, or till they had
finished their ministry among the Jews, to whom the word
was first to be preached; but afterwards, when the gospel was
to be spread throughout the world, he gave them a commission
to preach the gospel to all nations, chap. xxviii. 19. which accordingly
they did, as apprehending there was no contradiction between
the former prohibition and the present command.[41]
// File: b098.png
.pn +1
IV. The divine authority of scripture may be further proved
from the scope and design of the whole, which is to give
all glory to God.
// File: b099.png
.pn +1
It may be observed, concerning the scripture, that the advancing
the divine perfections, and debasing the creature, is
the great end designed by God in giving it; and we find that
whatever doctrine is laid down therein, this end is still pursued.
Now scripture-doctrines are designed to advance the glory of
God, either directly or by consequence.
// File: b100.png
.pn +1
1. As to the former of these, the scripture abounds with instances,
in which God is adored or set forth, as the object of
adoration, that is, as having all divine perfections, and as doing
every thing becoming himself as a God of glory: thus he
is described herein, as the Lord most high and terrible, a great
King over all the earth, Psal. xlvii. 2. and glorious in holiness,
fearful in praises, doing wonders, Exod. xv. 11. and as the
true God, the living God, and an everlasting King, Jer. x. 10.
and as the great and dreadful God, keeping the covenant and
mercy to them that love him, and to them that keep his commandments,
Dan. ix. 4. and it is also said, Thine, O Lord, is the
greatness, and the power, and the glory, and the victory, and
the majesty; for all that is in the heaven, and in the earth is
thine: thine is the kingdom, O Lord, and thou art exalted as
Head over all, 1 Chron. xxix. 11. These, and such-like adorable
perfections, are not only occasionally ascribed to God in
scripture, but every part thereof displays his glory in a manner
so illustrious, as gives ground to conclude, that the great design
of it is to raise in us becoming apprehensions of him, and to
put us upon adoring and worshipping him as God.
2. It may, by a just consequence, be said to give all the glory
to him, as it represents the emptiness, and even nothingness
of all creatures, when compared with him, and hereby
recommends him, as all in all: when it speaks of the best of
creatures, as veiling their faces before him, as acknowledging
themselves unworthy to behold his glory, and as deriving all
their happiness from him; and when it speaks of man as a
sinful guilty creature, expecting all from him, and depending
upon him for grace sufficient for him; and when it speaks of
God, as the author and finisher of faith, in whom alone there
is hope of obtaining mercy and forgiveness, grace here, and
glory hereafter, and lays down this as the sum of all religion;
we must certainly conclude that its design is to give all glory
to God.
Now let us consider the force of this argument, or how the
general scope and design of scripture, to give all glory to God,
proves its divine authority. Had it been the invention and contrivance
of men, or if the writers thereof had pretended they
had received it by inspiration from God, and it had not been
so, then the great design thereof would have been to advance
themselves; and they would certainly have laid down such a
scheme of religion therein, as is agreeable to the corrupt appetites
and inclinations of men, or would tend to indulge and
dispense with sin, and not such an one as sets forth the holiness
of God, and his infinite displeasure against it.
And as for salvation, the penmen of scripture, had they not
been inspired, would certainly have represented it as very easy
// File: b101.png
.pn +1
to be attained, and not as a work of such difficulty as it really
is; and they would also have propagated such a religion, as
supposes the creature not dependent on, or beholden to God
for this salvation, and then the scripture would have detracted
from his glory; but since, on the other hand, its general design
is to give him the glory due to his name, this is a convincing
evidence of its divine original.
From the general design of scripture, as being to give all
glory to God, we may infer,
(1.) That whenever we read the word of God, we ought to
have this great design in view, and so not consider it barely as
an historical narrative of things done, but should observe how
the glory of the divine perfections is set forth, that hereby we
may be induced to ascribe greatness to God, and admire him
for all the discoveries which he makes of himself therein.
(2.) The scriptures’ general design should be a rule to us in
the whole of our conversation, wherein we ought to give all
glory to God: whatever we receive or expect from him, or
whatever duty we engage in, let us act as those, that not only
take the scripture for our rule, but its general scope and design
for our example.
(3.) Whatsoever doctrines are pretended to be deduced from,
or to contain the sense of scripture, which, notwithstanding,
tend to depreciate the divine perfections, these are to be rejected,
as contrary to its general scope and design.
V. Another argument may be taken from the character of
the penmen of scripture; and here let them be supposed to be
either good men, or bad: if good men, then they could not
give themselves such a liberty to impose upon the world, and
pretend that they received that from God, which they did not;
and if they were bad men, they neither could nor would have
laid down such doctrines, as centre in, lead the soul to God,
and tend to promote self-denial, and advance his glory in all
things; since this is to suppose the worst of men to have the
best ends, which we can never do; for, as our Saviour says,
Matt. vii. 16. Do men gather grapes of thorns, or figs of thistles?
He is speaking of false prophets, who were to be known
by their fruits; wicked men will have bad designs, or are like
the corrupt tree, which bringeth forth evil fruit. But, on the
other hand, if persons deliver that which carries in it such internal
evidence of divine truth, and have such a noble design
in view, as the securing the honour of God, and promoting his
interest in the world, these must certainly be approved of by
him, and concluded to be good men; and if so, then they
would not impose a fallacy on the world, or say that the scripture
was given by divine inspiration, when they knew it to be
otherwise.
// File: b102.png
.pn +1
If the scriptures are not the word of God, then the penmen
thereof have miserably deceived, not a small number of credulous
people, but the whole Christian world, among whom we
must allow that many were judicious, and such as would not
easily suffer themselves to be imposed on; to which we may
add, that others to whom the gospel was preached, were exasperated
enemies to those that preached it, and particularly to
these inspired penmen of scripture, and greatly prejudiced
against their doctrine, and therefore would use all possible endeavours
to detect the fallacy, if there had been any; so that
it was morally impossible for them to deceive the world in this
instance, or make them believe that the scriptures were the
word of God, if there had not been the strongest evidence to
convince them of it, which they could not withstand or gainsay.
But, that we may enter a little further into the character of
the penmen of scripture, let it be observed,
1. That they could not be charged by their enemies with
immoral practices, or notorious crimes, which might weaken
the credit of the truths they delivered: they were, indeed,
compassed about with like infirmities with other men; for it is
not to be supposed, that, because they were inspired, therefore
they were perfectly free from sin; since that does not necessarily
follow from their having this privilege conferred upon
them; yet their enemies themselves could find no great blemishes
in their character, which might justly prejudice them
against their writings, or that might render them unfit to be
employed in this great work of transmitting the mind of God
to the world.
2. They appear to be men of great integrity, not declining
to discover and aggravate their own faults, as well as the sins
of others. Thus Moses, though a man of great meekness, as
to his general character, discovers his own failing, in repining,
and being uneasy, because of the untoward and turbulent spirit
of the people, over whom he was appointed a governor,
when he represents himself as complaining to God; Wherefore
hast thou afflicted thy servant? and wherefore have I not found
favour in thy sight, that thou layest the burden of all this people
upon me? Have I conceived all this people? Have I begotten
them, that thou shouldest say unto me, Carry them in thy bosom?
Whence should I have flesh to give unto all this people?
I am not able to bear this people alone, because it is too heavy for
me. And if thou deal thus with me, kill me, I pray thee, out of
hand, if I have found favour in thy sight; and let me not see
mine own wretchedness, Numb. xi. 11-15. This was certainly
a very great blemish in the character of this excellent man; but
he does not attempt to conceal it; nor does he omit to mention
his backwardness to comply with the call of God, to deliver
// File: b103.png
.pn +1
his brethren out of their bondage in Egypt, but tells us what
poor trifling excuses he made; as when he says, Exod. iv. 10,
13, 19. O Lord, I am not eloquent; and when God answers
him, by promising to supply this defect, he obstinately persists
in declining this service, and says, O my Lord, send, I pray
thee, by the hand of him whom thou wilt send; that is, by any
one but myself; so that he who expressed such courage and
resolution forty years before in defending the oppressed Israelites,
and supposed that his brethren would have understood that
God, by his hand, would deliver them, but they understood it
not, Acts vii. 24, 25. when God really called him to deliver
them, he obstinately refused to obey; and, indeed, whatever
excuses he might make, the main thing that lay at the bottom
was fear, and therefore, as a further inducement to it, God
tells him, The men were dead that sought his life. All this he
says concerning himself; and elsewhere he tells us, Deut.
xxxii. 51, 52. compared with Numb. xx. 10, 11, 12. and Deut.
iii. 25-27. that he did not sanctify the name of God in the
eyes of the people, but spake unadvisedly with his lips; and
that, for this, God would not let him go into the land of Canaan,
though he earnestly desired it.
And the prophet Jeremiah tells us, how he was ready to faint,
and, in a murmuring way, curses the day of his birth, Jer. xx.
7, 8, 14, 15, 16. and seems almost determined not to make mention
of God, nor speak any more in his name, because he had
been put in the stocks by Pashur, and was derided and mocked
by others, who were, indeed, below his notice.
And David discovered his own sin, though it was a very
scandalous one, in the matter of Uriah, Psal. li. the title, compared
with ver. 14. and prays, Deliver me from blood guiltiness;
which is a confession of his being guilty of murder.
The apostles also discover their infirmities. Thus Paul discovers
his furious temper, in persecuting the church, before his
conversion, and ranks himself amongst the chief of sinners,
1 Tim. i. 13, 15. And how willing is Matthew to let the world
know, that, before his conversion, he was a publican: thus he
characterises himself, Matt. x. 3. and says, chap. ix. 9. that
when Christ called him, he sat at the receipt of custom, though
the publicans were reckoned among the vilest of men for extortion,
and other crimes, and were universally hated by the Jews.
Moreover as the penmen of scripture expose their own
crimes, so they do those of their nearest and dearest friends
and relatives, which carnal policy would have inclined them to
conceal. Thus Moses tells us how Aaron his brother made the
golden calf, and so was the encourager and promoter of the
people’s idolatry; that it was he that bid them break off the
golden ear-rings, which he received at their hand, whereof he
// File: b104.png
.pn +1
made a molten calf, and then built an altar before it, Exod.
xxxii. 2-5. Though the Jewish historian[42] was so politic, as
to conceal this thing, for the honour of his own nation; and
therefore when he tells us, that Moses went up into the mount to
receive the law, he says nothing of the scandalous crime, which
the people were guilty of at the foot of the mountain at the
same time.
Moreover, as they do not conceal their sins, so they sometimes
declare the meanness of their extraction, which shewed that
they did not design to have honour from men. Thus Amos
tells us, Amos i. 1. He was among the herdmen of Tekoa: and
that he was not bred up in the schools of the prophets, which he
intends, when he styles himself, no prophet, neither a prophet’s
son, chap. vii. 14.
And the evangelists occasionally tell the world how they
were fisher-men, when called to be Christ’s disciples, and
so not bred up in the schools of learning among the Jews.[43]
// File: b105.png
.pn +1
3. They were very far from being crafty or designing men;
neither did they appear to be men that were able to manage an
imposture of this nature, or frame a new scheme of religion,
and, at the same time, make the world believe that it was from
God. For,
(1.) None that read the scriptures can find any appearance
of design in the penmen thereof, to advance themselves or families.
Moses, indeed, had the burden of government, but he did
not affect the pomp and splendor of a king; neither did he
make any provision for his family, so as to advance them to
great honours in the world, which it was in his power to have
done: the laws he gave, rendered those of his own tribe, to
wit, that of Levi, incapable of, and not designed for kingly government;
and the highest honour of the priesthood, which
was fixed in that tribe, was conferred on his brother’s children,
not his own.
(2.) The prophets were very few of them great men in the
world, not advanced to great places in the government; the
esteem and reputation they had among the people at any time,
was only for their integrity, and the honour conferred on them
by God; and the apostles were plain men, who drove on no
design to gain riches and honours from those to whom they
preached the gospel; but, on the other hand, they expected nothing
but poverty, reproach, imprisonment, and, at last, to die a
violent death: therefore, how can it be supposed that they were
subtle designing men, who had some worldly advantage in
view? It is plain that they had no design but to do what God
commanded, and to communicate what they had received from
him, and shunned not to declare the whole counsel of God,
whatever it cost them. The apostle Paul was so far from endeavouring
to enrich himself by preaching the gospel, that he
tells the church, I seek not your’s, but you, 2 Cor. xii. 14. and
how he was fortified against the afflictions, which he foresaw
would attend his ministry, when he says, Philip, iv. 11, 12. I
have learned in whatsoever state I am, therewith to be content. I
know how to be abased, and I know how to abound, to be full, and
to be hungry, to abound and to suffer want: and he was not only
content to bear afflictions, but, when called to it, he professes
// File: b106.png
.pn +1
himself to take pleasure in reproach, in necessities, in persecutions,
in distresses, for Christ’s sake, 2 Cor. xii. 10.
Hitherto we have proved, that the penmen of scripture were
men of such a character, that they would not designedly impose
on mankind. But some will say, might they not be imposed on
themselves, and think they were divinely inspired, when they
were not?
To this it may be answered, that if they were deceived or
imposed on themselves, when they thought they received the
scripture by divine inspiration, this must proceed from one of
these two causes: either,
1. They took what was the result of a heated fancy, a strong
imagination, or raised affections for inspiration, as some of our
modern enthusiasts have done, who have prefaced their warnings,
as they call them, with, Thus saith the Lord, &c. when
the Lord did not speak by them. And the deists have the same
notion of the prophets and inspired penmen of scripture, and
esteem their writings no farther than as they contain the law
of nature, or those doctrines that are self-evident, or might
have been invented by the reason of man; and as such they receive
them, without any regard to divine inspiration. Or,
2. If the inspired penmen of scripture were otherwise imposed
on, it must be by a diabolic inspiration, of which, in other
cases, the world has had various instances, when Satan is said
(to use the apostle’s words) to transform himself into an angel
of light, 2 Cor. xi. 14. or has been suffered to deceive his followers,
not only by putting forth signs and lying wonders, but
impressing their minds with strong delusions, whereby they
have believed a lie, 2 Thess. ii. 9, 11. as supposing it to proceed
from divine inspiration; and, to give countenance thereto, has
produced such violent agitations, tremblings, or distortions in
their bodies, as have seemed preternatural, not much unlike
those with which the heathen oracles were delivered of old,
which were called by some, a divine fury; but this cannot,
with any shadow of reason, be applied to the inspired writers,
therefore they were not imposed on.
1. They did not mistake their own fancies for divine revelation.
To suppose that they did so, is not only to conclude that all
revealed religion is a delusion; but that the church in all ages,
and amongst them the wisest and best of men, have been enthusiasts,
and all their hope, founded on this revelation, has
been no better than a vain dream. But it is one thing to assert,
and another thing to prove; and because they who take this liberty
to reproach the scriptures, pretend not to support their
charge by argument, it might seem less necessary to make a reply:
however, that our faith may be established, we shall briefly
consider this objection. Therefore,
// File: b107.png
.pn +1
(1.) This charge is either brought against all that ever spake
or wrote by divine inspiration, or only against some of them;
if only some of them have been thus deluded, we might demand
particular instances of any of the inspired writers, who
are liable to this charge, together with the reasons thereof. If
it be said that some of them were men of less wisdom, or had
not those advantages to improve their natural abilities, as others
have had; this will not be sufficient to support their cause, since
God can make use of what instruments he pleases, and endow
them with wisdom in an extraordinary way, to qualify them for
the service he calls them to, whereby the glory of his sovereignty
more appears. If he pleases to chuse the foolish things of the
world, to confound the wise, that no flesh shall glory in his presence,
1 Cor. i. 27, 29. shall he for this be called to an account
by vain man? And it is certain, that some who have had this
gift, have, as the consequence thereof, been endowed with such
wisdom, as has tended to confound their most malicious enemies.
But we will suppose that they, who bring this charge against
the inspired writers, will not pretend to single out any
among them, but accuse them all in general of enthusiasm;
and if this charge be grounded on the vain pretensions of some
to inspiration in this age, in which we have no ground to expect
this divine gift, will it follow, that, because some are deluded,
therefore divine revelation, supported by incontestable evidence,
was a delusion? Or if it be said, that some of old,
whom we conclude to have been inspired, were called enthusiasts,
as Jehu, and his fellow-soldiers concluded the prophet to
be, who was sent to anoint him king, 2 Kings ix. 11. nothing
can be inferred from thence, but that there were, in all ages,
some Deists, who have treated things sacred with reproach and
ridicule.
(2.) But if this charge be pretended to be supported by any
thing that has the least appearance of an argument, it will be
alleged, in defence thereof, that it is impossible for a person
certainly to know himself to be inspired at any time; if that
could be proved indeed, it would be something to the purpose:
and inasmuch as we are obliged to assert the contrary, it will
be demanded, how it might be known that a person was under
inspiration, or what are the certain marks by which we may
conclude that the inspired writers were not mistaken in this
matter? I confess, it is somewhat difficult to determine this
question, especially since inspiration has so long ceased in the
world; but we shall endeavour to answer it, by laying down
the following propositions.
1. If some powerful and impressive influences of the Spirit
of God on the souls of men, in the more common and ordinary
methods of divine providence and grace, have been not only
// File: b108.png
.pn +1
experienced, but their truth and reality discerned by them, who
have been favoured therewith, so that without pretending to inspiration,
they had sufficient reason to conclude that they were
divine; certainly when God was pleased to converse with men
in such a way, as that which we call inspiration, it was not impossible
for them to conclude that they were inspired; which
is an argument taken from the less to the greater.
2. There were some particular instances, in which it seemed
absolutely necessary, that they who received intimations from
God in such a way, should have infallible evidence that they
were not mistaken, especially when some great duty was to be
performed by them, pursuant to a divine command, in which it
would be a dangerous thing for them to be deceived; as in the
case of Abraham’s offering up his son; and Jacob’s going with
his family into Egypt, which was a forsaking the promised land,
an exposing them to the loss of their religion, through the influence
or example of those with whom they went to sojourn;
and it might be uncertain whether they should ever return or
no; therefore he needed a divine warrant, enquired of God
with respect to this matter, and doubtless had some way to be
infallibly assured concerning the divine will relating hereunto,
Gen. xlvi. 2, 3, 4. Moreover, our Saviour’s disciples, leaving
their families, going into the most remote parts of the world to
propagate the gospel, which they had received in this way,
evinces the necessity of their knowing themselves to be under
a divine inspiration: and if they had been deceived in this matter,
would they not have been reproved for it by him, whose
intimations they are supposed to have followed in the simplicity
of their hearts?
3. As to the way by which God might convince them, beyond
all manner of doubt, that he spake to them who were under divine
inspiration, there are various ways, that might have been
taken, and probably were. As,
(1.) Sometimes extraordinary impressions were made on the
soul of the prophet, arising from the immediate access of God
to it: of this we have frequent instances in scripture; as in
that particular vision which Daniel saw, which occasioned his
comeliness to be turned into corruption, and his having no
strength, Dan. x. 8. and the vision of our Saviour, which John
saw, the effect whereof was his falling at his feet as dead, Rev.
i. 17. and many other instances of the like nature might be referred
to, which were, at least, antecedent to inspiration, and the
result of the access of God to the soul, which occasioned such a
change in nature, as could not but be discerned after the person
had a little recovered himself. But if it be said, that such
an effect as this might be produced by an infernal spirit, the answer
I would give to that is, that supposing this possible, yet
// File: b109.png
.pn +1
it must be proved that God would suffer it, especially in such an
instance, in which his own cause was so much concerned; and
besides, it is not improbable that the soul of the prophet was
sometimes brought into such a frame of spirit, as resembled the
heavenly state, as much as it is possible for any one to attain to
in this world; such an intercourse as this made Jacob say,
This is no other but the house of God, and this the gate of heaven.
Gen. xxviii. 17.
(2.) As this converse with God contained in it something
supernatural and very extraordinary in the effects thereof, so it
is not improbable that God might work miracles, of various
kinds, to confirm the prophet’s belief as to this matter, though
they are not particularly recorded in all the instances in which
we read of inspiration; and this would be as full an evidence
as could be desired.
If it be objected, that it is not probable that miracles were always
wrought to give this conviction: I would not be too peremptory
in pretending to determine this matter, it is sufficient
to say they were sometimes wrought; but, however, there were,
doubtless, some other concurring circumstances, which put the
thing out of all dispute; for not to suppose this, is to reflect on
the wisdom and goodness of God, as well as to depreciate one
of the greatest honours which he has been pleased to confer upon
men. Thus we have considered the unreasonableness of the
charge brought against the inspired penmen of scripture, as
though they were imposed on, by mistaking their enthusiastic
fancies for divine revelation. We proceed to consider,
2. That they were not imposed upon by the devil, as mistaking
some impressions made by him on their minds, for divine
revelation: this is evident; for
1. Divine inspiration was not only occasional, or conferred in
some particular instances, with a design to amuse the world, or
confirm some doctrines which were altogether new, impure, and
subversive of the divine glory in some ages thereof, when men
were universally degenerate, and had cast off God and religion;
but it was continued in the church for many ages, when they
evidently appeared to be the peculiar objects of the divine regard;
and therefore,
2. God would never have suffered the devil, in such circumstances
of time and things, to have deluded the world, and that
in such a degree, as that he should be the author of that rule of
faith, which he designed to make use of to propagate his interest
therein; so that his people should be beholden to their grand enemy
for those doctrines which were transmitted by inspiration.
3. Satan would have acted against his own interest, should
he have inspired men to propagate a religion, which has a direct
tendency to overthrow his own kingdom; in which instance,
// File: b110.png
.pn +1
as our Saviour observes, His kingdom would be divided against
itself, Matth. xii. 25, 26. As it is contrary to the wisdom and
holiness of God to suffer it, so Satan could never have done it
out of choice, and he has too much subtilty to do it through mistake;
therefore the inspired writers could not be imposed on by
any infernal spirit.
And to this we may add, that this could not be done by a good
angel; for if such a one had pretended herein to have imitated,
or as it were, usurped the throne of God, he would not have deserved
the character of a good angel; therefore it follows, that
they could not have been inspired by any but God himself.
Having considered that the penmen of scripture have faithfully
transmitted to us what they received by divine inspiration,
we must now take notice of some things which are alleged by
those who endeavour not only to depreciate, but overthrow the
divine authority of the sacred writings, when they allege that
they were only inspired, as to the substance or general idea of
what they committed to writing, and were left to express the
things contained therein in their own words, which, as they suppose,
hath occasioned some contradictions, which they pretend
to be found therein, arising from the treachery of their memories,
or the unfitness of their style, to express what had been
communicated to them. This they found on the difference of
style observed in the various books thereof; as some are written
in an elegant and lofty style, others clouded with mystical
and dark expressions; some are more plain, others are laid
down in an argumentative way; all which differing ways of
speaking they suppose agreeable to the character of the inspired
writers thereof: so that, though the matter contains in it
something divine, the words and phrases, in which it is delivered
can hardly be reckoned so.
And as for some books of scripture, especially those that are
historical, they suppose that these might be written without inspiration,
and that some of them were taken from the histories
which were then in being, or some occurrences which were observed
in the days in which the writers lived, and were generally
known and believed in those times, to which they more
immediately relate.
And as for those books of scripture, which are more especially
doctrinal, they suppose that there are many mistakes in
them, but that these respect only doctrines of less importance;
whereas the providence of God has prevented them from making
any gross or notorious blunders, subversive of natural religion;
so that the scripture may be deemed sufficient to answer
the general design thereof, in propagating religion in the world,
though we are not obliged to conclude that it is altogether free
// File: b111.png
.pn +1
from those imperfections that will necessarily attend such a
kind of inspiration.
Answ. If this account of scripture be true, it would hardly
deserve to be called the word of God; therefore, that we may
vindicate it from this aspersion, let it be considered,
1. As to the different styles observed in the various books
thereof, it does not follow from hence, that the penmen were
left to deliver what they received, in their own words; for certainly
it was no difficult matter for the Spirit of God to furnish
the writers thereof with words, as well as matter, and to inspire
them to write in a style agreeable to what they used in other
cases, whereby they might better understand and communicate
the sense thereof to those to whom it was first given; as if a
person should send a message by a child, it is an easy matter
to put such words into his mouth as are agreeable to his common
way of speaking, without leaving the matter to him to express
it in his own words: thus the inspired writers might be
furnished with words by the Holy Ghost, adapted to that style
which they commonly used, without supposing they were left to
themselves to clothe the general ideas with their own words.[44]
2. As to what is said concerning the historical parts of scripture,
that it is not necessary for them to have been transmitted
to us by divine inspiration, it may be replied, that these, as well
as other parts thereof, were written for our learning, Rom. xv.
4. so that what is excellent in the character of persons, is designed
for our imitation; their blemishes and defects, to humble
us under a sense of the universal corruption of human nature;
and the evil consequences thereof, to awaken our fears,
and dehort us from exposing ourselves to the same judgments
which were inflicted as the punishment of sin: and the account
we have of the providential dealing of God with his church, in
the various ages thereof, is of use to put us upon admiring and
adoring the divine perfections, as much as the doctrinal parts of
scripture; and therefore it is necessary that we have the greatest
certainty that the inspired writers have given us a true narration
of things, and consequently that the words, as well as the
matter, are truly divine.
3. When, that they may a little palliate the matter, they allow
that the inspired writers, though left to the weakness of
their memory, and the impropriety of their style, were, notwithstanding,
preserved, by the interposure of divine providence,
from committing mistakes in matters of the highest importance;
it may be replied, That it will be very difficult for them to assign
what doctrines are of greater, and what of less importance,
in all the instances thereof, or wherein providence has interposed,
to prevent their running into mistakes, and when it has
// File: b112.png
.pn +1
not; so that we are still in an uncertainty what doctrines are delivered
to us, as they were received by inspiration, and what
are misrepresented by the penmen of scripture; and we shall be
ready to conclude, that in every section or paragraph thereof,
some things may be true, and others false; some doctrines divine
and others human, while we are left without any certain
rule to distinguish one from the other, and accordingly we cannot
be sure that any part of it is the word of God; so that such
a revelation as this would be of no real service to the church,
and our faith would be founded in the wisdom, or rather weakness
of men, and our religion, depending on it, could not be
truly divine; so that this method of reasoning is, to use the
word inspiration, but to destroy all the valuable ends thereof.
VI. Another argument, to prove the scriptures to be the
word of God, may be taken from their antiquity and wonderful
preservation for so many ages; this appears more remarkable,
if we consider,
1. That many other writings, of much later date, have been
lost, and nothing more is known of them, but that there were
once such books in the world; and books might more easily be
lost, when there were no other but written copies of them, and
these procured with much expense and difficulty, and consequently
their number proportionably small.
2. That the scripture should be preserved, notwithstanding
all the malice of its avowed enemies, as prompted hereunto by
Satan, whose kingdom is overthrown by it. Had it been in his
power, he would certainly have utterly abolished and destroyed
it; but yet it has been preserved unto this day, which discovers
a wonderful hand of providence; and would God so remarkably
have taken care of a book, that pretends to advance itself by
bearing the character of a divinely inspired writing, if it had
not been really so? Which leads us to the next argument, containing
an advice, which is more convincing than any other; or,
at least, if this be added to those arguments which have been
already given, I hope it will more abundantly appear that the
scriptures are the word of God; since,
VII. The divine authority thereof is attested by God himself;
and if, in other cases, we receive the witness of men, surely,
as the apostle observes, the witness of God is greater, 1 John v. 9.
Now the testimony of God to the authority of scripture is
twofold; First, Extraordinary; Secondly, Ordinary; the extraordinary
testimony of God is that of miracles; the ordinary is
taken from the use which he makes of it, in convincing and converting
sinners, and building up in holiness and comfort,
through faith, unto salvation.
1. As to the former of these, God has attested the truth
hereof by miracles. A miracle is an extraordinary divine
// File: b113.png
.pn +1
work, whereby something is produced, contrary to the common
course and laws of nature: thus the magicians confessed, that
one of the miracles which Moses wrought was the finger of
God, Exod. viii. 19. Of these there are many undeniable instances
recorded in scripture, both in the Old and New Testament;
and these being above the power of a creature, and works
peculiar to God, they contain a divine testimony to the truth
that is confirmed thereby, for the confirmation whereof an appeal
was made to them. Now when we say that the divine
authority of scripture was confirmed by miracles, we mean,
(1.) That God has wrought miracles to testify his approbation
of most of the prophets and apostles, who were the inspired
writers thereof, whereby their mission was declared to be divine;
and we cannot think that God, who knows the hearts and
secret designs of men, would employ or send any to perform so
great and important a work, if he knew them to be disposed to
deceive and impose on the world; or that they would in any
instance, call that his word which they did not receive from
him. The reason why men sometimes employ unfaithful servants
about their work is, because they do not know them;
they never do it out of choice; and therefore we cannot suppose
that God, who perfectly knows the hearts of men, would
do so; therefore, having not only employed the penmen of
scripture as his servants, but confirmed their mission, and testified
his approbation of them, by miracles, this is a ground of
conviction to us that they would not have pretended the scriptures
to be the word of God, if they were not so.
Now that miracles have been wrought for this end, I think,
needs no proof; for we are assured hereof, not barely by the report
of those prophets, whose mission is supposed to have been
confirmed thereby, but it was universally known and received
in the church, in those times, in which they were wrought, and
it is not pretended to be denied, by its most inveterate enemies;
the truth hereof, viz. that Moses, and several other of the prophets,
and our Saviour, and his apostles, wrought miracles, can
hardly be reckoned a matter in controversy; for it is a kind of
scepticism to deny it: and it is certain, that herein they appealed
to God for the confirmation of their mission; as Elijah is
said explicitly to have done, when he prays to this effect; Lord
God of Abraham, Isaac, and of Israel, let it be known this day
that thou art God in Israel, and that I am thy servant; and that
I have done all these things at thy word, 1 Kings xviii. 36. and
we read, that God answered him accordingly, By the fire from
heaven consuming the burnt-sacrifice, &c. ver. 38.
(2.) Such appeals to God, and answers from him, have attained
their end, by giving conviction to those who were more
immediately concerned; this is evident from what is said; in
// File: b114.png
.pn +1
that the same prophet, having had his request granted him,
when God wrought a miracle, in raising the dead child to life,
the woman of Zarephath confessed, that by this she knew that
he was a man of God, and that the word of the Lord, in his mouth,
was truth, 1 Kings xvii. 21-24. And it is not denied by the
Jews, the most irreconcileable enemies to Christianity, that
what is related in the New Testament, concerning our Saviour’s,
and his apostles, working miracles, was true in fact; but the
only thing denied by them is, that this was a divine testimony,
or that they were wrought by the hand of God; and therefore
the common reproach which is cast on them is, that they were
wrought by magic art, as the Jews of old objected to our Saviour,
that he cast out devils by Beelzebub, the prince of the devils,
Matth. xii. 24. and his reply to them was unanswerable,
when he said, that this objection would argue Satan divided
against himself; intimating, that he would never take such a
method as this to overthrow the Christian religion, which he
could not but know was more conducive to the establishment of
it, than any other that could be used.
Object. 1. But if it be objected, that though miracles were
wrought to confirm the mission of several of the prophets, yet
none were wrought to confirm the divine authority of the subject
matter of the scriptures:
Answ. To this it may be easily answered; that it is sufficient,
if we can prove that God has given his testimony, that he made
choice of those prophets to declare his mind and will to the
world; and that he has accordingly deemed them fit to be credited,
and that they were not men liable to any suspicion of
carrying on a design to deceive the world; so that if God himself
not only styles them holy men, as he does all the inspired
writers in general, when he says, 2 Pet. i. 21. Holy men of God
spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost, but also wrought
miracles to prove that they were his servants and messengers,
employed in this work; this is as convincing a testimony, as
though every part of scripture wrote by them had been confirmed
by a miracle. Besides, it is not unreasonable to suppose,
that the church lived in those ages, in which the various
parts of scripture were written, had some extraordinary proofs
of their divine authority; since, in many of them, miracles were
very common, and, at the same time that the penmen of scripture
had the gift of inspiration, others had, what the apostle
calls, a discerning of spirits, 1 Cor. xii. 10. so that they were
enabled, by this means, to know whether the prophet, that pretended
to inspiration, was really inspired: this, to me seems
very probably, the sense of the apostle, when he says, 1 Cor.
xiv. 32. The spirits of the prophets are subject to the prophets,
for he is discoursing before of prophets speaking by divine revelation,
// File: b115.png
.pn +1
and others judging thereof: now if there was this extraordinary
gift of discerning of spirits in the ages, in which
particular books of scripture were written, they who were favoured
herewith, had a convincing testimony of the inspiration
of the prophets and apostles, from the same Spirit by whom
they were inspired, by which means the divine authority of
scripture was infallibly known to them, and so imparted to
others for their farther confirmation as to this matter.
Object. 2. We are not now to expect miracles to confirm our
faith, as to the divine original of scripture; therefore how can
we be said to have a divine testimony.
Answ. As miracles are now ceased, so such a method of confirming
divine revelation is not necessary in all succeeding
ages: God did not design to make that dispensation too common,
nor to continue the evidence it affords, when there was
no necessity thereof. Thus when the scribes and Pharisees
came to our Saviour, desiring to see a sign from him, Matt,
xii. 38. he would not comply with their unreasonable demand;
and the apostle Paul takes notice of humour prevailing among
the Jews in his time, who then required a sign, 1 Cor, i, 22.
but, instead of complying with them herein, he refers them to
the success of the gospel, which is the power of God to salvation,
as the only testimony to the truth thereof that was then
needful; and our Saviour, in the parable, intimates, that the
truth of divine revelation has been so well attested, that they
who believe not Moses and the prophets, would not be persuaded,
though one rose from the dead, Luke xvi, 31. Therefore, since
we have such a convincing evidence hereof, it is an unreasonable
degree of obstinacy to refuse to believe the divine authority
of scripture, merely because miracles are not now wrought;
since, to demand a farther proof of it, is no other than a tempting
God, or disowning that what he has done is sufficient for
our conviction; and to say, that for want of this evidence, our
faith is not founded on a divine testimony, is nothing to the purpose,
unless it could be proved that it is not founded on such a
testimony formerly given, the contrary to which is undeniably
evident, since we have this truth confirmed by the confession of
the church in all the ages thereof, and therefore we have as
much ground to believe this matter, as though miracles were
wrought every day for its confirmation. This will farther appear,
if we consider the abundant ground we have to conclude
that God has formerly given such a testimony to his word;
which leads us to enquire how far the testimony of the church,
in all the ages thereof, is to be regarded.
The church has given its suffrage, throughout all the ages
thereof, to the divine original of scripture, how much soever it
has perverted the sense of it. That this argument may be set
// File: b116.png
.pn +1
in a true light, let us consider what the Papists say to this matter,
when they appeal to the church, to establish the divine
authority of scripture; and wherein we differ from them; and
how far its testimony is to be regarded, as a means for our farther
conviction. We are far from asserting, with them, that
the church’s testimony alone is to be regarded, without the internal
evidence of the divine authority of scripture, as though
that were the principal, if not the only foundation on which our
faith is built. If, indeed, they could prove the infallibility of
the church, we should more readily conclude the infallibility of
its testimony; but all their attempts of this nature are vain and
trifling.
Moreover, we do not mean altogether the same thing by the
church as they do, when they intend by it a council convened
together, to decree and establish matters of faith, by him whom
they pretend to be the visible head thereof; and so a majority of
votes of a body of men, every one of whom are liable to error,
must determine, and, according to them, give a divine sanction
to our faith. Nor do we think that those, whom they call the
fathers of the church, are to be any farther regarded, than as
they prove what they assert, since there is scarce any error or
absurdity, but what some or other of them have given into. We
also distinguish between the churches testimony, that the scripture
was given by divine inspiration, and the sense they give of
many of its doctrines; as to the latter of these, it has given us
ground enough to conclude, that its judgment is not much to be
depended upon; however, we find that, in all ages, it has given
sufficient testimony to this truth, that the scriptures are the
word of God, and that they have been proved to be so, by the
seal which God has set thereunto, to wit, by the miracles that
have been wrought to confirm it. If therefore God has had a
church in the world, or a remnant whom he has preserved faithful;
and if their faith, and all their religion, and hope of salvation,
has been founded, without the least exception, on this truth,
that the scriptures are the word of God, we cannot altogether
set aside this argument. But there is yet another, which we
lay more stress on, namely, the use which God has made of it,
which is the second thing to be considered, viz.
2. His ordinary method of attesting this truth; it appears
therefore, as is farther observed in this answer, that the scriptures
are the word of God, from their light and power to convince
and convert sinners, and to comfort and build up believers
to salvation. Here let us consider,
1. That the work of conviction and conversion is, and has
been at all times, experienced by those who have had any right
or claim to salvation; of which there have not only been various
instances, in all ages, but the very being of the church,
// File: b117.png
.pn +1
which supposes and depends thereon, is an undeniable proof of
it.
2. As this work is truly divine, so the scriptures have been
the principal, if not the only direct means, by which it has been
brought about; so that we have never had any other rule, or
standard of faith, or revealed religion; nor has the work of
grace been ever begun, or carried on, in the souls of any, without
it; from whence it evidently appears, that God makes use
of it to propagate and advance his interest in the world, and
has given his church ground to expect his presence with it, in
all his ordinances, in which they are obliged to pay a due regard
to scripture; and, in so doing, they have found that their expectation
has not been in vain, since God has, by this means,
manifested himself to them, and made them partakers of spiritual
privileges, which have been the beginning of their salvation.
3. It cannot be supposed that God would make this use of
his word, and thereby put such an honour upon it, had it been
an imposture, or borne the specious pretence of being instamped
with his authority, if it had not been so; for that would be to
give countenance to a lie, which is contrary to the holiness of
his nature.
Thus we have considered the several arguments, whereby
the scripture appears to be the word of God; but since multitudes
are not convinced hereby, we have, in the close of this
answer, an account of the means whereby Christians come to a
full persuasion as to this matter, and that is the testimony of
the Spirit in the heart of man, which is the next thing to be considered.
By this we do not understand that extraordinary impression
which some of old have been favoured with, who are
said to have been moved by the Holy Ghost, or to have had an
extraordinary unction from the Holy One, whereby they were
led into the knowledge of divine truths, in a way of supernatural
illumination. This we pretend not to, since extraordinary
gifts are ceased; yet it does not follow from hence, that the
Spirit does not now influence the minds of believers in an ordinary
way, whereby they are led into, and their faith confirmed
in all necessary truths, and this in particular, that the scriptures
are the word of God; for we may observe, that no privilege referring
to salvation, was ever taken away, but some other, subservient
to the same end, has been substituted in the room
thereof; especially, unless a notorious forfeiture has been made
of it, and the church, by apostacy, has excluded itself from an
interest in the divine regard; but this cannot be said of the gospel-church
in all the ages thereof, since extraordinary gifts have
ceased; therefore we must conclude, that being destitute of that
way, by which this truth was once confirmed, believers have,
// File: b118.png
.pn +1
instead of it, an inward conviction wrought by the Spirit of
God, agreeable to his present method of acting; otherwise this
present gospel-dispensation is, in a very material circumstance,
much inferior to that in which God discovered his mind and
will to man in an extraordinary way.
But that we may explain what we mean by this inward testimony
of the Spirit in the hearts of men, whereby they are fully
persuaded that the scriptures are the word of God, let it be considered,
(1.) That it is something more than barely a power, or faculty
of reasoning, to prove the scriptures to be divine, since
that is common to all; but this is a special privilege, given to
those who are hereby fully persuaded of this truth. Moreover,
there may be a power of reasoning, and yet we may be mistaken
in the exercise thereof; and therefore this is not sufficient,
fully to persuade us that they are the word of God, and consequently
something more than this is intended in this answer.
(2.) It is something short of inspiration; therefore, though
the scripture was known to be the word of God, by the Spirit
of inspiration, so long as that dispensation continued in the
church, yet that privilege being now ceased, the internal testimony
of the Spirit contains a lower degree of illumination,
which has nothing miraculous attending it, and therefore falls
short of inspiration.
(3.) It is not an enthusiastic impulse, or strong impression
upon our minds, whereby we conclude a thing to be true, because
we think it is so; this we by no means allow of, since our
own fancies are not the standard of truth, how strong soever
our ideas of things may be; therefore,
(4.) This inward testimony of the Spirit contains in it a
satisfying and establishing persuasion, that the scriptures are
the word of God, not altogether destitute of other evidences,
or convincing arguments: and that which is more especially
convincing to weak Christians, is taken from the use which
God makes of the scripture, in beginning and carrying on the
work of grace in their souls, who are thus convinced; and this
firm persuasion we find sometimes so deeply rooted in their
hearts, that they would sooner die ten thousand deaths than part
with scripture, or entertain the least slight thought of it, as
though it were not divine; and certainly there is a special hand
of God in this persuasion, which we can call no other than the
inward testimony of the Spirit, whereby they are established in
this important truth.[45]
.fn 20
“Since God has been pleased to leave us the Records of the Jewish Religion,
which was of old the true religion, and affords no small testimony to the
Christian religion, it is not foreign to our purpose, to see upon what foundation
the credibility of these is built. That these books are theirs, to whom they are
ascribed, appears in the same manner as we have proved of our books. And they,
whose names they bear, were either Prophets, or men worthy to be credited;
such as Esdras, who is supposed to have collected them into one volume, at that
time, when the Prophets Haggai, Malachi, and Zacharias, were yet alive. I will
not here repeat what was said before, in commendation of Moses. And not only
that first part, delivered by Moses, as we have shewn in the first book, but the
latter history is confirmed by many Pagans. [21]Thus the Phœnician annals mention
the names of David and Solomon, and the league they made with the Tyrians.
And Berosus, as well as the Hebrew books, mention Nabuchadonosor, and other
Chaldæans. Vaphres, the king of Egypt in Jeremiah is the same with Apries in
Herodotus. And the Greek books are filled with Cyrus and his successors down
to Darius; and Josephus in his book against Appion, quotes many other things
relating to the Jewish nation: To which may be added, that we above took out
of Strabo and Trogus. But there is no reason for us Christians to doubt of the
credibility of these books, because there are testimonies in our books, out of almost
every one of them, the same as they are found in the Hebrew. Nor did
Christ when he blamed many things in the teachers of the law, and in the Pharisees
of his time, ever accuse them of falsifying the books of Moses and the Prophets,
or of using supposititious or altered books. And it can never be proved or
made credible, that after Christ’s time, the scripture should be corrupted in any
thing of moment; if we do but consider how far and wide the Jewish nation, who
every where kept those books, was dispersed over the whole world. For first,
the ten tribes were carried into Media by the Assyrians, and afterwards the other
two. And many of these fixed themselves in foreign countries, after they had a
permission from Cyrus to return: the Macedonians invited them into Alexandria
with great advantages; the cruelty of Antiochus, the civil war of the Asmonæi,
and the foreign wars of Pompey and Sossius, scattered a great many; the country
of Cyrene was filled with Jews; the cities of Asia, Macedonia, Lycaonia, and the
Isles of Cyprus, and Crete, and others, were full of them; and that there was a
vast number of them in Rome, we learn from Horace, Juvenal, and Martial. It
is impossible that such distant bodies of men should be imposed upon by any art
whatsoever, or that they should agree in a falsity. We may add further that almost
three hundred years before Christ, by the care of the Egyptian kings, the
Hebrew books were translated into Greek by those who are called the Seventy;
that the Greeks might have them in another language, but the sense the same in
the main; upon which account they were the less liable to be altered: And the
same books were translated into Chaldee, and into the Jerusalem language; that
is, half Syriac; partly a little before, and partly a little after Christ’s time. After
which followed other Greek versions, that of Aquila, Symmachus, and Theodotion;
which Origen, and others after him, compared with the seventy Interpreters,
and found no difference in the history; or in any weighty matters. Philo
flourished in Caligula’s time, and Josephus lived till Vespasian’s. Each of them
quote out of the Hebrew books the same things that we find at this day. By this
time the Christian religion began to be more and more spread, and many of its
professors were Hebrews: Many had studied the Hebrew learning, who could very
easily have perceived and discovered it, if the Jews had received any thing that
was false, in any remarkable subject, I mean, by comparing it with more ancient
books. But they not only do this, but they bring very many testimonies out of
the Old Testament, plainly in that sense in which they are received amongst the
Hebrews, which Hebrews may be convicted of any crime, sooner than (I will not
say of falsity, but) of negligence, in relation to these books; because they used to
transcribe and compare them so very scrupulously, that they could tell how often
every letter came over. We may add, in the first place, an argument, and that
no mean one, why the Jews did not alter the scripture designedly; because the
Christians prove, and as they think very strongly, that their Master Jesus was
that very Messiah who was of old promised to the forefathers of the Jews; and
this from those very books, which were read by the Jews. Which the Jews
would have taken the greatest care should never have been, after there arose a
controversy between them and the Christians; if it had ever been in their power
to have altered what they would.”
Grotius.
.fn-
.fn 21
(Thus the Phoenician Annals, &c.) See what Josephus cites out of them, Book VIII. Chap.
2. of his Ancient History; where he adds, “that if any one would see the Copies of those Epistles
which Solomon and Hirom wrote to each other, they may be procured of the public Keepers
of the Records at Tyrus.” (We must be cautions how we believe this; however, see
what I have said upon 1 Kings v. 3.) There is a remarkable place concerning David, quoted by
Josephus, Book VII. Ch. 6. of his Ancient History, out of the IVth of Damascenus’s History.
.fn-
.fn 22
“The enquiries of learned men, and, above all of the excellent Lardner,
who never overstates a point of evidence, and whose fidelity in citing his authorities
has in no one instance been impeached, have established, concerning
these writings, the following propositions:
“I. That in the age immediately posterior to that in which St. Paul lived, his
letters were publicly read and acknowledged.
“Some of them are quoted or alluded to by almost every Christian writer that
followed, by Clement of Rome, by Hermas, by Ignatius, by Polycarp, disciples
or cotemporaries of the apostles; by Justin Martyr, by the churches of Gaul, by
Irenæus, by Athenagoras, by Theophilus, by Clement of Alexandria, by Hermias,
by Tertullian, who occupied the succeeding age. Now when we find a
book quoted or referred to by an ancient author, we are entitled to conclude,
that it was read and received in the age and country in which that author lived.
And this conclusion does not, in any degree, rest upon the judgment or character
of the author making such reference. Proceeding by this rule, we have, concerning
the First Epistle to the Corinthians in particular, within forty years after
the epistle was written, evidence, not only of its being extant at Corinth, but
of its being known and read at Rome. Clement, bishop of that city, writing to
the church of Corinth, uses these words: ‘Take into your hands the Epistle of
the blessed Paul the apostle. What did he at first write unto you in the beginning
of the gospel? Verily he did by the Spirit admonish you concerning
himself and Cephas, and Apollos, because that even then you did form parties[23].’
This was written at a time when probably some must have been living at Corinth,
who remembered St. Paul’s ministry there and the receipt of the epistle. The
testimony is still more valuable, as it shows that the epistles were preserved in
the churches to which they were sent, and that they were spread and propagated
from them to the rest of the Christian community. Agreeably to which natural
mode and order of their publication, Tertullian, a century afterwards, for proof
of the integrity and genuineness of the apostolic writings, bids ‘any one, who
is willing to exercise his curiosity profitably in the business of their salvation,
to visit the apostolical churches, in which their very authentic letters are recited,
ipsæ authenticæ literæ eorum recitantur.’ Then he goes on: ‘Is Achaia
near you? You have Corinth. If you are not far from Macedonia, you have
Philippi, you have Thessalonica. If you can go to Asia, you have Ephesus;
but if you are near to Italy, you have Rome[24].’ I adduce this passage to show,
that the distinct churches or Christian societies, to which St. Paul’s Epistles
were sent, subsisted for some ages afterwards; that his several epistles were
all along respectively read in those churches; that Christians at large received
them from those churches, and appealed to those churches for their originality
and authenticity.
“Arguing in like manner from citations and allusions, we have, within the
space of a hundred and fifty years from the time that the first of St. Paul’s Epistles
was written, proofs of almost all of them being read, in Palestine, Syria, the
countries of Asia Minor, in Egypt, in that part of Africa which used the Latin
tongue, in Greece, Italy, and Gaul[25]. I do not mean simply to assert, that, within
the space of a hundred and fifty years, St. Paul’s Epistles were read in those
countries, for I believe that they were read and circulated from the beginning;
but that proofs of their being so read occur within that period. And when it is
considered how few of the primitive Christians wrote, and of what was written
how much is lost, we are to account it extraordinary, or rather as a sure proof
of the extensiveness of the reputation of these writings, and of the general respect
in which they were held, that so many testimonies, and of such antiquity,
are still extant. ‘In the remaining works of Irenæus, Clement of Alexandria,
and Tertullian, there are perhaps more and larger quotations of the small volume
of the New Testament, than of all the works of Cicero, in the writings
of all characters for several ages[26].’ We must add, that the Epistles of Paul
come in for their full share of this observation; and that all the thirteen epistles,
except that to Philemon, which is not quoted by Irenæus or Clement, and
which probably escaped notice merely by its brevity, are severally cited, and expressly
recognized as St. Paul’s by each of these Christian writers. The Ebionites,
an early, though inconsiderable Christian sect, rejected St. Paul and his
epistles[27]; that is, they rejected these epistles, not because they were not, but
because they were St. Paul’s; and because, adhering to the obligation of the
Jewish law, they chose to dispute his doctrine and authority. Their suffrage as
to the genuineness of the epistles does not contradict that of other Christians.
Marcion, an heretical writer in the former part of the second century, is said by
Tertullian to have rejected three of the epistles which we now receive, viz. the
two Epistles to Timothy and the Epistle to Titus. It appears to me not improbable,
that Marcion might make some such distinction as this, that no apostolic
epistle was to be admitted which was not read or attested by the church to
which it was sent; for it is remarkable that, together with these epistles to private
persons, he rejected also the catholic epistles. Now the catholic epistles
and the epistles to private persons agree in the circumstance of wanting this particular
species of attestation. Marcion, it seems, acknowledged the Epistle to
Philemon, and is upbraided for his inconsistency in doing so by Tertullian[28], who
asks ‘why, when he received a letter written to a single person, he should refuse
two to Timothy and one to Titus composed upon the affairs of the church?’
This passage so far favours our account of Marcion’s objection, as it shows that
the objection was supposed by Tertullian to have been founded in something,
which belonged to the nature of a private letter.
“Nothing of the works of Marcion remains. Probably he was, after all, a rash,
arbitrary, licentious critic (if he deserved indeed the name of critic,) and who
offered no reason for his determination. What St. Jerome says of him intimates
this, and is beside founded in good sense: speaking of him and Basilides, ‘If
they had assigned any reasons,’ says he, ‘why they did not reckon these epistles,’
viz. the first and second to Timothy and the Epistle to Titus, ‘to be the
apostle’s, we would have endeavoured to have answered them, and perhaps
might have satisfied the reader: but when they take upon them, by their own
authority, to pronounce one epistle to be Paul’s, and another not, they can
only be replied to in the same manner[29].’ Let it be remembered, however, that
Marcion received ten of these epistles. His authority therefore, even if his credit
had been better than it is, forms a very small exception to the uniformity of the
evidence. Of Basilides we know still less than we do of Marcion. The same
observation however belongs to him, viz. that his objection, as far as appears
from this passage of St. Jerome, was confined to the three private epistles. Yet
is this the only opinion which can be said to disturb the consent of the two first
centuries of the Christian æra; for as to Tatian, who is reported by Jerome alone
to have rejected some of St. Paul’s Epistles, the extravagant or rather delirious
notions into which he fell, take away all weight and credit from his judgment.
If, indeed, Jerome’s account of this circumstance be correct; for it appears from
much older writers than Jerome, that Tatian owned and used many of these
epistles[30].
“II. They, who in those ages disputed about so many other points, agreed in
acknowledging the Scriptures now before us. Contending sects appealed to
them in their controversies with equal and unreserved submission. When they
were urged by one side, however they might be interpreted or misinterpreted by
the other, their authority was not questioned. ‘Reliqui omnes,’ says Irenæus,
speaking of Marcion, ‘falso scientiæ nomine inflati, scripturas quidem confitentur,
interpretationes vero convertunt[31].’
“III. When the genuineness of some other writings which were in circulation,
and even of a few which are now received into the canon, was contested, these
were never called into dispute. Whatever was the objection, or whether, in
truth, there ever was any real objection to the authenticity of the Second Epistle
of Peter, the Second and Third of John, the Epistle of James, or that of Jude,
or to the book of the Revelations of St. John, the doubts that appear to have
been entertained concerning them, exceedingly strengthen the force of the testimony
as to those writings, about which there was no doubt; because it shows,
that the matter was a subject, amongst the early Christians, of examination and
discussion; and that, where there was any room to doubt, they did doubt.
“What Eusebius hath left upon the subject is directly to the purpose of this
observation. Eusebius, it is well known, divided the ecclesiastical writings
which were extant in his time into three classes; the ‘αγαγτιρῥητα, uncontradicted,’
as he calls them in one chapter; or ‘scriptures universally acknowledged,’
as he calls them in another; the ‘controverted, yet well known and
approved by many;’ and ‘the spurious.’ What were the shades of difference
in the books of the second, or in those of the third class; or what it was precisely
that he meant by the term spurious, it is not necessary in this place to enquire.
It is sufficient for us to find, that the thirteen epistles of St. Paul are
placed by him in the first class without any sort of hesitation or doubt.
“It is further also to be collected from the chapter in which this distinction is
laid down, that the method made use of by Eusebius, and by the Christians of
his time, viz. the close of the third century, in judging concerning the sacred
authority of any books, was to enquire after and consider the testimony of those
who lived near the age of the apostles[32].
“IV. That no ancient writing, which is attested as these epistles are, hath had
its authenticity disproved, or is in fact questioned. The controversies which
have been moved concerning suspected writings, as the epistles, for instance, of
Phalaris, or the eighteen epistles of Cicero, begin by showing that this attestation
is wanting. That being proved, the question is thrown back upon internal
marks of spuriousness or authenticity; and in these the dispute is occupied. In
which disputes it is to be observed, that the contested writings are commonly
attacked by arguments drawn from some opposition which they betray to
‘authentic history,’ to ‘true epistles,’ to ‘the real sentiments or circumstances
of the author whom they personate[33];’ which authentic history, which
true epistles, which real sentiments themselves, are no other than ancient documents,
whose early existence and reception can be proved, in the manner in
which the writings before us are traced up to the age of their reputed author, or
to ages near to his. A modern who sits down to compose the history of some
ancient period, has no stronger evidence to appeal to for the most confident assertion,
or the most undisputed fact, that he delivers, than writings, whose
genuineness is proved by the same medium through which we evince the authenticity
of ours. Nor, whilst he can have recourse to such authorities as these,
does he apprehend any uncertainty in his accounts, from the suspicion of spuriousness
or imposture in his materials.
“V. It cannot be shown that any forgeries, properly so called[34], that is, writings
published under the name of the person who did not compose them, made
their appearance in the first century of the Christian æra, in which century these
epistles undoubtedly existed. I shall set down under this proposition the guarded
words of Lardner himself: ‘There are no quotations of any books of them
(spurious and apocryphal books) in the apostolical fathers, by whom I mean
Barnabas, Clement of Rome, Hermas, Ignatius, and Polycarp, whose writings
reach from the year of our Lord 70 to the year 108. I say this confidently, because
I think it has been proved.’ Lardner, vol. xii. p. 158.
“Nor when they did appear were they much used by the primitive Christians.
‘Irenæus quotes not any of these books. He mentions some of them, but he
never quotes them. The same may be said of Tertullian: he has mentioned a
book called “Acts of Paul and Thecla:” but it is only to condemn it. Clement
of Alexandria and Origen have mentioned and quoted several such books, but
never as authority, and sometimes with express marks of dislike. Eusebius
quotes no such books in any of his works. He has mentioned them indeed,
but how? Not by way of approbation, but to show that they were of little or
no value; and that they never were received by the sounder part of Christians.’
Now, if with this, which is advanced after the most minute and diligent examination,
we compare what the same cautious writer had before said of our received
scriptures, ‘that in the works of three only of the above-mentioned fathers,
there are more and larger quotations of the small volume of the New
Testament, than of all the works of Cicero in the writers of all characters for
several ages;’ and if, with the marks of obscurity or condemnation, which accompanied
the mention of the several apocryphal Christian writings, when they
happened to be mentioned at all, we contrast what Dr. Lardner’s work completely
and in detail makes out concerning the writings which we defend, and
what, having so made out, he thought himself authorized in his conclusion to
assert, that these books were not only received from the beginning, but received
with the greatest respect; have been publicly and solemnly read in the assemblies
of Christians throughout the world, in every age from that time to this;
early translated into the languages of divers countries and people; commentaries
writ to explain and illustrate them; quoted by way of proof in all arguments of
a religious nature; recommended to the perusal of unbelievers, as containing the
authentic account of the Christian doctrine; when we attend, I say, to this representation,
we perceive in it, not only full proof of the early notoriety of these
books, but a clear and sensible line of discrimination, which separates these from
the pretensions of any others.
“The Epistles of St. Paul stand particularly free of any doubt or confusion that
might arise from this source. Until the conclusion of the fourth century, no intimation
appears of any attempt whatever being made to counterfeit these writings;
and then it appears only of a single and obscure instance. Jerome, who
flourished in the year 392, has this expression: ‘Legunt quidam et ad Laodicenses;
sed ab omnibus exploditur;’ there is also an Epistle to the Laodiceans,
but it is rejected by every body[35]. Theodoret, who wrote in the year 423, speaks
of this epistle in the same terms[36]. Beside these, I know not whether any ancient
writer mentions it. It was certainly unnoticed during the three first centuries
of the Church; and when it came afterwards to be mentioned, it was
mentioned only to show, that, though such a writing did exist, it obtained no
credit. It is probable that the forgery to which Jerome alludes, is the epistle
which we now have under that title. If so, as hath been already observed, it is
nothing more than a collection of sentences from the genuine Epistles; and was
perhaps, at first, rather the exercise of some idle pen, than any serious attempt
to impose a forgery upon the public. Of an Epistle to the Corinthians under St.
Paul’s name, which was brought into Europe in the present century, antiquity
is entirely silent. It was unheard of for sixteen centuries; and at this day, though
it be extant, and was first found in the Armenian language, it is not, by the
Christians of that country, received into their scriptures. I hope, after this,
that there is no reader who will think there is any competition of credit, or of
external proof, between these and the received Epistles: or rather, who will
not acknowledge the evidence of authenticity to be confirmed by the want of
success which attended imposture.
“When we take into our hands the letters which the suffrage and consent of antiquity
hath thus transmitted to us, the first thing that strikes our attention is
the air of reality and business, as well as of seriousness and conviction, which
pervades the whole. Let the sceptic read them. If he be not sensible of these
qualities in them, the argument can have no weight with him. If he be; if he
perceive in almost every page the language of a mind actuated by real occasions,
and operating upon real circumstances, I would wish it to be observed, that
the proof which arises from this perception is not to be deemed occult or imaginary,
because it is incapable of being drawn out in words, or of being conveyed
to the apprehension of the reader in any other way, than by sending him to the
books themselves.”——
“If it be true that we are in possession of the very letters which St. Paul wrote,
let us consider what confirmation they afford to the Christian history. In my
opinion they substantiate the whole transaction. The great object of modern
research is to come at the epistolary correspondence of the times. Amidst the
obscurities, the silence, or the contradictions of history, if a letter can be found,
we regard it as the discovery of a land mark; as that by which we can correct,
adjust, or supply the imperfections and uncertainties of other accounts. One
cause of the superior credit which is attributed to letters is this, that the facts
which they disclose generally come out incidentally, and therefore without design
to mislead the public by false or exaggerated accounts. This reason may
be applied to St. Paul’s Epistles with as much justice as to any letters whatever.
Nothing could be further from the intention of the writer than to record any part
of his history. That his history was in fact made public by these letters, and has
by the same means been transmitted to future ages, is a secondary and unthought-of
effect. The sincerity therefore of the apostle’s declarations cannot reasonably
be disputed; at least we are sure that it was not vitiated by any desire of setting
himself off to the public at large. But these letters form a part of the muniments
of Christianity, as much to be valued for their contents, as for their originality.
A more inestimable treasure the care of antiquity could not have sent down to us.
Beside the proof they afford of the general reality of St. Paul’s history, of the
knowledge which the author of the Acts of the Apostles had obtained of that
history, and the consequent probability that he was, what he professes himself to
have been, a companion of the apostle’s; beside the support they lend to these
important inferences, they meet specifically some of the principal objections upon
which the adversaries of Christianity have thought proper to rely. In particular
they show,
“I. That Christianity was not a story set on foot amidst the confusions which
attended and immediately preceded the destruction of Jerusalem; when many
extravagant reports were circulated, when men’s minds were broken by terror
and distress, when amidst the tumults that surrounded them enquiry was impracticable.
These letters show incontestably that the religion had fixed and
established itself before this state of things took place.
“II. Whereas it hath been insinuated, that our gospels may have been made up
of reports and stories, which were current at the time, we may observe that,
with respect to the Epistles, this is impossible. A man cannot write the history
of his own life from reports; nor, what is the same thing, be led by reports to
refer to passages and transactions in which he states himself to have been immediately
present and active. I do not allow that this insinuation is applied to the
historical part of the New Testament with any colour of justice or probability;
but I say, that to the Epistles it is not applicable at all.
“III. These letters prove that the converts to Christianity were not drawn from
the barbarous, the mean, or the ignorant set of men, which the representations
of infidelity would sometimes make them. We learn from letters the character
not only of the writer, but, in some measure, of the persons to whom they are
written. To suppose that these letters were addressed to a rude tribe, incapable
of thought or reflection, is just as reasonable as to suppose Locke’s Essay on
the Human Understanding to have been written for the instruction of savages.
Whatever may be thought of these letters in other respects, either of diction or
argument, they are certainly removed as far as possible from the habits and comprehension
of a barbarous people.
“IV. St. Paul’s history, I mean so much of it as may be collected from his
letters, is so implicated with that of the other apostles, and with the substance
indeed of the Christian history itself, that I apprehend it will be found impossible
to admit St. Paul’s story (I do not speak of the miraculous part of it) to be true,
and yet to reject the rest as fabulous. For instance, can any one believe that there
was such a man as Paul, a preacher of Christianity in the age which we assign to
him, and not believe that there were also at the same time, such men as Peter and
James, and other apostles, who had been companions of Christ during his life, and
who after his death published and avowed the same things concerning him which
Paul taught? Judea, and especially Jerusalem, was the scene of Christ’s ministry.
The witnesses of his miracles lived there. St. Paul, by his own account, as
well as that of his historian, appears to have frequently visited that city; to have
carried on a communication with the church there; to have associated with the
rulers and elders of that church, who were some of them apostles; to have acted,
as occasions offered, in correspondence, and sometimes in conjunction with them.
Can it, after this, be doubted, but that the religion and the general facts relating
to it, which St. Paul appears by his letters to have delivered to the several churches
which he established at a distance, were at the same time taught and published
at Jerusalem itself, the place where the business was transacted; and taught
and published by those who had attended the founder of the institution in his miraculous,
or pretendedly miraculous, ministry?
“It is observable, for so it appears both in the Epistles and from the Acts of the
Apostles, that Jerusalem, and the society of believers in that city, long continued
the centre from which the missionaries of the religion issued with which all other
churches maintained a correspondence and connexion, to which they referred
their doubts, and to whose relief, in times of public distress, they remitted their
charitable assistance. This observation I think material, because it proves that
this was not the case of giving our accounts in one country of what is transacted
in another, without affording the hearers an opportunity of knowing whether the
things related were credited by any, or even published, in the place where they
are reported to have passed.
“V. St. Paul’s letters furnish evidence (and what better evidence than a man’s
own letters can be desired?) of the soundness and sobriety of his judgment. His
caution in distinguishing between the occasional suggestions of inspiration, and
the ordinary exercise of his natural understanding, is without example in the history
of enthusiasm. His morality is every where calm, pure, and rational: adapted
to the condition, the activity, and the business of social life, and of its various
relations; free from the over-scrupulousness and austerities of superstition, and
from, what was more perhaps to be apprehended, the abstractions of quietism,
and the soarings and extravagancies of fanaticism. His judgment concerning a
hesitating conscience; his opinion of the moral indifferency of many actions, yet of
the prudence and even the duty of compliance, where non-compliance would produce
evil effects upon the minds of the persons who observed it, is as correct and
just as the most liberal and enlightened moralist could form at this day. The accuracy
of modern ethics has found nothing to amend in these determinations.”
.tb
“Broad, obvious, and explicit agreements prove little; because it may be suggested,
that the insertion of such is the ordinary expedient of every forgery; and
though they may occur, and probably will occur, in genuine writings, yet it cannot
be proved that they are peculiar to these. Thus what St. Paul declares in
chap. xi. of 1 Cor. concerning the institution of the eucharist, ‘For I have received
of the Lord that which I also delivered unto you, that the Lord Jesus, the
same night in which he was betrayed, took bread; and when he had given
thanks, he brake it, and said, Take, eat; this is my body, which is broken for
you; this do in remembrance of me,’ though it be in close and verbal conformity
with the account of the same transaction preserved by St. Luke, is yet a conformity
of which no use can be made in our argument; for if it should be objected
that this was a mere recital from the Gospel, borrowed by the author of the epistle,
for the purpose of setting off his composition by an appearance of agreement
with the received account of the Lord’s supper, I should not know how to
repel the insinuation. In like manner, the description which St. Paul gives of himself
in his epistle to the Philippians (iii. 5.)—‘Circumcised the eighth day, of
the stock of Israel, of the tribe of Benjamin, an Hebrew of the Hebrews; as
touching the law, a Pharisee; concerning zeal, persecuting the church; touching
the righteousness which is in the law, blameless’—is made up of particulars
so plainly delivered concerning him, in the Acts of the Apostles, the Epistle to
the Romans, and the Epistle to the Galatians, that I cannot deny but that it
would be easy for an impostor, who was fabricating a letter in the name of St.
Paul, to collect these articles into one view. This, therefore, is a conformity
which we do not adduce. But when I read, in the Acts of the Apostles, that
‘when Paul came to Derbe and Lystra, behold a certain disciple was there, named
Timotheus, the son of a certain woman which was a Jewess;’ and when, in
an epistle addressed to Timothy, I find him reminded of his ‘having known the
Holy Scriptures from a child,’ which implies that he must, on one side or both,
have been brought up by Jewish parents: I conceive that I remark a coincidence
which shews, by its very obliquity, that scheme was not employed in its formation.”
.tb
“An assertion in the Epistle to the Colossians, viz. that ‘Onesimus was one of
them,’ is verified by the Epistle to Philemon; and is verified, not by any mention
of Colosse, any the most distant intimation concerning the place of Philemon’s
abode, but singly by stating Onesimus to be Philemon’s servant, and by
joining in the salutation Philemon with Archippus, for this Archippus, when we
go back to the Epistle to the Colossians, appears to have been an inhabitant of
that city, and, as it should seem, to have held an office of authority in that church.
The case stands thus. Take the Epistle to the Colossians alone, and no circumstance
is discoverable which makes out the assertion, that Onesimus was ‘one of
them.’ Take the Epistle to Philemon alone, and nothing at all appears concerning
the place to which Philemon or his servant Onesimus belonged. For any thing
that is said in the epistle, Philemon might have been a Thessalonian, a Philippian,
or an Ephesian, as well as a Colossian. Put the two epistles together and the
matter is clear. The reader perceives a junction of circumstances, which ascertains
the conclusion at once. Now, all that is necessary to be added in this place
is, that this correspondency evinces the genuineness of one epistle, as well as of
the other. It is like comparing the two parts of a cloven tally. Coincidence proves
the authenticity of both.”
Paley.
.fn-
.fn 23
See Lardner, vol. xii. p. 22.
.fn-
.fn 24
Lardner, vol. ii. p. 598.
.fn-
.fn 25
See Lardner’s Recapitulation, vol. xii, p. 53.
.fn-
.fn 26
See Lardner’s Recapitulation, vol. xii. p. 53.
.fn-
.fn 27
Lardner, vol. ii. p. 808.
.fn-
.fn 28
Lardner, vol. xiv. p. 455.
.fn-
.fn 29
Lardner, vol. xiv. p. 458.
.fn-
.fn 30
Lardner, vol. i. p. 313.
.fn-
.fn 31
Iren. advers. Haer. quoted by Lardner, vol. xv. p. 425.
.fn-
.fn 32
Lardner, vol. viii. p. 106.
.fn-
.fn 33
See the tracts written in the controversy between Tunstal
and Middleton upon certain suspected epistles ascribed to Cicero.
.fn-
.fn 34
I believe that there
is a great deal of truth in Dr. Lardner’s observations, that comparatively few of those books,
which we call apocryphal, were strictly and originally forgeries. See Lardner, vol. xii. p. 167.
.fn-
.fn 35
Lardner, vol. x. p. 103.
.fn-
.fn 36
Lardner, vol. xi. p. 88.
.fn-
.fn 37
לך שבע שנים are wanting only in 85 and 112 of Kennicott.
.fn-
.fn 38
See Ques. 154.
.fn-
.fn 39
῾Υπερανω αὐτῆς.
.fn-
.fn 40
[ἐν ἡ] εν oftentimes signifies, Cum, ad, prope, juxta, as well as in.
.fn-
.fn 41
“The most ancient tradition among all nations, is exactly agreeable to the relation
of Moses. For his description of the original of the world is almost the very
same as in the ancient Phœnician histories, which are translated by Philo Biblius
from Sanchoniathon’s Collection; and a good part of it is to be found among the
Indians and Egyptians; whence it is that in Linus, Hesiod, and many other Greek
writers, mention is made of a Chaos, (signified by some under the name of an Egg)
and of the framing of animals, and also of man’s formation after the divine image,
and the dominion given him over all living creatures; which are to be seen in many
writers, particularly in Ovid, who transcribed them from the Greek. That all
things were made by the Word of God, is asserted by Epicharmus, and the Platonists;
and before them, by the most ancient writer (I do not mean of those Hymns
which go under his name, but) of those Verses which were of old called Orpheus’s;
not because Orpheus composed them, but because they contained his doctrines.
And Empedocles acknowledged, that the sun was not the original light,
but the receptacle of light, (the storehouse and vehicle of fire, as the ancient
Christians express it.) Aratus, and Catullus, thought the divine residence was
above the starry orb; in which Homer says, there is a continual light. Thales taught
from the ancient schools, that God was the oldest of beings, because not begotten;
that the world was most beautiful, because the workmanship of God; that
darkness was before light, which latter we find in Orpheus’s Verses, and Hesiod,
whence it was, that the nations, who were most tenacious of ancient customs,
reckoned the time by nights. Anaxagoras affirmed, that all things were regulated
by the supreme mind: Aratus, that the stars were made by God; Virgil, from
the Greeks, that Life was infused into things by the Spirit of God; Hesiod, Homer,
and Callimachus, that man was formed of clay; lastly, Maximus Tyrius asserts,
that it was a constant tradition received by all nations, that there was one supreme
God, the cause of all things. And we learn from Josephus, Philo, Tibullus, Clemens
Alexandrinus, and Lucian, (for I need not mention the Hebrews) that the
memory of the seven days’ work was preserved, not only among the Greeks and
Italians, by honouring the seventh day; but also amongst the Celtæ and Indians,
who all measured the time by weeks; as we learn from Philostratus, Dion Cassius,
and Justin Martyr, and also the most ancient names of the day. The Egyptians tell
us, that at first men led their lives in great simplicity, their bodies being naked,
whence arose the poet’s fiction of the Golden Age, famous among the Indians, as
Strabo remarks, Maimonides takes notice, that the history of Adam, of Eve, of
the tree, and of the serpent, was extant among the idolatrous Indians in his time:
and there are many witnesses in our age, who testify that the same is still to be
found amongst the heathen dwelling in Peru, and the Philippine islands, people
belonging to the same India; the name of Adam amongst the Brachmans; and
that it was reckoned six thousand years since the creation of the world, by
those of Siam. Berosus in his history of Chaldea, Manethos in his of Egypt, Hierom
in his of Phœnicia, Histæus, Hecatæus, Hillanicus in theirs of Greece, and Hesiod
among the Poets; all assert that the lives of those who descended from the
first men, were almost a thousand years in length; which is the less incredible,
because the historians of many nations (particularly Pausanias and Philostratus
amongst the Greeks, and Pliny amongst the Romans) relate, that men’s bodies,
upon opening their sepulchres, were found to be much larger in old time. And
Catullus, after many of the Greeks, relates, that divine visions were made to men
before their great and manifold crimes did, as it were, hinder God, and those Spirits
that attend him, from holding any correspondence with men. We almost
every where, in the Greek and Latin historians, meet with the savage life of the
Giants, mentioned by Moses. And it is very remarkable concerning the deluge,
that the memory of almost all nations ends in the history of it, even those nations
which were unknown till our forefathers discovered them: so that Varro calls all
that the unknown time. And all those things which we read in the poets, wrapped
up in fables (a Liberty they allow themselves) are delivered by the ancient
writers according to truth and reality; that is, agreeable to Moses; as you may
see in Berosus’s History of Chaldea, Abydenus’s of Assyria, who mentions the dove
that was sent out of the ark; and in Plutarch from the Greeks; and in Lucian,
who says, that in Hierapolis of Syria, there was remaining a most ancient history
of the ark, and of the preserving a few not only of mankind, but also of other living
creatures. The same history was extant also in Molo and in Nicolaus Damascenus;
which latter names the ark, which we also find in the history of Deucalion
in Apollodorus; and many Spaniards affirm, that in several parts of America, as
Cuba, Mechoacana, Nicaraga, is preserved the memory of the deluge, the saving
alive of animals, especially the raven and dove; and the deluge itself in that part
called Golden Castile. That remark of Pliny’s, that Joppa was built before the
Flood, discovers what part of the earth men inhabited before the Flood. The
place where the ark rested after the deluge on the Gordyæan mountains, is evident
from the constant tradition of the Armenians from all past ages, down to this
very day. Japhet, the father of the Europeans, and from him Jon, or, as they formerly
pronounced it, Javon of the Greeks, and Hammon of the Africans, are names
to be seen in Moses, and Josephus and others observe the like footsteps in the
names of other places and nations. And which of the poets is it, in which we do
not find mention made of the attempt to climb the heavens? Diodoris Siculus,
Strabo, Tacitus, Pliny, Solinus, speak of the burning of Sodom. Herodotus, Diodorus,
Strabo, Philo Biblius, testify the ancient custom of Circumcision, which is
confirmed by those nations descended from Abraham, not only Hebrews, but also
Idumæans, Ismaelites, and others. The history of Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, and Joseph,
agreeable with Moses, was extant of old in Philo Biblius out of Sanchoniathon,
in Berosus, Hecatæus, Damascenus, Artapanus, Eupolemus, Demetrius, and
partly in the ancient writers of the Orphic Verses; and something of it is still
extant in Justin, out of Trogus Pompeius. By almost all which, is related also the
history of Moses, and his principal acts. The Orphic Verses expressly mention
his being taken out of the water, and the two tables that were given him by God.
To these we may add Polemon; and several things about his coming out of Egypt,
from the Egyptian writers, Menetho, Lysimachus, Chæremon. Neither can any prudent
man think it at all credible, that Moses, who had so many enemies, not only
of the Egyptians, but also of many other nations, as the Idumæans, Arabians,
and Phœnicians, would venture to relate any thing concerning the creation of the
world, or the original of things, which could be confuted by more ancient writings,
or was contradictory to the ancient and received opinions: or that he would
relate any thing of matters in his own time, that could be confuted by the testimony
of many persons then alive, Diodorus Siculus, Strabo, and Pliny, Tacitus,
and after them Dionysius Longinus (concerning loftiness of Speech) make mention
of Moses. Besides the Talmudists, Pliny and Apuleius, speak of Jamnes and
Mambres, who resisted Moses in Egypt. Some things there are in other writings,
and many things amongst the Pythagoreans, about the Law and Rites given by
Moses, Strabo and Justin, out of Trogus, remarkably testify concerning the religion
and righteousness of the ancient Jews; so that there seems to be no need of
mentioning what is found, or has formerly been found of Joshua and others, agreeable
to the Hebrew books; seeing, that whoever gives credit to Moses (which it
is a shame for any one to refuse) cannot but believe those famous miracles done
by the hand of God; which is the principal thing here aimed at. Now that the
miracles of late date, such as those of Elija, Elisha, and others, should not be
counterfeit, there is this further argument; that in those times Judæa was become
more known, and because of the difference of religion was hated by the neighbours,
who could very easily confute the first rise of a lie. The history of Jonah’s
being three days in the whale’s belly is in Lycophron and Æneus Gazeus, only under
the name of Herculus; to advance whose fame, every thing that was great and
noble used to be related of him, as Tacitus observes. Certainly nothing but the
manifest evidence of the history could compel Julian (who was as great an enemy
to the Jews as to the Christians) to confess that there were some men inspired
by the divine Spirit amongst the Jews, and that fire descended from heaven,
and consumed the sacrifices of Moses and Elias. And here it is worthy of observation,
that there was not only very severe punishments threatened amongst the
Hebrews, to any who should falsely assume the gift of prophecy, but very many
kings, who by that means might have procured great authority to themselves, and
many learned men, such as Esdras and others, dared not to assume this honour
to themselves; nay, some ages before Christ’s time, nobody dared to do it. Much
less could so many thousand people be imposed upon, in avouching a constant and
public miracle, I mean that of the oracle, which shined on the High Priest’s
breast, which is so firmly believed by all the Jews, to have remained till the destruction
of the first temple, that their ancestors must of necessity be well assured
of the truth of it.”
Grotius.
.fn-
.fn 42
Vid. Joseph Antiq.
.fn-
.fn 43
Reason will affirm that every effect speaks a cause; then we ask how it
should happen that a dozen illiterate fishermen and mechanicks of Galilee, after
the wisdom of the philosophers had left the world in darkness, should have introduced
so much light of knowledge, that our children and servants are wiser than
the ancient philosophers? Let no one say, that they only began, what the wisdom
of after ages have carried on towards perfection. The writings of the apostles are
the same to this day; as is proved by the earliest versions, quotations, and manuscripts.
So perfect was the system of morals they left, that no error has been
detected in it, and all attempts to build upon or add to it, have only exposed the
ignorance of the individuals who have essayed to do so.
How has it happened that whilst learned men have ever been at discord about
the nature, and true foundation of the obligation of virtue, these despised fishermen,
have shown the true foundation and nature of duty, and have erred in no particular?
Is it not strange that whilst the wisdom of the philosophers made their
purest virtue but a more refined pride, these poor men laid the ax to the root of
that pride, and taught the world that even their virtues brought them under additional
obligations to Divine grace? Is it not remarkable that the system taught
by these unlearned men should so perfectly coincide with what is discovered in
the works of God, that whilst it aims to eradicate sin, it represents it as in every
instance eventually productive of the glory of that God, who brings good out of
the evil, and light out of the darkness?
How is it to be accounted for, that when the most learned rabbies perverted the
law, and knew not its meaning, that a few crude and uninstructed fishermen
should remove their false constructions of that law, explain the types, shadows,
promises and prophecies, show how the truth and justice of God might be clear
in the pardon of sin, and set the labouring conscience at rest? How came the fishermen
of Galilee to discover to the wise and learned what they had never conjectured,
and truths, which only attentive minds at the present time can acquiesce in, that
all things are certain, because foreknown, and foreknown because Divine knowledge
must be infinite and eternal, and yet that rational creatures may be capable
of choosing and refusing, though they must be wholly dependent? Is it not passing
strange that the wisdom of Philosophers, the learning of Rabbies, the power
of Kings and Emperors, the influence of thousands of priests, the prejudices of
the world, and the malice of the wicked should be overcome by twelve poor fishermen?
How is it to be accounted for that these twelve poor illiterate men should
have effected such surprising changes, that modern infidels are ashamed of the evidence
of their ancient predecessors, and are obliged to borrow from the fishermen of
Galilee a portion of the knowledge they have introduced, without which the opposers
of the Gospel must fall into contempt? Is any man so credulous as to imagine men
of no better education and opportunities, possessed of themselves all this knowledge?
when or where has the natural world produced such a phænomenon?
they declared that it was not of themselves, but, that such feeble instruments
were chosen, that the power might appear to be what it really was, from God.
This testimony they confirmed by miracles, and sealed with their blood.
.fn-
.fn 44
Vide Dodd. Expos. 3 vol. app.—Dick on Insp.—Parry’s Enq.—Hawker, &c.
.fn-
.fn 45
This description of the Spirit’s witness resembles sensible assurance; that
there may be such an immediate suggestion, or impression is possible; but the
Spirit’s witness is the image of God, and is of adoption.—Vide Edwards’s works,
vol. 4. p. 161.
.fn-
// File: b119.png
.pn +1
.sp 4
.h2
Quest. V.
.sp 2
.pm letter-start
Quest. V. What do the scriptures principally teach?
Answ. The scriptures principally teach, what man is to believe
concerning God, and what duty God requires of man.[46]
.pm letter-end
.sp 2
Having, in the foregoing answer, proved the scriptures
to be the word of God, there is in this a general account
of the contents thereof; there are many great doctrines contained
therein, all which may be reduced to two heads, to wit,
what we are to believe, and what we are to do. All religion
is contained in these two things, and so we may apply the words
of the apostle to this case, Now of the things which we have
spoken this is the sum, Heb. viii. 1. and accordingly, as this
Catechism is deduced from scripture, it contains two parts, viz.
what we are to believe, and in what instances we are to yield
obedience to the law of God. And that the scriptures principally
teach these two things, appears from the apostle’s advice
to Timothy, Hold fast the form of sound words, which thou hast
heard of me in faith and love, 2 Tim. i. 13.
From the scriptures’ principally teaching us matters of faith
and practice, we infer, that faith without works is dead; or that
he is not a true Christian who yields an assent to divine revelation,
without a practical subjection to God, in all ways of
holy obedience, as the apostle observes, and gives a challenge,
to this effect, to those who separate faith from works; Shew me
thy faith without thy works, and I will shew thee my faith by
my works, James ii. 17, 18. and, on the other hand, works
without faith are unacceptable. A blind obedience, or ignorant
performance of some of the external parts of religion,
without the knowledge of divine truth, is no better than what
the apostle calls bodily exercise which profiteth little, 1 Tim. iv.
18. therefore we ought to examine ourselves, whether our faith
be founded on, or truly deduced from scripture? and whether
it be a practical faith, or, as the apostle says, such as worketh by
love? Gal. v. 6. whether we grow in knowledge, as well as in
zeal and diligence, in performing many duties of religion, if we
would approve ourselves sincere Christians?
.fn 46
What we are to believe reaches to Qu. 91. the rest is of practice.
.fn-
.sp 4
.h2
Quest. VI.
.sp 2
.pm letter-start
Quest. VI. What do the scriptures make known of God?
Answ. The scriptures make known what God is, the persons
in the Godhead, the decrees, and the execution of his decrees.
.pm letter-end
.sp 1
It is an amazing instance of condescension, and an inexpressible
favour which God bestows on man, that he should
manifest himself to him, and that not only in such a way as he
does to all mankind, by the light of nature, which discovers
// File: b120.png
.pn +1
that he is; but that he should, in so glorious a way, declare
what he is, as he does in his word: this is a distinguishing privilege,
as the Psalmist observes, when speaking of God’s shewing
his word unto Jacob, his statutes and his judgments unto
Israel, Psal. cxlvii. he mentions it, as an instance of discriminating
grace, in that he has not dealt so with any other nation.
This raised the admiration of one of Christ’s disciples, when he
said, Lord how is it that thou wilt manifest thyself to us, and not
unto the world! John xiv. 22. And it is still more wonderful,
that he should discover to man what he does, or rather
what he has decreed or purposed to do, and so should impart
his secrets to him; how familiarly does God herein deal with
man! Thus he says concerning the holy patriarch of old, Shall
I hide from Abraham the thing which I do? Gen. xvi. 17.
However, it is one thing to know the secret purposes of God,
and another thing to know the various properties thereof; the
former of these, however known of old, by extraordinary intimation,
are now known to us only by the execution of them;
the latter is what we may attain to the knowledge of, by studying
the scriptures.
Now as the scriptures make known, First, What God is;
Secondly, The persons in the Godhead; Thirdly, His decrees;
And Fourthly, The execution thereof; so we are directed
hereby in the method to be observed in treating of the great
doctrines of our religion; and accordingly the first part of this
Catechism,[47] which treats of doctrinal subjects, contains an enlargement
on these four general heads; the first whereof we
proceed to consider.
.fn 47
That is unto the 91st Quest.
.fn-
.sp 4
.h2
Quest. VII.
.sp 2
.pm letter-start
Quest. VII. What is God?
Answ. God is a Spirit, in and of himself, infinite in being,
glory, blessedness, and perfection, all-sufficient, eternal, unchangeable,
incomprehensible, every where present, almighty,
knowing all things, most wise, most holy, most just, most
merciful, and gracious, long-suffering, and abundant in goodness
and truth.
.pm letter-end
.sp
Before we proceed to consider the divine perfections, as
contained in this answer, let it be premised,
1. That it is impossible for any one to give a perfect description
of God, since he is incomprehensible, therefore no
words can fully express, or set forth, his perfections; when the
wisest men on earth speak of him, they soon betray their own
weakness, or discover, as Elihu says, that they cannot order
their speech by reason of darkness, Job xxxviii. 19. or, that
they are but of yesterday, and know, comparatively, nothing,
// File: b121.png
.pn +1
chap. viii. 9. We are but like children, talking of matters
above them, which their tender age can take in but little of,
when we speak of the infinite perfections of the divine nature;
This knowledge is too wonderful for us; it is high, we cannot
attain to it, Psal. cxxxix. 6. How little a portion is heard of
him? Job. xxvi. 14.
2. Though God cannot be perfectly described; yet there is
something of him that we may know, and ought to make the
matter of our study and diligent enquiries. When his glory is
set forth in scripture, we are not to look upon the expressions
there made use of, as words without any manner of ideas affixed
to them; for it is one thing to have adequate ideas of an
infinitely perfect being, and another thing to have no ideas at
all of him; neither are our ideas of God to be reckoned, for
this reason, altogether false, though they are imperfect; for it is
one thing to think of him in an unbecoming way, not agreeable
to his perfections, or to attribute the weakness and imperfection
to him which do not belong to his nature, and another thing to
think of him, with the highest and best conceptions we are able
to entertain of his infinite perfections, while, at the same time,
we have a due sense of our own weakness, and the shallowness
of our capacities. When we thus order our thoughts concerning
the great God, though we are far from comprehending his
infinite perfections, yet our conceptions are not to be concluded
erroneous, when directed by his word; which leads us to consider
how we may conceive aright of the divine perfections,
that we may not think or speak of God, that which is not right,
though at best we know but little of his glory; and in order
thereunto,
(1.) We must first take an estimate of finite perfections,
which we have some ideas of, though not perfect ones in all respects;
such as power, wisdom, goodness, faithfulness, &c.
(2.) Then we must conceive that these are eminently, though
not formally in God; that is, there is no perfection in the creature,
but we must ascribe the same to God, though not in the
same way; or thus, whatever perfection is in the creature, the
same is in God, and infinitely more; or it is in God, but not in
such a finite, limited, or imperfect way, as it is in the creature;
He that planted the ear, shall he not hear? He that formed the
eye, shall not he see? He that teacheth man knowledge, shall he
not know? Psal. xciv. 9, 10. Therefore,
(3.) When the same words are used that import a perfection
in God, and in the creature, viz. wisdom, power, &c. we
must not suppose that these words import the same thing in
their different application; for when they are applied to the
creature, though we call them perfections, yet they are, at best,
but finite, and have many imperfections attending them, all
// File: b122.png
.pn +1
which we must separate or abstract in our thoughts, when the
same words are used to set forth any divine perfection: thus
knowledge is a perfection of the human nature, and the same
word is used to denote a divine perfection; yet we must consider,
at the same time, that the Lord seeth not as man seeth,
1 Sam. xvi. 7. The same may be said of all his other perfections;
he worketh not as man worketh; whatever perfections
are ascribed to the creature, they are to be considered as agreeable
to the subject in which they are; so when the same words
are used to set forth any of the divine perfections, they are to
be understood in a way becoming a God of infinite perfection.
This has given occasion to divines to distinguish the perfections
of God, into those that are communicable, and incommunicable.
1. The communicable perfections of God are such, whereof
we find some faint resemblance in intelligent creatures,
though, at the same time, there is an infinite disproportion; as
when we speak of God as holy, wise, just, powerful, or faithful,
we find something like these perfections in the creature,
though we are not to suppose them, in all respects, the same as
they are in God; they are in him, in his own, that is, an infinite
way; they are in us, in our own, that is, a finite and limited
way.
2. The incommunicable perfections of God are such, of
which there is not the least shadow, or similitude in creatures,
but they rather represent him as opposed to them. Thus when
we speak of him as infinite, incomprehensible, unchangeable,
without beginning, independent, &c. these perfections contain
in them an account of the vast distance that there is between
God and the creature, or how infinitely he exceeds all other
beings, and is opposed to every thing that argues imperfection
in them.
From this general account we have given of the divine perfections,
we may infer,
1. That there is nothing common between God and the creature;
that is, there is nothing which belongs to the divine nature
that can be attributed to the creature; and nothing proper
to the creature is to be applied to God: yet there are some
rays of the divine glory, which may be beheld as shining forth,
or displayed in the creature, especially in the intelligent part of
the creation, angels and men, who are, for that reason, represented
as made after the divine image.
2. Let us never think or speak of the divine perfections but
with the highest reverence, lest we take his name in vain, or
debase him in our thoughts; Shall not his excellency make you
afraid, and his dread fall upon you? Job xiii. 11. And whenever
we compare God with the creatures, viz. angels and men,
that bear somewhat of his image, let us, at the same time, abstract
// File: b123.png
.pn +1
in our thoughts, all their imperfections, whether natural
or moral, from him, and consider the infinite disproportion that
there is between him and them. We now come to consider the
perfections of the divine nature, in the order in which they are
laid down in this answer.
I. God is a Spirit; that is, an immaterial substance, without
body or bodily parts; this he is said to be in John iv. 24.
But if it be enquired what we mean by a Spirit, let it be premised,
that we cannot fully understand what our own spirits,
or souls are; we know less of the nature of angels, a higher
kind of spirits, and least of all of the spirituality of the divine
nature; however, our ideas first begin at what is finite, in considering
the nature and properties of spirits; and from thence
we are led to conceive of God as infinitely more perfect than
any finite spirit. Here we shall consider the word spirit, as applied
more especially to angels, and the souls of men; and let
it be observed,
1. That a spirit is the most perfect and excellent being; the
soul is more excellent than the body, or indeed than any thing
that is purely material; so angels are the most perfect and glorious
part of the creation, as they are spiritual beings, in some
things excelling the souls of men.
2. A spirit is, in its own nature, immortal; it has nothing in
its frame and constitution that tends to corruption, as there is
in material things, which consist of various parts, that may be
dissolved or separated, and their form altered, which is what
we call corruption; but this belongs not to spirits, which are
liable to no change in their nature, but by the immediate hand
of God, who can, if he pleases, reduce them again to their first
nothing.
3. A spirit is capable of understanding, and willing, and putting
forth actions agreeable thereunto, which no other being
can do: thus, though the sun is a glorious and useful being;
yet, because it is material, it is not capable of thought, or any
moral action, such as angels, and the souls of men, can put forth.
Now these conceptions of the nature and properties of finite
spirits, lead us to conceive of God as a spirit. And,
(1.) As spirits excel all other creatures, we must conclude
God to be the most excellent and perfect of all beings, and also
that he is incorruptible, immortal, and invisible, as he is said to
be in scripture, Rom. i. 23. and 1 Tim. i. 17.
Moreover, it follows from hence, that he has an understanding
and will, and so we may conceive of him as the Creator and
governor of all things; this he could not be, if he were not an
intelligent and sovereign being, and particularly a spirit.[48]
(2.) The difference between other spiritual substances and
// File: b124.png
.pn +1
God, is, that all their excellency is only comparative, viz. as
they excel the best of all material beings in their nature and
properties; but God, as a spirit, is infinitely more excellent, not
only than all material beings, but than all created spirits. Their
perfections are derived from him, and therefore he is called,
The Father of spirits, Heb. xii. 9. and the God of the spirits
of all flesh, Numb. xvi. 22. and his perfections are underived:
other spirits are, as we have observed, in their own nature, immortal,
yet God can reduce them to nothing; but God is independently
immortal, and therefore it is said of him, that he
only hath immortality, 1 Tim. vi. 16.
Finite spirits, indeed, have understanding and will, but these
powers are contained within certain limits whereas God is an
infinite spirit, and therefore it can be said of none but him, that
his understanding is infinite, Psal. cxlvii. 5.
From God’s being a spirit, we may infer,
1. That he is the most suitable good to the nature of our
souls, which are spirits; he can communicate himself, and apply
those things to them, which tend to make them happy, as
the God and Father of spirits.
2. He is to be worshipped in a spiritual manner, John iv.
24. that is, with our whole souls, and in a way becoming his
spiritual nature; therefore,
3. We are to frame no similitude or resemblance of him in
our thoughts, as though he were a corporeal or material being;
neither are we to make any pictures of him. This God forbids
Israel to do, Deut. iv. 12, 15, 16. and tells them, that they had
not the least pretence for so doing, inasmuch as they saw no
similitude of him, when he spake to them in Horeb; and to make
an image of him would be to corrupt themselves.
II. God is said to be in, and of, himself, not as though he
gave being to, or was the cause of himself, for that implies a
contradiction; therefore divines generally say, that God is in,
and of himself, not positively, but negatively, that is, his being
and perfections are underived, and not communicated to him,
as all finite perfections are, by him, to the creature; therefore
he is self-existent, or independent, which is one of the highest
glories of the divine nature, by which he is distinguished from
all creatures, who live, move, and have their being in and from
him.
This attribute of independency belongs to all his perfections;
thus his wisdom, power, goodness, holiness, &c. are all independent.
And,
1. With respect to his knowledge or wisdom, he doth not
receive ideas from any object out of himself, as all intelligent
creatures do, and, in that respect, are said to depend on the
object; so that if there were not such objects, they could not
// File: b125.png
.pn +1
have the knowledge or idea of them in their minds; therefore
the object known must first exist, before we can apprehend
what it is. But this must not be said of God’s knowledge, for
that would be to suppose the things that he knows antecedent
to his knowing them. The independency of his knowledge is
elegantly described in scripture; Who hath directed the Spirit
of the Lord, or, being his counsellor, has taught him? With
whom took he counsel, and who instructed him, and taught him
in the path of judgment, and taught him knowledge, and shewed
to him the way of understanding? Isa. xl. 13, 14.
2. He is independent in power, therefore as he receives
strength from no one, so he doth not act dependently on the
will of the creature; Who hath enjoined him his way; Job
xxxvi. 23. and accordingly, as he received the power of acting
from no one, so none can hinder, turn aside, or controul his
power, or put a stop to his methods of acting.
3. He is independent as to his holiness, hating sin necessarily,
and not barely depending on some reasons out of himself,
which induce him thereunto; for it is essential to the divine
nature to be infinitely opposite to all sin, and therefore to be
independently holy.
4. He is independent as to his bounty and goodness, and so
he communicates blessings not by constraint, but according to
his sovereign will. Thus he gave being to the world, and all
things therein, which was the first instance of bounty and goodness,
and a very great one it was, not by constraint, but by his
free will, for his pleasure they are and were created. In like
manner, whatever instances of mercy he extends to miserable
creatures, he still acts independently, in the display thereof;
nothing out of himself moves or lays a constraint upon him,
but he shews mercy because it is his pleasure so to do.
But, to evince the truth of this doctrine, that God is independent
as to his being, and all his perfections, let it be farther
considered,
(1.) That all things depend on his power, which brought
them into, and preserves them in being; therefore they exist
by his will, as their creator and preserver, and consequently
are not necessary, but dependent beings. If therefore all things
depend on God, it is the greatest absurdity to say that God
depends on any thing, for this would be to suppose the cause
and the effect to be mutually dependent on, and derived from
each other, which infers a contradiction.
(2.) If God be infinitely above the highest creatures, he cannot
depend on any of them; for dependence argues inferiority.
Now that God is above all things is certain: this is represented
in a very beautiful manner by the prophet, when he says, Isa.
xl. 15, 17. Behold the nations are as the drop of the bucket,
// File: b126.png
.pn +1
and are counted as the small dust of the balance; all nations before
him are as nothing, and they are counted to him less than
nothing and vanity; therefore he cannot be said to be inferior
to them, and, by consequence, to depend on them.
(3.) If God depends on any creature, he does not exist necessarily:
and if so, then he might not have been; for the same
will, by which he is supposed to exist, might have determined
that he should not have existed. If therefore God be not independent,
he might not have been, and, according to the same
method of reasoning, he might cease to be; for the same will,
that gave being to him, might take it away at pleasure, which
is altogether inconsistent with the idea of a God.
From God’s being independent, or in and of himself, we
infer,
1. That we ought to conclude that the creature cannot lay
any obligation on him, or do any thing that may tend to make
him more happy than he is in himself; the apostle gives a challenge
to this effect, Who hath first given to him, and it shall be
recompensed unto him again, Rom. xi. 35. and Eliphaz says to
Job, Job xxii. 2, 3. Can a man be profitable to God, as he that
is wise may be profitable unto himself? Is it any pleasure to
the Almighty, that thou art righteous? or is it gain to him,
that thou makest thy ways perfect?
2. If independency be a divine perfection, then let it not, in
any instance, or by any consequence, be attributed to the creature;
let us conclude, that all our springs are in him, and that
all we enjoy and hope for is from him, who is the author and
finisher of our faith, and the fountain of all our blessedness.
III. God is infinite in being, glory, blessedness, and perfection.
To be infinite, is to be without all bounds or limits, either
actual or possible: now that God is so, is evident, from his being
independent and uncreated; and because his will fixes the
bounds of all the excellencies, perfections, and powers of the
creature. If therefore he doth not exist by the will of another,
he is infinite in being, and consequently in all perfection: thus
it is said, Psal. cxlvii. 5. his understanding is infinite, which
will farther appear, when we consider him as omniscient; his
will determines what shall come to pass, with an infinite sovereignty,
that cannot be controuled, or rendered ineffectual;
his power is infinite, and therefore all things are equally possible,
and easy to it, nor can it be resisted by any contrary force
or power; and he is infinite in blessedness, as being self-sufficient,
or not standing in need of any thing to make him more
happy than he was in himself, from all eternity. The Psalmist
is supposed by many, to speak in the person of Christ, when
he says, Psal. xvi. 2. My goodness extendeth not to thee, q. d.
“How much soever thy relative glory may be illustrated, by
// File: b127.png
.pn +1
what I have engaged to perform in the covenant of redemption,
yet this can make no addition to thine essential glory.”
And if so, then certainly nothing can be done by us which may
in the least contribute thereunto.
IV. God is all-sufficient, by which we understand that he
hath enough in himself to satisfy the most enlarged desires of
his creatures, and to make them completely blessed. As his
self-sufficiency is that whereby he has enough in himself to denominate
him completely blessed, as a God of infinite perfection;
so his all-sufficiency is that, whereby he is able to communicate
as much blessedness to his creatures, as he is pleased
to make them capable of receiving; and therefore he is able not
only to supply all their wants, but to do exceedingly above all that
they ask or think, Phil. iv. 19. and Eph. iii. 20. This he can
do, either in an immediate way; or, if he thinks fit to make
use of creatures as instruments, to fulfil his pleasure, and communicate
what he designs to impart to us, he is never at a loss;
for as they are the work of his hands, so he has a right to
use them at his will; upon which account, they are said, all of
them to be his servants, Psal. cxix. 91.
This doctrine of God’s all-sufficiency should be improved by
us,
1. To induce us to seek happiness in him alone: creatures
are no more than the stream, but he is the fountain; we may,
in a mediate way, receive some small drops from them, but he
is the ocean of all blessedness.
2. Let us take heed that we do not reflect on, or in effect,
deny this perfection; which we may be said to do in various
instances. As,
(1.) When we are discontented with our present condition,
and desire more than God has allotted for us. This seems to
have been the sin of the angels, who left their first habitation
through pride, seeking more than God designed they should
have; and this was the sin by which our first parents fell, desiring
a greater degree of knowledge than what they thought
themselves possessed of: thus they fancied, that by eating the
forbidden fruit, they should be as gods, knowing good and evil,
Gen. iii. 5.
(2.) We practically deny the all-sufficiency of God, when we
seek blessings of what kind soever they are, in an indirect way,
as though God were not able to bestow them upon us in his
own way, or in the use of lawful means: thus Rebecca and Jacob
did, when they contrived a lie to obtain the blessing, chap.
xxvii. as though there had not been an all-sufficiency in providence
to bring it about, without their having recourse to those
methods that were in themselves sinful.
(3.) When we use unlawful means to escape imminent dangers.
// File: b128.png
.pn +1
Thus David did when he feigned himself mad, supposing, without
ground, that he should have been slain by Achish, king of
Gath; and that there was no other way to escape but this, 1
Sam. xxi. 13. and Abraham and Isaac, Gen. chapters xx. and
xxvi. when they denied their wives, concluding this to have
been an expedient to save their lives, as though God were not
able to save them in a better and more honourable way.
(4.) When we distrust his providence, though we have had
large experience of its appearing for us in various instances:
thus David did, when he said, in his heart, I shall one day perish
by the hand of Saul, 1 Sam. xxvii. 1. and the Israelites,
when they said, Can God furnish a table in the wilderness?
Psal. lxxviii. 19. though he had provided for them in an extraordinary
way ever since they had been there: yea, Moses himself
was faulty in this matter, when he said, Whence should I
have flesh to give unto all this people? I am not able to bear all
this people alone, because it is too heavy for me, Numb. xi. 13,
14. and Asa, when he tempted Benhadad to break his league
with Baasha, who made war against him; as though God were
not able to deliver him without this indirect practice, though
he had in an eminent manner, appeared for him, in giving him
a signal victory over Zerah the Ethiopian, when he came
against him with an army of a million of men, 2 Chron. xvi.
3. compared with chap. xiv. 9, 13. and likewise Joshua, when
Israel had suffered a small defeat, occasioned by Achan’s sin,
when they fled before the men of Ai, though there were but
thirty-six of them slain; yet, on that occasion, he is ready to
wish that God had not brought them over Jordan, and meditates
nothing but ruin and destruction from the Amorites, forgetting
God’s former deliverances, and distrusting his faithfulness,
and care of his people, and, as it were, calling in question
his all-sufficiency, as though he were not able to accomplish the
promises he had made to them, Josh. vii. 7, 8, 9.
(5.) When we doubt of the truth, or certain accomplishment
of his promises, and so are ready to say, Hath God forgotten to
be gracious? Doth his truth fail for ever? This we are apt to
do, when there are great difficulties in the way of the accomplishment
thereof: thus Sarah, when it was told her that she
should have a child, in her old age, laughed, through unbelief,
Gen. xviii. 12. and God intimates, that this was an affront to his
all-sufficiency, when he says, Is any thing too hard for the
Lord? ver. 14. and Gideon, though he was told that God was
with him, and had an express command to go in his might,
with a promise that he should deliver Israel from the Midianites,
yet he says, O Lord wherewith shall I save them? for my
family is poor in Manasseh, and I am the least in my father’s
house, Judg. vi. 15. God tells him again, I will be with thee,
// File: b129.png
.pn +1
and smite the Midianites, ver. 16. yet, afterwards, he desires
that he would give him a sign in the wet and dry fleece. What
is this but questioning his all-sufficiency?
(6.) When we decline great services, though called to them
by God, under pretence of our unfitness for them: thus when
the prophet Jeremiah was called to deliver the Lord’s message
to the rebellious house of Israel, he desires to be excused, and
says, Behold I cannot speak, for I am a child; whereas the main
discouragement was the difficulty of the work, and the hazards
he was like to run; but God encourages him to it, by putting
him in mind of his all-sufficiency, when he tells him, that he
would be with him, and deliver him, Jer. i. 6. compared with
ver. 8.
This divine perfection affords matter of support and encouragement
to believers, under the greatest straits and difficulties
they are exposed to in this world; and we have many instances
in scripture of those who have had recourse to it in the like cases.
Thus, when David was in the greatest straits that ever he
met with, upon the Amalekites’ spoiling of Ziklag, and carrying
away the women captives, the people talked of stoning him, and
all things seemed to make against him; yet it is said, that he
encouraged himself in the Lord his God, 1 Sam. xxx. 6. so Mordecai
was confident that the enlargement and deliverance of the
Jews should come some other way, if not by Esther’s intercession
for them, when she was afraid to go in to the king, Esth.
iv. 14. and this confidence he could never have obtained, considering
the present posture of their affairs, without a due regard
to God’s all-sufficiency. Moreover, it was this divine
perfection that encouraged Abraham to obey the difficult command
of offering his son: as the apostle observes, he did this as
knowing that God was able to raise him from the dead, Heb. xi.
19. and when believers are under the greatest distress, from
the assaults of their spiritual enemies, they have a warrant from
God, as the apostle had, to encourage themselves, that they
shall come off victorious, because his grace is sufficient for
them, 2 Cor. xii. 8, 9.
V. God is eternal: this respects his duration, to wit, as he
was without beginning, as well as shall be without end; or as
his duration is unchangeable, or without succession, the same
from everlasting to everlasting: thus the Psalmist says, Before
the mountains were brought forth, or ever thou hadst formed the
earth and the world; even from everlasting to everlasting thou
art God, Psal. xc. 2.
1. That God is from everlasting, appears,
(1.) From his being a necessary, self-existent being, or, as
was before observed, in and of himself, therefore he must be
from everlasting; for whatever is not produced is from eternity.
// File: b130.png
.pn +1
Now that God did not derive his being from any one, is evident,
because he gave being to all things, which is implied in
their being creatures; therefore nothing gave being to him, and
consequently he was from eternity.
(2.) If he is an infinitely perfect being, as has been observed
before, then his duration is infinitely perfect, and consequently
it is boundless, that is to say, eternal: it is an imperfection, in
all created beings, that they began to exist, and therefore they
are said, in a comparative sense, to be but of yesterday; we
must therefore, when we conceive of God, separate this imperfection
from him, and so conclude that he was from all eternity.
(3.) If he created all things in the beginning, then he was
before the beginning of time, that is, from eternity: thus it is
said, In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth, Gen.
i. 1. this is very evident, for time is a successive duration, taking
its rise from a certain point, or moment, which we call the
beginning: now that duration, which was before this, must be
from eternity, unless we suppose time before time began, or,
which is all one, that there was a successive duration before
successive duration began, which is a contradiction. Therefore,
if God fixed that beginning to all things, as their Creator,
and particularly to time, which is the measure of the duration
of all created beings, then it is evident that he was before time,
and consequently from eternity.
(4.) This also appears from scripture; as when it is said,
The eternal God is thy refuge, and underneath are the everlasting
arms, Deut. xxxiii. 27. and when we read of his eternal
power and Godhead, Rom. i. 20. and elsewhere, Art not thou
from everlasting O Lord, my God? Hab. i. 12. Thy throne is
established of old; thou art from everlasting, Psal. xciii. 2. so
his attributes and perfections are said to have been from everlasting,
The mercy of the Lord is from everlasting to everlasting,
Psal. ciii. 17.
And this may be argued from many scripture-consequences:
thus, there was an election of persons to holiness and happiness,
before the foundation of the world, Eph. i. 4. and Christ,
in particular, was fore-ordained to be our Mediator, before the
foundation of the world, 1 Pet. i. 20. and set up from everlasting,
from the beginning, or ever the earth was, Prov. viii. 23.
From hence it follows, that there was a sovereign will that fore-ordained
it, and therefore God, whose decree or purpose it
was, existed before the foundation of the world, that is, from
everlasting.
Moreover, there were grants of grace given in Christ, or put
into his hand, from all eternity: thus we read of eternal life,
which God promised before the world began, Tit. i. 2. and of our
// File: b131.png
.pn +1
being saved, according to his purpose and grace, given us in
Christ Jesus, before the world began, 2 Tim. i. 9. It hence
follows, that there was an eternal giver, and consequently that
God was from everlasting.
2. God shall be to everlasting; thus it is said, The Lord
shall endure forever, Psal. ix. 7. and that he liveth for ever and
ever, Rev. iv. 9, 10. and that his years shall have no end, Psal.
cii. 27. and the Lord shall reign for ever, Psal. cxlvi. 10. therefore
he must endure for ever. Again, it is said, that the Lord
keepeth covenant and mercy with them that love him, to a thousand
generations, Deut. vii. 9. and he will ever be mindful of
his covenant, Psal. cxi. 5. that is, will fulfil what he has promised
therein: if his truth shall not fail for ever, then he, who
will accomplish what he has spoken, must endure to everlasting.
But this may be farther evinced from the perfections of his
nature.
(1.) From his necessary existence, which not only argues, as
has been before observed, that he could not begin to be, but
equally proves, that he cannot cease to be, or that he shall be
to everlasting.
(2.) He is void of all composition, and therefore must be to
everlasting; none but compounded beings, viz. such as have
parts, are subject to dissolution, which arises from, the contrariety
of these parts, and their tendency to destroy one another,
which occasions the dissolution of the whole; but God having
no parts, as he is the most simple uncompounded being, there
can be nothing in him that tends to dissolution, therefore he
can never have an end from any necessity of nature. And,
(3.) He must be to eternity, because there is no one superior
to him, at whose will he exists, that can deprive him of his
being and glory.
(4.) He cannot will his own destruction, or non-existence,
for that is contrary to the universal nature of things; since no
being can desire to be less perfect than it is, much less can any
one will or desire his own annihilation; especially no one, who
is possessed of blessedness, can will the loss thereof, for that is
incongruous with the nature of it, as being a desirable good,
therefore God cannot will the loss of his own blessedness; and
since his blessedness is inseparably connected with his being, he
cannot cease to be, from an act of his own will: if therefore he
cannot cease to be, from any necessity of nature, or from the
will of another, or from an act of his own will, he must be to
eternity.
Moreover, the eternity of God may be proved from his other
perfections, since one of the divine perfections infers the other.
As,
// File: b132.png
.pn +1
1. From his immutability; he is unchangeable in his being,
therefore he is so in all his perfections, and consequently must
be always the same, from everlasting to everlasting, and not
proceed from a state of non-existence to that of being, which he
would have done, had he not been from everlasting, nor decline
from a state of being to that of non-existence, which he would
be supposed to do, were he not to everlasting: either of these
is the greatest change that can be supposed, and therefore inconsistent
with the divine immutability.
2. He is the first cause, and the ultimate end of all things,
therefore he must be from eternity, and remain the fountain of
all blessedness to eternity.
3. He could not be almighty, or infinite in power, if he were
not eternal; for that being, which did not always exist, once
could not act, to wit, when it did not exist; or he that may
cease to be, may, for the same reason, be disabled from acting;
both which are inconsistent with Almighty power.
4. If he were not eternal, he could not, by way of eminency
be called the living God, as he is, Jer. x. 10. or said to have life
in himself, John v. 26. for both these expressions imply his necessary
existence, and that argues his eternity.
3. God’s eternal duration is without succession, as well as
without beginning and end, that it is so, appears,
(1.) Because, as was hinted but now, it is unchangeable,
since all successive duration infers a change. Thus the duration
of creatures, which is successive, is not the same one moment
as it will be the next; every moment adds something to
it; now this cannot be said of God’s duration. Besides, successive
duration implies a being, what we were not, in all respects
before, and a ceasing to be what we were, and so it is a
kind of continual passing from not being to being, which is inconsistent
with the divine perfections, and, in particular, with
his unchangeable duration. The Psalmist, speaking of God’s
eternal duration, expresses it by the immutability thereof, Thou
art the same, and thy years shall have no end, Psal. cii. 27.;
and the apostle, speaking concerning this matter, says, He is
the same yesterday, to day, and forever, Heb. xiii. 8.
(2.) Successive duration is applicable to time; and the duration
of all creatures is measured, and therefore cannot be termed
infinite; it is measured by its successive parts: thus a day, a
year, an age, a million of ages, are measured by the number of
moments, of which they consist; but God’s duration is unmeasured,
that is, infinite, therefore it is without succession, or
without those parts of which time consists.[49]
4. Eternity is an attribute peculiar to God, and therefore we
call it an incommunicable perfection. There are, indeed, other
// File: b133.png
.pn +1
things that shall endure to everlasting, as angels, and the souls
of men; as also those heavenly bodies that shall remain after the
creature is delivered from the bondage of corruption, to which
it is now subject: the heavenly places, designed for the seat of
the blessed, as well as their happy inhabitants, shall be everlasting;
but yet the everlasting duration of these things infinitely
differs from the eternity of God; for as all finite things began
to be, and their duration is successive, so their everlasting existence
depends entirely on the power and will of God, and therefore
cannot be called necessary, or independent, as his eternal
existence is.
Object. Since the various parts of time, as days, years, &c.
and the various changes, or flux of time; such as past, present,
and to come, are sometimes attributed to God; this seems inconsistent
with the account that has been given of his eternity.
Answ. It is true, we often find such expressions used in scripture:
thus he is called, the ancient of days, Dan. vii. 9. and his
eternity is expressed, by his years having no end, Psal. cii. 27.
and it is said, He was, is, and is to come, Rev. i. 4. and chap.
iv. 8. But, for the understanding of such-like expressions, we
must consider, that herein God is pleased to speak according to
our weak capacity, who cannot comprehend the manner of his
infinite duration; we cannot conceive of any duration but that
which is successive; therefore God speaks to us, as he does in
many other instances, in condescension to our capacities; but
yet we may observe, that though he thus condescends to speak
concerning himself, yet there is oftentimes something added,
which distinguishes his duration from that of creatures; as
when it is said, Behold God is great, and we know him not;
neither can the number of his years be searched out, Job xxxvi.
26. so that though we read of the years of his duration, yet they
are such as are unsearchable, or incomprehensible years, infinitely
different from years, as applied to created beings; and it
is said, A thousand years in thy sight, are but as yesterday,
when it is past, Psal. xc. 4. One day is with the Lord as a thousand
years, and a thousand years as one day, 2 Pet. iii. 8. and,
by the same method of reasoning, it may be said, one moment
is with the Lord as a thousand millions of ages, or a thousand
millions of ages as one moment; such is his duration, and therefore
not properly successive, like that of creatures.
2. When any thing past, present, or to come, is attributed to
God, it either signifies that he is so, as to his works, which are
finite, and measured by successive duration; or else it signifies,
that he, whose duration is not measured by succession, notwithstanding,
exists unchangeably, through all the various ages of
time. As he is omnipresent with all the parts of matter, yet has
no parts himself, so he exists in all the successive ages of time,
// File: b134.png
.pn +1
but without that succession, which is peculiar to time and creatures.
Several things may be inferred, of a practical nature, from
the eternity of God. As,
1. Since God’s duration is eternal, that is, without succession,
so that there is no such thing as past, or to come, with him;
or if ten thousand millions of ages are but like a moment to
him; then it follows, that those sins which we have committed
long ago, and perhaps are forgotten by us, are present to his
view; he knows what we have done against him ever since we
had a being in this world, as much as though we were at present
committing them.
2. If God was from eternity, then how contemptible is all
created glory, when compared with his; look but a few ages
backward, and it was nothing: this should humble the pride of
the creature, who is but of yesterday, and whose duration is
nothing, and less than nothing, if compared with God’s.
3. The eternity of God, as being to everlasting, affords matter
of terror to his enemies, and comfort to his people, and, as
such, should be improved for the preventing of sin.
(1.) It affords matter of terror to his enemies. For,
1st. He ever lives to see his threatenings executed, and to
pour forth the vials of his fury on them: thus the prophet
speaking of God, as the everlasting King, adds, that at his
wrath the earth shall tremble, and the nations shall not be able
to abide his indignation, Jer. x. 10. Therefore the eternity of
God argues the eternity of the punishment of sin, since this
great Judge, who is a consuming fire to impenitent sinners,
will live for ever to see his threatenings executed upon them.
This appears, if we consider,
2dly, That since he is eternal in his being, he must be so in
his power, holiness, justice, and all his other perfections, which
are terrible to his enemies: thus the Psalmist says, Who knoweth
the power of thine anger? even according to thy fear, so is
thy wrath, Psal. xc. 11. and the apostle says, It is a fearful
thing to fall into the hands of the living God, Heb. x. 31.
(2.) It affords matter of comfort to believers, as opposed to
the fluctuating and uncertain state of all creature-enjoyments;
it is an encouragement to them in the loss of friends and relations,
or under all the other losses or disappointments they meet
with as to their outward estate in this world. These are, at best,
but short-lived comforts, but God is the eternal portion and happiness
of his people, Psal. lxxiii. 26. and, from his eternity, they
may certainly conclude, that the happiness of the heavenly state
will be eternal, for it consists in the enjoyment of him, who is
so; which is a very delightful thought to all who are enabled by
faith to lay claim to it.
// File: b135.png
.pn +1
VI. God is immutable: thus it is said, that with him is no
variableness, neither shadow of turning, James i. 17. This is
sometimes set forth in a metaphorical way, in which respect he
is compared to a rock, Deut. xxxii. 4. which remains immoveable,
when the whole ocean, that surrounds it, is continually in
a fluctuating state; even so, though all creatures are subject to
change, God alone is unchangeable in his being, and all his perfections.
Here we shall consider,
1. How immutability is a perfection; and how it is a divine
perfection peculiar to God.
(1.) It must be allowed that immutability cannot be said to
be an excellency or perfection, unless it be applied to, or spoken
of what is good; an immutable state of sin, or misery, is
far from being an excellency, when it is applied to fallen angels,
or wicked men: but unchangeable holiness and happiness, as
applied to holy angels, or saints in heaven, is a perfection conferred
upon them; and when we speak of God’s immutability,
we suppose him infinitely blessed, which is included in the notion
of a God; and so we farther say, that he is unchangeable
in all those perfections in which it consists.
(2.) Immutability belongs, in the most proper sense, to God
alone; so that as he only is said to have immortality, 1 Tim. vi.
16. that is, such as is underived and independent, he alone is
unchangeable; other things are rendered immutable by an act
of his will and power, but immutability is an essential perfection
of the divine nature; creatures are dependently immutable,
God is independently so.
(3.) The most perfect creatures, such as angels and glorified
saints, are capable of new additions to their blessedness; new
objects may be presented as occasions of praise, which tend
perpetually to increase their happiness: the angels know more
than they did before Christ’s incarnation; for they are said to
know by the church, that is, by the dealings of God with his
church, the manifold wisdom of God, Eph. iii. 10. and to desire
to look into the account the gospel gives of the sufferings of
Christ, and the glory that should follow, 1 Pet. i. 11, 12. and
they shall have farther additions to their blessedness, when all
the elect are joined to their assembly in the great day; so that
the happiness of the best creatures is communicated in various
degrees; but God’s perfections and blessedness can have no additions
made to them, therefore he is immutable in a sense as
no creature is.
2. We shall now prove that God is immutable in his being
and all his perfections.
(1.) That he is immutable in his being; this belongs to him
as God, and, consequently to him alone. All other beings once
// File: b136.png
.pn +1
were not; there has been, if I may so express it, a change from
a state of non-existence, to that of being; and the same power
that brought them into being, could reduce them again to their
first nothing. To be dependent, is to be subject to change at
the will of another; this is applicable to all finite things; for
it is said, As a vesture thou shalt change them, and they shall
be changed: but God being opposed to them as independent, is
said to be the same, Psal. cii. 26, 27.
1st, He did not change from a state of non-existence to being,
inasmuch as he was from everlasting, and therefore necessarily
existent; and consequently he cannot change from a state
of being to that of non-existence, or cease to be; and because
his perfections are essential to him, and underived, in the same
sense as his being is, therefore there can be no change therein.
2dly. He cannot change from a state of greater to a state of
less perfection, or be subject to the least diminution of his divine
perfections. To suppose this possible, is to suppose he
may cease to be infinitely perfect; that is, to be God: nor can
he change from a state of less perfection to a state of greater;
for that is to suppose him not to be infinitely perfect before this
change, or that there are degrees of infinite perfection. Nor,
3dly, Can he pass from that state, in which he is, to another
of equal perfection; for, as such a change implies an equal proportion
of loss and gain, so it would argue a plurality of infinite
beings; or since he, who was God before this change, was
distinct from what he arrives to after it, this would be contrary
to the unity of the divine essence.
Moreover, this may be farther proved from hence, that if
there be any change in God, this must arise either from himself,
or some other: it cannot be from himself, inasmuch as he
exists necessarily, and not as the result of his own will: therefore
he cannot will any alteration, or change in himself; this is
also contrary to the nature of infinite blessedness, which cannot
desire the least diminution, as it cannot apprehend any necessity
thereof: and then he cannot be changed by any other: for he
that changes any other, must be greater than him whom he
changes; nor can he be subject to the will of another, who is
superior to him; since there is none equal, much less superior,
to God: therefore there is no being that can add to, or take
from, his perfections; which leads us,
(2.) To consider the immutability of God’s perfections. And,
First, Of his knowledge; he seeth not as man seeth; this is
obvious. For,
1st, His knowledge is independent upon the objects known;
therefore whatever changes there are in them, there is none in
him. Things known, are considered either as past, present, or
to come; and these are not known by us in the same way; for
// File: b137.png
.pn +1
concerning things past, it must be said, that we shall know them
hereafter; whereas God, with one view, comprehends all things,
past and future, as though they were present.
2dly, If God’s knowledge were not unchangeable, he might
be said to have different thoughts, or apprehensions of things
at one time, from what he has at another, which would argue a
defect of wisdom. And indeed a change of sentiments implies
ignorance, or weakness of understanding; for to make advances
in knowledge, supposes a degree of ignorance; and to decline
therein, is to be reduced to a state of ignorance: now it is certain,
that both these are inconsistent with the infinite perfection
of the divine mind; nor can any such defect be applied to him,
who is called, The only wise God, 1 Tim. i. 17.
3dly, If it were possible for God’s knowledge to be changed,
this would infer a change of his will, since having changed his
sentiments, he must be supposed to alter his resolutions and
purposes; but his will is unchangeable, therefore his understanding
or knowledge is so; which leads us to prove,
Secondly, That God is unchangeable in his will: thus it is
said of him, He is of one mind, and who can turn him? Job
xxiii. 13. This is agreeable to his infinite perfection, and therefore
he does not purpose to do a thing at one time, and determine
not to do it at another; though it is true, the revelation
of his will may be changed, whereby that may be rendered a
duty at one time, which was not at another: thus the ordinances
of the ceremonial law were prescribed, from Moses’s time
to Christ; but after that were abolished, and ceased to be ordinances;
so that there may be a change in the things willed,
or in external revelation of God’s will, and in our duty founded
thereon, when there is, at the same time, no change in his
purpose; for he determines all changes in the external dispensation
of his providence and grace, without the least shadow of
change in his own will: this may farther appear, if we consider,
1st, That if the will of God were not unchangeable, he could
not be the object of trust; for how could we depend on his promises,
were it possible for him to change his purpose? Neither
would his threatenings be so much regarded, if there were any
ground to expect, from the mutability of his nature, that he
would not execute them; and by this means, all religion would
be banished out of the world.
2dly, This would render the condition of the best men, in
some respects, very uncomfortable; for they might be one day
the object of his love, and the next, of his hatred, and those
blessings which accompany salvation might be bestowed at one
time, and taken away at another, which is directly contrary to
scripture, which asserts, that the gifts and calling of God are
without repentance, Rom. xi. 29.
// File: b138.png
.pn +1
3dly, None of those things that occasion a change in the purposes
of men, can be applied to God; and therefore there is nothing
in him, that in the least degree can lead him to change his
will, or determination, with respect to the event of things. For,
1st, Men change their purpose, from a natural fickleness and
inconstancy, as there is mutability in their very nature; but
God being unchangeable in his nature, he must be so in his
purpose or will.
2dly, Men change their purposes in promising, and not fulfilling
their promise, or, as we say, in being worse than their
word, oftentimes from the viciousness and depravity of their
nature; but God is infinitely holy, and therefore, in this respect,
cannot change.
3dly, Men change their mind or purposes, for want of power,
to bring about what they designed; this has hindered many
well concerted projects from taking effect in some, and many
threatenings from being executed in others; but God’s will
cannot be frustrated for want of power, to do what he designed,
inasmuch as he is Almighty.
4thly, Men change their minds many times, for want of foresight;
something unexpected occurs that renders it expedient
for them to alter their purpose, which argues a defect of wisdom:
but God is infinitely wise; therefore nothing unforeseen
can intervene to induce him to change his purpose.
5thly, Men are sometimes obliged to change their purpose
by the influence, threatenings, or other methods, used by some
superior; but there is none equal, much less superior, to God;
and consequently none can lay any obligation on him to change
his purpose.
VII. God is incomprehensible: this implies that his perfections
cannot be fully known by any creature; thus it is said,
Canst thou by searching, find out God? Canst thou find out the
Almighty unto perfection? Job xi. 7.
When we consider God as incomprehensible, we do not only
mean that man in this imperfect state, cannot fully comprehend
his glory; for it is but very little, comparatively, that we can
comprehend of finite things, and we know much less of that
which is infinite; but when we say that God is incomprehensible,
we mean that the best of creatures, in the most perfect
state, cannot fully conceive of, or describe his glory; and the
reason is, because they are finite, and his perfections are infinite;
and there is no proportion between an infinite God, and
a finite mind: the water of the ocean might as well be contained
in the hollow of the hand, or the dust of the earth weighed
in a balance, as that the best of creatures should have a perfect
and adequate idea of the divine perfections. In this case, we
generally distinguish between apprehending, and comprehending;
the former denotes our having some imperfect, or inadequate
// File: b139.png
.pn +1
ideas of what surpasses our understanding; the latter,
our knowing every thing that is contained in it, which is called
our having an adequate idea thereof: now we apprehend something
of the divine perfections, in proportion to the limits of our
capacities, and our present state; but we cannot, nor ever shall,
be able to comprehend the divine glory, since God is incomprehensible
to every one but himself. Again, we farther distinguish
between our having a full conviction that God hath
those infinite perfections, which no creature can comprehend,
and our being able fully to describe them: thus we firmly believe
that God exists throughout all the changes of time, and
yet that his duration is not measured thereby, or that he fills
all places without being co-extended with matter; we apprehend,
as having an undeniable demonstration thereof, that he
does so, though we cannot comprehend how he does it.
VIII. God is omnipresent: this is elegantly set forth by the
Psalmist, Whither shall I go from thy Spirit? Or whither shall
I flee from thy presence? If I ascend into heaven, thou art
there; if I make my bed in hell, behold, thou art there; if I take
the wings of the morning, and dwell in the uttermost parts of
the sea; even there shall thy hand lead me, and thy right-hand
shall hold me, Psal. cxxxix. 7-10. This perfection of the
Godhead doth not consist merely, as some suppose, in his
knowing what is done in heaven and earth, which is only a
metaphorical sense of omnipresence; as when Elisha tells Gehazi,
Went not my heart with thee, when the man turned again
from his chariot to meet thee? 2 Kings v. 6. Or, as the apostle
says to the church at Corinth, that though he was absent in body,
yet he was present with them in spirit, 1 Cor. v. 3. or, as we
say, that our souls are with our friends in distant places, as often
as we think of them: nor doth it consist in God’s being
omnipresent by his authority, as a king is said, by a figurative
way of speaking, to be present in all parts of his dominions,
where persons are deputed to act under him, or by his authority:
but we must take it in a proper sense, as he fills all places
with his presence, Jer. xxiii. 24. so that he is not confined
to, or excluded from any place; and this he does, not by parts,
as the world or the universe is said to be omnipresent, for that
is only agreeable to things corporeal, and compounded of parts,
and therefore by no means applicable to the divine omnipresence.
This is a doctrine which it is impossible for us to comprehend,
yet we are bound to believe it, because the contrary
hereunto is inconsistent with infinite perfection; and it is sometimes
called his essential presence,[50] to distinguish it from his
// File: b140.png
.pn +1
influential presence, whereby he is said to be where he acts in
the method of his providence, which is either common or special;
by the former of these he upholds and governs all things;
by the latter he exerts his power in a way of grace, which is
called his special presence with his people: and as his omnipresence,
or immensity, is necessary, and not the result of his
will, so his influential presence is arbitrary, and an instance of
infinite condescension, in which respect he is said to be, or not
to be, in particular places; to come to, or depart from his people;
sometimes to dwell in heaven, as he displays his glory
there agreeably to the heavenly state; at other times to dwell
with his church on earth, when he communicates to them those
blessings which they stand in need of; which leads us to consider
the next divine perfection mentioned in this answer.
IX. God is almighty, Rev. i. 18. ch. iv. 8. this will evidently
appear, in that if he be infinite in all his other perfections,
he must be so in power: thus if he be omniscient, he knows
what is possible or expedient to be done; and, if he be an infinite
sovereign, he wills whatever shall come to pass: now this
knowledge would be insignificant, and his will inefficacious,
were he not infinite in power, or almighty. Again, this might
be argued from his justice, either in rewarding or punishing;
for if he were not infinite in power, he could do neither of
these, at least so far as to render him the object of that desire,
or fear, which is agreeable to the nature of these perfections;
neither could infinite faithfulness accomplish all the promises
which he hath made, so as to excite that trust and dependence,
which is a part of religious worship; nor could he say, without
limitation, as he does, I have spoken it, I will also bring it
to pass; I have purposed it, I will also do it, Isa. xlvi. 11.
But since power is visible in, and demonstrated by its effects,
and infinite power, by those effects which cannot be produced
by a creature, we may observe the almighty power of God in
all his works, both of nature and grace: thus his eternal power
is understood, as the apostle says, By the things that are made,
Rom. i. 20. not that there was an eternal production of things,
but the exerting this power in time proves it to be infinite and
truly divine; for no creature can produce the smallest particle
of matter out of nothing, much less furnish the various species
of creatures with those endowments, in which they excel
one another, and set forth their Creator’s glory. And the glory
of his power is no less visible in the works of providence,
whereby he upholds all things, disposes of them according to
his pleasure, and brings about events, which only he who has an
almighty arm can effect. These things might have been enlarged
on, as evident proofs of this divine perfection; but since the
works of creation and providence will be particularly considered
// File: b141.png
.pn +1
in their proper place,[51] we shall proceed to consider the power
of God, as appearing in his works of grace; particularly,
1. In some things subservient to our redemption, as in the
formation of the human nature of Christ, which is ascribed to
the power of the Highest, Luke i. 35. and in preserving it from
being crushed, overcome, and trampled on, by all the united
powers of hell, and earth: it is said, the arm of God strengthened
him, so that the enemy should not exact upon him, nor the
son of wickedness afflict him, Psal. lxxxix, 21, 22. It was the
power of God that bore him up under all the terrible views he
had of sufferings and death, which had many ingredients in it,
that rendered it, beyond expression, formidable, and would
have sunk a mere creature, unassisted thereby, into destruction.
It was by the divine power, which he calls the finger of
God, Luke ix. 20. that he cast out devils, and wrought many
other miracles, to confirm his mission: so, when he rebuked the
unclean spirit, and healed the child, it is said, they were all amazed
at the mighty power of God, chap. ix. 42, 43. and it was
hereby that he was raised from the dead, which the apostle calls
the exceeding greatness of the power of God, Eph. i. 19. and
accordingly he was declared to be the Son of God, with power,
by this extraordinary event, Rom. i. 4. Moreover, the power of
God will be glorified, in the highest degree, in his second coming,
when, as he says, he will appear in the clouds of heaven,
with power and great glory. Matt. xxiv. 30.
2. The power of God eminently appears in the propagation
and success of the gospel.
(1.) In the propagation thereof; that a doctrine, so contrary
to the corrupt inclinations of mankind, which had so little to
recommend it, but what was divine, should be spread throughout
the greatest part of the known world, by a small number of
men, raised up and spirited to that end; and, in order thereunto,
acted above themselves, and furnished with extraordinary
qualifications, such as the gift of tongues, and a power to
work miracles, is a convincing proof, that the power by which
all this was done, is infinite. It was hereby that they were not
only inspired with wisdom, by which they silenced and confounded
their malicious enemies, but persuaded others to believe
what they were sent to impart to them. It was hereby
that they were inflamed with zeal, in proportion to the greatness
of the occasion, fortified with courage to despise the threats,
and patiently to bear the persecuting rage of those who pursued
them unto bonds and death. It was hereby that they
were enabled to finish their course with joy, and seal the doctrines
they delivered with their blood. And the power of God
was herein the more remarkable, inasmuch as they were not
men of the greatest natural sagacity, or resolution; and they
// File: b142.png
.pn +1
always confessed whatever there was extraordinary in the
course of their ministry, was from the hand of God.
(2.) The power of God appears in the success of the gospel,
the report whereof would never have been believed, had not
the arm of the Lord been revealed, Isa. liii. 1. The great multitude
that was converted to Christianity in one age, is an eminent
instance hereof: and the rather, because the profession
they made was contrary to their secular interests, and exposed
them to the same persecution, though in a less degree, which
the apostles themselves met with; notwithstanding which, they
willingly parted with their worldly substance, when the necessity
of affairs required it, and were content to have all things
common, that so the work might proceed with more success.
It was the power of God that touched their hearts; so that
this internal influence contributed more to the work of grace,
than all the rhetorick of man could have done. It was this that
carried them through all the opposition of cruel mocking, bonds,
and imprisonment, and at the same time compensated all their
losses and sufferings, by those extraordinary joys and supports
which they had, both in life and death.
And to this we may add, that the daily success of the gospel,
in all the instances of converting grace, is an evident effect
and proof of the divine power, as will farther appear, when,
under a following head, we consider effectual calling, as being
the work of God’s almighty power and grace.[52]
Object. It will be objected, that there are some things which
God cannot do, and therefore he is not almighty.
Answ. It is true, there are some things that God cannot do;
but the reason is, either because it would be contrary to his
divine perfections to do them, or they are not the objects of
power; therefore it is not an imperfection in him that he cannot
do them, but rather a branch of his glory. As,
1. There are some things which he cannot do, not because
he has not power to do them, had he pleased; but the only reason
is, because he has willed or determined not to do them.
Thus if we should say, that he cannot make more worlds, it is
not for want of infinite power, but because we suppose he has
determined not to make them; he cannot save the reprobate,
or fallen angels, not through a defect of power, but because he
has willed not to do it. In this the power of God is distinguished
from that of the creature; for we never say that a person
cannot do a thing, merely because he will not, but because
he wants power, if he would:[53] but this is by no means to be
said of God in any instance. Therefore we must distinguish
between his absolute and ordinate power; by the former he
// File: b143.png
.pn +1
could do many things, which by the latter he will not; and consequently,
to say he cannot do those things, which he has determined
not to do, does not in the least overthrow this attribute
of almighty power.
2. He cannot do that which is contrary to the nature of things,
where there is an impossibility in the things themselves to be
done: thus he cannot make a creature to be independent, for
that is contrary to the idea of a creature; nor can he make a
creature equal to himself, for then it would not be a creature;
it is also impossible that he should make a creature to be, and
not to be, at the same time; or render that not done, which is
done, since that is contrary to the nature and truth of things;
to which we may add, that he cannot make a creature the object
of religious worship; or, by his power, advance him to such
a dignity, as shall warrant any one’s ascribing divine perfections
to him.
3. He cannot deny himself, It is impossible for God to lie,
Heb. vi. 18. and it is equally impossible for him to act contrary
to any of his perfections; for which reason he cannot do anything
that argues weakness: as, for instance, he cannot repent,
or change his mind, or eternal purpose; nor can he do any thing
that would argue him, not to be a holy God: now, though it
may be truly said that God can do none of these things, this is
no defect in him, but rather a glory, since they are not the objects
of power, but would argue weakness and imperfection in
him, should he do them.
We shall now consider, what practical improvement we ought
to make of this divine attribute.
(1.) The almighty power of God affords great support and
relief to believers, when they are assaulted, and afraid of being
overcome, by their spiritual enemies: thus when they wrestle,
as the apostle says, not only against flesh and blood, but
against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the
darkness of this world, and against spiritual wickedness in high
places, Eph. vi. 12. and when they consider what numbers
have been overcome and ruined by them, and are discouraged
very much, under a sense of their own weakness or inability to
maintain their ground against them; let them consider that God
is able to bruise Satan under their feet, and to make them more
than conquerors, and to cause all grace to abound in them, and
to work in them that which is pleasing in his sight.
(2.) The consideration of God’s almighty power gives us the
greatest ground to conclude, that whatever difficulties seem to
lie in the way of the accomplishment of his promises, relating
to our future blessedness, shall be removed or surmounted; so
that those things which seem impossible, if we look no farther
than second causes, or the little appearance there is, at present,
// File: b144.png
.pn +1
of their being brought about, are not only possible, but very
easy for the power of God to effect.
Thus, with respect to what concerns the case of those who
are sinking into despair, under a sense of the guilt or power of
sin, by reason whereof they are ready to conclude that this
burden is so great, that no finite power can remove it; let such
consider, that to God all things are possible; he can, by his
powerful word, raise the most dejected spirits, and turn the
shadow of death into a bright morning of peace and joy.
Moreover, if we consider the declining state of religion in
the world, the apostacy of some professors, the degeneracy of
others, and what reason the best of them have to say, that it is
not with them as in times past; or when we consider what little
hope there is, from the present view we have of things, that the
work of God will be revived in his church; yea, if the state
thereof were, in all appearance, as hopeless as it was when God,
in a vision, represented it to the prophet Ezekiel, when he
shewed him the valley full of dry bones, and asked him, Can
these bones live? Ezek. xxxvii. 3. or if the question be put,
can the despised, declining, sinking, and dying interest of Christ
be revived? or how can those prophecies, that relate to the
church’s future happiness and glory, ever have their accomplishment
in this world, when all things seem to make against
it? this difficulty will be removed, and our hope encouraged,
when we consider the power of God, to which nothing is difficult,
much less insuperable.
And to this we may add, that the power of God will remove
all the difficulties that lie in our way, with respect to the resurrection
of the dead: this is a doctrine which seems contrary to
the course of nature; and, if we look no farther than the power
of the creature, we should be inclined to say, How can this be?
But when we consider the almighty power of God, that will
sufficiently remove all objections that can be brought against it:
thus, when our Saviour proves this doctrine, he opposes the
absurd notions which some had relating thereunto, by saying,
Ye do err, not knowing the scriptures, nor the power of God,
Matth. xxii. 19.
(3.) Let us have a due regard to this attribute, and take encouragement
from it, when we are engaging in holy duties, and
are sensible of our inability to perform them in a right manner,
and have too much reason to complain of an unbecoming frame
of spirit therein, of the hardness and impenitency of our hearts,
the obstinacy and perverseness of our wills, the earthliness and
carnality of our affections, and that all the endeavours we can
use to bring ourselves into a better frame, have not their desired
success; let us encourage ourselves with this consideration,
that God can make us willing in the day of his power, Psal. cx.
// File: b145.png
.pn +1
3. and do exceeding abundantly above all that we can ask or
think, Eph. iii. 20.
(4.) Let us take heed that we do not abuse, or practically
deny, or cast contempt on this divine perfection, by presuming
that we may obtain spiritual blessings, without dependence on
him for them, or expecting divine influences, while we continue
in the neglect of his instituted means of grace: it is true, God
can work without means, but he has not given us ground to expect
that he will do so; therefore when we seek help from him,
it must be in his own way.
Again, let us take heed that we do not abuse this divine perfection,
by a distrust of God, or by dependence on an arm of
flesh; let us not, on the one hand, limit the Holy One of Israel,
by saying, Can God do this or that for me, either with respect
to spiritual or temporal concerns? nor, on the other hand, rest
in any thing short of him, as though omnipotency were not an
attribute peculiar to himself. As he is able to do great things
for us that we looked not for; so he is much displeased when
we expect these blessings from any one short of himself; Who
art thou, that thou shouldst be afraid of a man, that shall die, and
forgettest the Lord thy Maker, that hath stretched forth the heavens,
and laid the foundation of the earth? Isa. li. 12.
X. God knows all things: it has been before considered, that
his being a Spirit, implies his having an understanding, as a
spirit is an intelligent being; therefore his being an infinite
Spirit, must argue that his understanding is infinite, Psal.
cxlvii. 5.
This may be farther proved,
1. From his having given being to all things at first, and
continually upholding them; he must necessarily know his own
workmanship, the effects of his power; and this is yet more evident,
if we consider the creation of all things, as a work of infinite
wisdom, which is plainly discernible therein, as well as
almighty power; therefore he must know all things, for wisdom
supposes knowledge. Moreover, his being the proprietor of all
things, results from his having created them, and certainly he
must know his own.
2. This farther appears, from his governing all things, or
his ordering the subserviency thereof, to answer some valuable
ends, and that all should redound to his glory; therefore both
the ends and means must be known by him. And as for the
governing of intelligent creatures, this supposes knowledge: as
the Judge of all, he must be able to discern the cause, or else
he cannot determine it, and perfectly to know the rules of justice,
or else he cannot exercise it in the government of the
world.
3. If God knows himself, he must know all other things, for
// File: b146.png
.pn +1
he that knows the greatest object, must know things of a lesser
nature; besides, if he knows himself, he knows what he can do,
will do, or has done, which is as much as to say that he knows
all things. And that God knows himself, must be granted
for if it be the privilege of an intelligent creature to know himself,
though this knowledge in him be but imperfect, surely
God must know himself; and because his knowledge cannot
have any defect, which would be inconsistent with infinite perfection,
therefore he must have a perfect, that is to say, an infinite
knowledge of himself, and consequently of all other
things.
This knowledge of God, which has the creature for its object,
is distinguished, in scripture, into his comprehending, seeing,
or having a perfect intuition of all things, and his approving
of things, or it is either intuitive or approbative; the former
of these is what we principally understand by this attribute;
as when it is said, Known unto God are all his works, from the
beginning of the world, Acts xv. 18. and, thou knowest my
down-sitting and up-rising, and art acquainted with all my
ways; for there is not a word in my tongue, but lo, O Lord, thou
knowest it altogether, Psal. cxxxix. 2, 3, 4. and, the Lord searcheth
all hearts, and understandeth all the imaginations of the
thoughts, 1 Chron. xxviii. 9. And as for the other sense of
God’s knowledge, to wit, of approbation, which is less properly
called knowledge, because it is rather seated in the will than in
the understanding; of this we read in several scriptures; as
when God tells Moses, I know thee by name, Exod. xxxiii. 12.
which is explained by the following words, And thou hast found
grace in my sight; so when our Saviour says, concerning his
enemies, I will profess unto you I never knew you, Matth. vii.
23. it is not meant of a knowledge of intuition, but approbation.
In the former sense, he knows all things, bad as well as
good, that which he hates and will punish, as well as what he
delights in; in the latter, he only knows that which is good, or
agreeable to his will.
Moreover, God is said to know what he can do, and what
he has done, or will do.
(1.) God knows what he can do, even many things that he
will not do; for as his power is unlimited, so that he can do infinitely
more than he will, so he knows more than he will do.
This is very obvious; for we ourselves, as free agents, can do
more than we will, and, as intelligent, we know in many instances,
what we can do, though we will never do them: much
more must this be said of the great God, who calleth things
that be not as though they were, Rom. iv. 17. so David enquires
of God, Will Saul come down? and will the men of Keilah
deliver me up into has hand? And God answers him, He will
// File: b147.png
.pn +1
come down, and the men of Keilah will deliver thee up, 1 Sam.
xxiii. 12. which implies, that God knew what they would have
done, had not his providence prevented it. In this respect,
things known by him are said to be possible, by reason of his
power, whereas the future existence thereof depends on his will.
(2.) God knows whatever he has done, does, or will do, viz.
things past, present, or to come. That he knows all things present,
has been proved, from the dependence of things on his
providence; and his knowledge being inseparably connected
with his power: and that he knows all things that are past, is
no less evident, for they were once present, and consequently
known by him; and to suppose that he does not know them,
is to charge him with forgetfulness, or to suppose that his knowledge
at present is less perfect than it was, which is inconsistent
with infinite perfection. Moreover, if God did not know
all things past, he could not be the Judge of the world; and
particularly, he could neither reward nor punish; both which
acts respect only things that are past; therefore such things are
perfectly known by him. Thus, when Job considered his present
afflictions, as the punishment of past sins, he says, Job xiv.
17. My transgression is sealed up in a bag; thou sewest up
mine iniquity; which metaphorical way of speaking, implies
his remembering it: so when God threatens to punish his adversaries
for their iniquity, he speaks of it, as remembered by
him, laid up in store with him, and sealed up among his treasures,
Deut. xxxii. 34, 35. So, on the other hand, when he
designed to reward, or encourage, the religious duties, performed
by his people, who feared his name, it is said, a book of remembrance
was written before him, for them, Mal. iii. 16.
But that which we shall principally consider, is, God’s
knowing all things future, viz. not only such as are the effects
of necessary causes, where the effect is known in or by the
cause, but such as are contingent, with respect to us; which is
the most difficult of all knowledge whatsoever, and argues it to
be truly divine.
By future contingences, we understand things that are accidental,
or, as we commonly say, happen by chance, without any
fore-thought, or design of men. Now that many things happen
so, with respect to us, and therefore we cannot certainly foreknow
them, is very obvious; but even these are foreknown by
God[54] For,
// File: b148.png
.pn +1
1. Things that happen without our design, or fore-thought,
and therefore are not certainly foreknown by us, are the objects
of his providence, and therefore known unto him from the beginning:
thus the fall of a sparrow to the ground is a casual
thing, yet our Saviour says, that this is not without his providence,
Matth. x. 29. Therefore,
2. That which is casual, or accidental to us, is not so to him;
so that though we cannot have a certain or determinate foreknowledge
thereof, it does not follow that he has not; since,
3. He has foretold many such future events, as appears by
the following instances.
// File: b149.png
.pn +1
(1.) Ahab’s death by an arrow, shot at random, may be
reckoned a contingent event; yet this was foretold before he
went into the battle, 1 Kings xxii. 17, 18, 34. and accomplished
accordingly.
(2.) That Israel should be afflicted and oppressed in Egypt,
and afterwards should be delivered, was foretold four hundred
years before it came to pass, Gen. xv. 13, 14. And when Moses
was sent to deliver them out of the Egyptian bondage, God
tells him, before-hand, how obstinate Pharaoh would be, and
with how much difficulty he would be brought to let them go,
Exod. iii. 19, 20.
(3.) Joseph’s advancement in Egypt was a contingent and
very unlikely event, yet it was made known several years before,
by his prophetic dream, Gen. xxxvii. 5, &c. and afterwards,
that which tended more immediately to it, was his foretelling
what happened to the chief butler and baker, and the
seven years of plenty and famine in Egypt, signified by Pharaoh’s
dream; all which were contingent events, and were foretold
by divine inspiration, and therefore foreknown by God.
(4.) Hazael’s coming to the crown of Syria, and the cruelty
that he would exercise, was foretold to him, when he thought
he could never be such a monster of a man, as he afterwards
appeared to be, 2 Kings viii. 12, 13.
(5.) Judas’s betraying our Lord was foretold by him, John
vi. 70, 71. though, at that time, he seemed as little disposed to
commit so vile a crime as any of his disciples.
Thus having considered God’s knowledge, with respect to
the object, either as past, or future, we shall conclude this
head, by observing some properties, whereby it appears to be
superior to all finite knowledge, and truly divine, viz.
1. It is perfect, intimate, and distinct, and not superficial, or
confused, or only respecting things in general, as ours often is:
thus it is said concerning him, that he bringeth out his host by
number, and calleth them all by names, Isa. xl. 26. which denotes
his exquisite knowledge of all things, as well as propriety in,
and using them at his pleasure. And since all creatures live
and move, or act, in him, Acts xvii. 28. or by his powerful influence,
it follows from hence, that his knowledge is as distinct
and particular, as the actions themselves, yea, the most indifferent
actions, that are hardly taken notice of by ourselves, such
as our down-sitting and up-rising, Psal. cxxxix. 2. and
every transient thought that is no sooner formed in our minds,
but forgotten by us, is known by him afar off, at the greatest
distance of time, when it is irrecoverably lost with respect to
us. That God knows all things thus distinctly, is evident not
only from their dependence upon him; but it is said, that when
he had brought his whole work of creation to perfection, He
// File: b150.png
.pn +1
saw every thing that he had made, and behold it was very good,
that is, agreeable to his eternal design, or, if we may so express
it, to the idea, or plat-form, laid in his own mind; and this he
pronounced concerning every individual thing, which is as
much the object of his omniscience, as the effect of his power:
what can be more expressive of the perfection and distinctness
of his knowledge than this? Therefore the apostle might well
say, that there is not any creature that is not manifest in his
sight; but all things are naked, and opened unto the eyes of him
with whom we have to do, Heb. iv. 13.
2. He knows every thing, even future contingencies, with a
certain and infallible knowledge, without the least hesitation, or
possibility of mistake; and therefore, as opinion, or conjecture,
is opposed to certainty, it is not in the least applicable to him.
In this his knowledge differs from that of the best of creatures,
who can only guess at some things that may happen, according
to the probable fore-views they have thereof.
3. As to the manner of his knowing all things, it is not in a
discursive way, agreeable to our common method of reasoning,
by inferring one thing from another, or by comparing things together,
and observing their connexion, dependence, and various
powers and manner of acting, and thereby discerning what will
follow; for such a knowledge as this is acquired, and presupposes
a degree of ignorance: conclusions can hardly be said to
be known, till the premises, from whence they are deduced, be
duly weighed; but this is inconsistent with the knowledge of
God, who sees all things in himself; things possible in his own
power, and things future in his will, without inferring, abstracting,
or deducing conclusions from premises, which to do is unbecoming
him, who is perfect in knowledge.
4. He knows all things at once, not successively, as we do;
for if successive duration be an imperfection, (as was before
observed, when we considered the eternity of God) his knowing
all things after this manner, is equally so; and, indeed, this
would argue an increase of the divine knowledge, or a making
advances in wisdom, by experience, and daily observation of
things, which, though applicable to all intelligent creatures, can,
by no means, be said of him, whose understanding is infinite,
Psal. cxlvii. 5.
We shall now consider what improvement we ought to make
of God’s omniscience, as to what respects our conduct in this
world.
First, Let us take heed that we do not practically deny this
attribute.
1. By acting as though we thought that we could hide ourselves
from the all-seeing eye of God; let us not say, to use
the words of Eliphaz, How doth God know? Can he judge
// File: b151.png
.pn +1
through the dark cloud? Thick clouds are a covering to him,
that he seeth not, and he walketh in the circuit of heaven, Job
xxii. 13, 14. How vain a supposition is this! since there is no
darkness, or shadow of death, where the workers of iniquity may
hide themselves, chap. xxxiv. 22. Hypocrisy is, as it were, an
attempt to hide ourselves from God, an acting as though we
thought that we could deceive or impose on him, which is called,
in scripture, a lying to him, Psal. lxxviii. 36. or, a compassing
him about with lies and deceit, Hos. xi. 12. This all are
chargeable with, who rest in a form of godliness, as though
God saw only the outward actions, but not the heart.
2. By being more afraid of man than God, and venturing to
commit the vilest abominations, without considering his all-seeing
eye, which we would be afraid and ashamed to do, were we
under the eye of man, as the apostle saith, It is a shame even
to speak of those things which are done of them in secret, Eph.
v. 12. Thus God says, concerning an apostatizing people of
old, speaking to the prophet Ezekiel, Son of man, hast thou seen
what the ancients of the house of Israel do in the dark, every
man in the chambers of his imagery? for they say, The Lord
seeth us not, the Lord hath forsaken the earth, Ezek. viii. 12.
Secondly, The consideration of God’s omniscience should be
improved, to humble us under a sense of sin, but especially of
secret sins, which are all known to him: thus it is said, Thou
hast set our iniquities before thee; our secret sins in the light of
thy countenance, Psal. xc. 8. and his eyes are upon the ways of
man, and he seeth all his goings, Job xxxiv. 21. There are
many things which we know concerning ourselves, that no
creature is privy to, which occasions self-conviction, and might
fill us with shame and confusion of face. But this falls infinitely
short of God’s omniscience; for if our heart condemn us,
God is greater than our heart, and knoweth all things, 1 John
iii. 20. And this should make sinners tremble at the thoughts
of a future judgment; for if sins be not pardoned, he is able to
bring them to remembrance, and, as he threatens he will do,
set them in order before their eyes, Psal. l. 21.
Thirdly, The due consideration of this divine perfection,
will, on the other hand, tend very much to the comfort of believers:
he seeth their secret wants, the breathings of their souls
after him, and as our Saviour saith, Their Father, which seeth
in secret, shall reward them openly, Matt. vi. 4. With what
pleasure may they appeal to God, as the searcher of hearts,
concerning their sincerity, when it is called in question by men.
And when they are afraid of contracting guilt and defilement,
by secret faults, which they earnestly desire, with the Psalmist,
to be cleansed from, Psal. xix. 12. it is some relief to them to
consider that God knows them, and therefore is able to give
// File: b152.png
.pn +1
them repentance for them; so that they may pray with David;
Search me, O God, and know my heart; try me, and know my
thoughts; and see if there be any wicked way in me, and lead me
in the way everlasting, Psal. cxxxix. 23, 24. Moreover, it is a
quieting thought, to all who are affected with the church’s troubles,
and the deep laid designs of its enemies against it, to consider
that God knows them, and therefore can easily defeat, and
turn them into foolishness.
Fourthly, The due consideration of God’s omniscience will
be of great use to all Christians, to promote a right frame of
spirit in holy duties; it will make them careful how they behave
themselves as being in his sight; and tend to fill them
with a holy reverence, as those that are under his immediate
inspection, that they may approve themselves to him.
XI. God is most wise, or infinite in wisdom; or, as the apostle
expresses it, he is the only wise God, Rom. xvi. 27. This
perfection considered as absolute, underived, and truly divine,
belongs only to him; so that the angels themselves, the most
excellent order of created beings, are said to be destitute of it,
or charged with folly, Job iv. 18. For our understanding what
this divine perfection is, let us consider; that wisdom contains
in it more than knowledge, for there may be a great degree of
knowledge, where there is but little wisdom, though there can
be no wisdom without knowledge: knowledge is, as it were,
the eye of the soul, whereby it apprehends, or sees, things in a
true light, and so it is opposed to ignorance, or not knowing
things; but wisdom is that whereby the soul is directed in the
skilful management of things, or in ordering them for the best;
and this is opposed, not so much to ignorance, or error of judgment,
as to folly, or error in conduct, which is a defect of wisdom;
and it consists more especially in designing the best and
most valuable end in what we are about to do, in using the
most proper means to effect it, and in observing the fittest season
to act, and every circumstance attending it, that is most
expedient and conducive thereunto; also in foreseeing and
guarding against every occurrence that may frustrate our design,
or give us an occasion to blame ourselves for doing what
we have done, or repent of it, or to wish we had taken other
measures. Now, that we may from hence take an estimate of
the wisdom of God, it appears,
1. In the reference, or tendency of all things to his own glory,
which is the highest and most excellent end that can be proposed;
as he is the highest and best of beings, and his glory,
to which all things are referred, is infinitely excellent.
Here let us consider,
(1.) That God is, by reason of his infinite perfection, naturally
and necessarily the object of adoration.
// File: b153.png
.pn +1
(2.) He cannot be adored, unless his glory be set forth and
demonstrated, or made visible.
(3.) There must be an intelligent creature to behold his glory,
and adore his perfections, that are thus demonstrated and
displayed.
(4.) Every thing that he does is fit and designed to lead this
creature into the knowledge of his glory; and that it is so ordered,
is an eminent instance of divine wisdom. We need not
travel far to know this, for wherever we look, we may behold
how excellent his name is in all the earth: and because some
are so stupid, that they cannot, or will not, in a way of reasoning,
infer his divine perfections from things that are without
us, therefore he has instamped the knowledge thereof on the
souls and consciences of men; so that, at sometimes, they are
obliged, whether they will or no, to acknowledge them. There
is something which may be known of God, that is said to be
manifest in, and shewn to all; so that the Gentiles who have not
the law, that is, the written word of God, do, by nature the
things, that is, some things, contained therein, and so are a law
unto themselves, and shew the work of the law written in their
hearts, Rom. i. 19. chap. ii. 14, 15. And, besides this, he has
led us farther into the knowledge of his divine perfections by
his word, which he is said to have magnified above all his name,
Psal. cxxxvii. 2. therefore having thus adapted his works and
word, to set forth his glory, he discovers himself to be infinite
in wisdom.[55]
// File: b154.png
.pn +1
2. The wisdom of God appears, in that whatever he does, is
in the fittest season, and all the circumstances thereof tend to
set forth his own honour, and argue his foresight to be infinitely
perfect; so that he can see no reason to wish it had been
otherwise ordered, or to repent thereof. For all his ways are
judgment, Deut. xxxii. 4. to every thing there is a season and
a time, to every purpose under the heaven; and he hath made
every thing beautiful in his time, Eccl. iii. 1, 11.
For the farther illustrating of this, since wisdom is known
by its effects, we shall observe some of the traces, or footsteps
thereof in his works. And,
(1.) In the work of creation. As it requires infinite power
to produce something out of nothing; so the wisdom of God
appears in that excellent order, beauty, and harmony, that we
observe in all the parts of the creation; and in the subserviency
of one thing to another, and the tendency thereof to promote
the moral government of God in the world, and the good
of man, for whose sake this lower world was formed, that so
it might be a convenient habitation for him, and a glorious object,
in which he might contemplate, and thereby be led to advance
the divine perfections, which shine forth therein, as in a
glass; so that we have the highest reason to say, Lord, how
manifold are thy works; in wisdom hast thou made them all,
Psal. civ. 24. He hath made the earth by his power; he hath
established the world by his wisdom, and hath stretched out the
heavens by his discretion, Jer. x. 12. But since this argument
hath been insisted on, with great ingenuity, and strength of
reason by others,[56] we shall add no more on that subject, but
proceed to consider,
// File: b155.png
.pn +1
(2.) The wisdom of God, as appearing in the works of providence,
in bringing about unexpected events for the good of
mankind, and that, by means that seem to have no tendency
thereto, but rather the contrary; this will appear in the following
instances. As,
1st, Jacob’s flying from his father’s house, was wisely ordered,
as a means not only for his escaping the fury of his brother,
and the trial of his faith, and to humble him for the sinful
method he took to obtain the blessing; but also for the
building up his family, and encreasing his substance in the
world, under a very unjust father-in-law and master, such as
Laban was.
2dly, Joseph’s being sold into Egypt, was ordered, as a means
of his preserving not only that land, but his father’s house, from
perishing by famine; his imprisonment was the occasion of his
advancement. And all this led the way to the accomplishment
of what God had foretold relating to his people’s dwelling in
Egypt, and their wonderful deliverance from the bondage they
were to endure therein.
3dly, The wisdom of God was seen in the manner of Israel’s
deliverance out of Egypt, in that he first laid them under the
greatest discouragements, by suffering the Egyptians to increase
their tasks and burdens; hardening Pharaoh’s heart, that he
might try his people’s faith, and make their deliverance appear
more remarkable; and then plaguing the Egyptians, that he
might punish their pride, injustice, and cruelty; and, at last,
giving them up to such an infatuation, as effectually procured
their final overthrow, and his people’s safety.
4thly, In leading Israel forty years in the wilderness, before
he brought them into the promised land, that he might give them
statutes and ordinances, and that they might experience various
instances of his presence among them, by judgments and mercies,
and so be prepared for all the privileges he designed for
them, as his peculiar people, in the land of Canaan.
5thly, We have a very wonderful instance of the wisdom of
providence in the book of Esther; when Haman, the enemy of
the Jews, had obtained a decree for their destruction, and Mordecai
was first to be sacrificed to his pride and revenge, providence
turned whatever he intended against him, upon himself.
There was something very remarkable in all the circumstances
that led to it, by which the church’s deliverance and advancement
was brought about; when, to an eye of reason, it
seemed almost impossible,
(3.) The wisdom of God appears yet more eminently, in the
// File: b156.png
.pn +1
work of our redemption; this is that which the angels desire to
look into, and cannot behold without the greatest admiration;
for herein God’s manifold wisdom is displayed, 1 Pet. i. 12.
Eph. iii. 10. This solves the difficulty, contained in a former
dispensation of providence, respecting God’s suffering sin to
enter into the world, which he could have prevented, and probably
would have done, had he not designed to over-rule it,
for the bringing about the work of our redemption by Christ;
so that what we lost in our first head, should be recovered
with great advantage in our second, the Lord from heaven.
But though this matter was determined in the eternal covenant,
between the Father and the Son, and the necessity of
man seemed to require that Christ should be immediately incarnate,
as soon as man fell, yet it was deferred till many ages
after; and herein the wisdom of God eminently appeared. For,
1st, God hereby tried the faith and patience of his church,
and put them upon waiting for, and depending on him, who
was to come; so that though they had not received this promised
blessing, yet they saw it afar off; were persuaded of, and
embraced it, and, with Abraham, rejoiced to see his day, though
at a great distance, Heb. xi. 13. John viii. 56. and hereby they
glorified the faithfulness of God, and depended on his word,
that the work of redemption should be brought about, as certainly,
as though it had been actually accomplished.
2dly, Our Saviour, in the mean time took occasion to display
his own glory, as the Lord, and Governor of his church,
even before his incarnation, to whom he often appeared in a
human form, assumed for that purpose, as a prelibation thereof;
so that they had the greatest reason, from hence, to expect
his coming in our nature.
3rdly, The time of Christ’s coming in the flesh, was such
as appeared most seasonable; when the state of the church was
very low, religion almost lost among them, and the darkness
they were under, exceeding great; which made it very necessary
that the Messiah should come: when iniquity almost universally
prevailed among them, then the deliverer must come
out of Sion, and turn away ungodliness from Jacob, Rom. xi.
26. and when the darkness of the night was greatest, it was the
most proper time for the Sun of Righteousness to arise with
healing in his wings, Mal. iv. 2. compared with Matt. iv. 16.
(4.) The wisdom of God farther appears in the various
methods he has taken in the government of his church, before
and since the coming of Christ. For,
1st, God at first, as has been before observed,[57] left his church
without a written word, till Moses’s time, that he might take
occasion to converse with them more immediately, as an instance
// File: b157.png
.pn +1
of infinite condescension; and to shew them, that though
they had no such method of knowing his revealed will as we
have, yet that he could communicate his mind to them another
way; and, when the necessity of affairs required it, then his
wisdom was seen in taking this method to propagate religion
in the world.
2dly, When God designed to govern his church by those
rules, which he hath laid down in scripture, he revealed the
great doctrines contained therein, in a gradual way; so that the
dispensation of his providence towards them, was like the light
of the morning, increasing to a perfect day: he first instructed
them by various types and shadows, leading them into the
knowledge of the gospel, which was afterwards to be more
clearly revealed: he taught them, as they were able to bear it,
like children growing in knowledge, till they arrive to a perfect
manhood: he first gave them grounds to expect the blessings
which he would bestow in after-ages, by the manifold predictions
thereof; and afterwards glorified his faithfulness in
their accomplishment.
3dly, He sometimes governed them in a more immediate
way, and confirmed their faith, as was then necessary, by miracles;
and also raised up prophets, as occasion served, whom
he furnished, in an extraordinary way, for the service to which
he called them, to lead his church into the knowledge of those
truths, on which their faith was built.
And, to this we may add, that he gave them various other
helps for their faith, by those common and ordinary means of
grace, which they were favoured with, and which the gospel
church now enjoys, and has ground to conclude that they will
be continued until Christ’s second coming. Here we might take
occasion to consider how the wisdom of God appears in furnishing
his church with a gospel-ministry, and how the management
thereof is adapted to the necessities of his people; in employing
such about this work, who are duly qualified for it,
assisting them in the discharge thereof, and succeeding their
humble endeavours; and all this in such a way, as that the
praise shall redound to himself, who builds his house, and bears
the glory; but this we may have occasion to insist on in a following
part of this work.[58]
(5.) The wisdom of God appears in the method he takes to
preserve, propagate, and build up his church in the world.
Therefore,
1st, As his kingdom is not of this world, but of a spiritual,
nature, so he hath ordered that it shall not be promoted by those
methods of violence, or carnal policy, by which the secular interests
of men are oft-times advanced. He has no where appointed
// File: b158.png
.pn +1
that wars should be proclaimed to propagate the faith,
or that persons should be forced to embrace it against their
wills, or be listed under Christ’s banner, by bribery, or a prospect
of worldly advantage; therefore all the success the gospel
has had, which is worthy to be called success, has been such
as is agreeable to the spirituality of Christ’s kingdom; thus his
house is to be built, not by might, nor by power, but by his
Spirit, Zech. iv. 6.
2dly, That the church should flourish under persecution, and
those methods which its enemies take to ruin it, should be over-ruled,
to its greater advantage; and that hereby shame and disappointment
should attend every weapon that is formed against
Sion, as being without success; and that the church should appear
more eminently to be the care of God, when it meets with
the most injurious treatment from men, is a plain proof of the
glory of this attribute: and, on the other hand, that its flourishing
state, as to outward, things, should not be always attended
with the like marks or evidences of the divine favour, in what
more immediately respects salvation, is an instance of the divine
wisdom, as God hereby puts his people on setting the
highest value on those things that are most excellent; and not
to reckon themselves most happy in the enjoyment of the good
things of this life, when they are destitute of his special presence
with them.
3dly, The preserving the rising generation from the vile
abominations that there are in the world, especially the seed of
believers, and calling many of them by his grace, that so there
may be a constant reserve of those, who may be added to his
church, as others, who have served their generation, are called
out of it, which is a necessary expedient for the preserving his
interest in the world: in this the wisdom of God is eminently
glorified, as well as his other perfections.
From what has been said concerning the wisdom of God,
we may infer,
1. That none can be said to meditate aright on the works
of God, such as creation, providence, or redemption, who do
not behold and admire his manifold wisdom displayed therein,
as well as his other perfections. As we conclude him a very
unskilful observer of a curious picture or statue, who only takes
notice of its dimensions in general, or the matter of which it is
composed, without considering the symmetry and proportion
of all the parts thereof, and those other excellencies, by which
the artist has signalized his skill; so it is below a Christian to
be able only to say, that there are such works done in the
world, or to have a general idea of its being governed by providence,
without having his thoughts suitably affected with the
// File: b159.png
.pn +1
harmonious subserviency of things, and the design of all to set
forth the glory of him, who is a God of infinite wisdom.
2. If we cannot understand the meaning of some particular
dispensations of providence, so as to admire the wisdom of
God therein, let us compare all the parts of providence together,
and one will illustrate and add a beauty to another, as
our Saviour says to Peter, What I do thou knowest not now,
but thou shalt know hereafter, John xiii. 7. therefore let us compare
the various dark dispensations, which the church of God
is under at one time, with the glory that shall be put upon it
at another.
3. From the displays of the wisdom of God in all his works,
let us learn humility, under a sense of our own folly: thus the
Psalmist takes occasion to express his low thoughts of mankind
in general, and says, What is man, that thou art mindful of
him? when he had been meditating on the glory of some
other parts of his creation, which he calls, The work of his fingers,
Psal. viii. 3, 4. that is, creatures, in which his wisdom is
displayed in a very eminent degree. But, besides this, we may
take occasion to have a humble sense of our own folly; that is,
our defect of wisdom; since it is but a little of God that is
known by us, and the wonderful effects of divine wisdom are
known but in part by us, who dwell in houses of clay.
4. Let us subject our understandings to God, and have a
high veneration for his word, in which his wisdom is displayed,
which he has ordained, as the means whereby we may be made
wise unto salvation; and whatever incomprehensible mysteries
we find contained therein, let us not reject or despise them because
we cannot comprehend them.
5. Since God is infinite in wisdom, let us seek wisdom of
him, according to the apostle’s advice, If any of you lack wisdom,
let him ask it of God, that giveth to all men liberally, and
upbraideth not; and it shall be given him, James i. 5.
XII. God is most holy, or infinite in holiness, which is essential
to him: thus he is often styled, The Holy One of Israel,
Isa. i. 4. and this attribute is thrice repeated by the seraphim,
who, with the utmost reverence and adoration, cried, one unto
another, Holy, holy, holy, is the Lord of hosts, chap. vi. 3. And
he is said to be holy, exclusively of all others, as this is a divine
perfection, and as he is infinitely and independently so,
O Lord, thou only art holy, Rev. xv. 4. and the reason of this
is assigned, to wit, because he is the only God; holiness is his
very nature and essence; There is none holy as the Lord, for
there is none besides him, 1 Sam. ii. 2. In considering this divine
perfection, we shall enquire,
1. What we are to understand by it. Holiness is that whereby
he is infinitely opposite to every thing that tends to reflect
// File: b160.png
.pn +1
dishonour, or reproach, on his divine perfections; and especially
as he is infinitely opposite in his nature, will, and works,
to all moral impurity; as his power is opposed to all natural
weakness, his wisdom to the least defect of understanding or
folly, so his holiness is opposed to all moral blemishes, or imperfections,
which we call sin; so that it is not so much one
single perfection, as the harmony of all his perfections, as they
are opposed to sin; and therefore it is called, The beauty of
the Lord, Psal. xxvii. 4. and when the Psalmist prays that the
church may be made and dealt with as an holy people, he says,
Let the beauty of the Lord our God be upon us, Psal. xc. 17. It
is that which, if we may so express it, adds a lustre to all his
other perfections; so that if he were not glorious in holiness,
whatever else might be said of him, would tend rather to his
dishonour than his glory, and the beauty of his perfections
would be so sullied that they could not be called divine: as
holiness is the brightest part of the image of God in man,
without which nothing could be mentioned concerning him,
but what turns to his reproach, his wisdom would deserve no
better a name than that of subtilty, his power destructive and
injurious, his zeal furious madness; so if we separate holiness
from the divine nature, all other excellencies would be inglorious,
because impure.
2. We proceed to consider the holiness of God, as glorified
or demonstrated in various instances.
(1.) In his works. This perfection was as eminently displayed
in the work of creation, especially that of angels and men,
as his power, wisdom, and goodness; for he made them with a
perfect rectitude of nature, without the least spot or propensity
to sin, and with a power to retain it; so that there was no natural
necessity laid on them to sin, which might infer God to be
the author of it: and furthermore, as a moral expedient to prevent
it, as well as to assert his own sovereignty, he gave them
a law, which was holy, as well as just and good, and warned
them of those dreadful consequences that would ensue on the
violation thereof; as it would render them unholy, deprive them
of his image, and consequently separate them from him, and
render them the objects of his abhorrence; and, to this we may
add, that his end in making all other things was, that his intelligent
creatures might actively glorify him, and be induced to
holiness.
(2.) This divine perfection appears likewise in the government
of the world, and of the church, in all the dispensations
of his providence, either in a way of judgment, or of mercy;
therefore he shews his displeasure against nothing but sin,
which is the only thing that renders creatures the objects of
punishment, and all the blessings he bestows are a motive to
// File: b161.png
.pn +1
holiness. As for his people, whom he hath the greatest regard
to, they are described, as called to be saints, 1 Cor. i. 2. and it
is said of the church of Israel, that it was holiness unto the
Lord, Jer. ii. 3. and all his ordinances are holy, and to be engaged
in with such a frame of spirit, as is agreeable thereunto:
thus he says, I will be sanctified in them that come nigh me,
Lev. x. 3. and holiness becometh his house for ever, Psal. xciii.
5. In like manner, we are to take an estimate of the success
thereof, when, through the divine blessing accompanying them,
they tend to promote internal holiness in those who are engaged
therein, whereby they are distinguished from the rest of
the world, and sanctified by his truth, John xvii. 17.
Object. It may be objected by some, that God’s suffering sin
to enter into the world, which he might have prevented, was a
reflection cast on his holiness.
Answ. It must be allowed, that God might have prevented
the first entrance of sin into the world, by his immediate interposure,
and so have kept man upright, as well as made him so;
yet let it be considered, that he was not obliged to do this; and
therefore might, without any reflection on his holiness, leave an
innocent creature to the conduct of his own free-will, which
might be tempted, but not forced, to sin, especially since he designed
to over-rule the event hereof, for the setting forth the
glory of all his perfections, and, in an eminent degree, that of
his holiness; but this will more particularly be considered under
some following answers.[59]
From what has been said concerning the holiness of God, let
us take occasion to behold and admire the beauty and glory
thereof, in all the divine dispensations, as he can neither do,
nor enjoin any thing but what sets forth his infinite purity;
therefore,
1. As he cannot be the author of sin, so we must take heed
that we do not advance any doctrines from whence this consequence
may be inferred; this ought to be the standard by which
they are to be tried, as we shall take occasion to observe in
several instances, and think ourselves as much concerned to advance
the glory of this perfection, as of any other: notwithstanding
it is one thing for persons to militate against what appears
to be a truth, by alleging this popular objection, that it
is contrary to the holiness of God, and another thing to support
the charge; this will be particularly considered, when
such-like objections, brought against the doctrine of predestination,
and several other doctrines, are answered in their proper
place.
2. It is an excellency, beauty, and glory, in the Christian religion,
which should make us more in love with it, that it leads
// File: b162.png
.pn +1
to holiness, which was the image of God in man. All other
religions have indulged, led to, or dispensed with many impurities,
as may be observed in those of the Mahometans and
Pagans; and the different religions, professed by them who are
called Christians, are to be judged more or less valuable, and
accordingly to be embraced or rejected, as they tend more or
less to promote holiness. And here I cannot but observe, that
it is a singular excellency of the Protestant religion above the
Popish, that all its doctrines and precepts have a tendency
thereunto; whereas the other admits of, dispenses with, and
gives countenance to manifold impurities; as will appear, if
we consider some of the doctrines held by them, which lead to
licentiousness. As,
(1.) That some sins are, in their own nature, so small, that
they do not deserve eternal punishment, and therefore that satisfaction
is to be made for them, by undergoing some penances
enjoined them by the priest; upon which condition, he gives
them absolution, and so discharges them from any farther concern
about them; which is certainly subversive of holiness, as
well as contrary to scripture, which says, The wages of sin is
death, Rom. vi. 23. the word of God knows no distinction between
mortal and venial sins, especially in the sense which they
give thereof.
(2.) The doctrine of indulgences and dispensations to sin,
given forth at a certain rate. This was a great matter of offence
to those who took occasion, for it, among other reasons, to
separate from them in the beginning of the reformation, whereby
they gave glory to the holiness of God, in expressing a just
indignation against such vile practices. It is true the Papists
allege, in defence thereof, that it is done in compassion to those,
whose natural temper leads them, with impetuous violence, to
those sins, which they dispense with; and that this is, in some
respects, necessary, in as much as the temptations of some, arising
from their condition in the world, are greater than what
others are liable to. But none of these things will exempt
a person from the guilt of sin, much less warrant the practice
of those, who hereby encourage them to commit it.
(3.) Another doctrine maintained by them is, that the law of
God, as conformed to human laws, respects only outward, or
overt-acts, as they are generally called, and not the heart, or
principle, from whence they proceed; and therefore that concupiscence,
or the corruption of nature, which is the impure
fountain, from whence all sins proceed, comes not under the
cognisance of the divine law, nor exposes us to any degree of
punishment; and that either because they suppose it unavoidable,
or else because every sin is an act, and not a habit, the
off-spring, or effect of lust, which, when (as they pervert the
// File: b163.png
.pn +1
words of the apostle) it has conceived, brings forth sin; and
sin, when it is finished, bringeth forth death, James i. 15. whereas
the spring of defiled actions is, in reality, more corrupt and
abominable than the actions themselves, how much soever actual
sins may be supposed to be more scandalous and pernicious
to the world, as they are more visible; if the fruit be corrupt,
the tree that brings forth must be much more so; and though
this is not so discernible by others, yet it is abhorred and punished
by a jealous God, who searches the heart and the reins;
therefore this doctrine is contrary to his holiness.
(4.) The merit of good works, and our justification thereby,
is a reflection on this divine perfection; as it makes way for
boasting, and is inconsistent with that humility, which is the
main ingredient in holiness; and casts the highest reflection on
Christ’s satisfaction, which is the greatest expedient for the setting
forth the holiness of God, as it argues it not to have been
absolutely necessary, and substitutes our imperfect works in
the room thereof.
(5.) Another doctrine, which is contrary to the holiness of
God, is that of purgatory, and prayers for the dead, which they
are as tenacious of, as Demetrius, and his fellow-craftsmen,
were of the image of Diana, at Ephesus, the destruction whereof
would endanger their craft, Acts xix. 25, 27. so, if this doctrine
should be disregarded, it would bring no small detriment
to them. But that which renders it most abominable, is, that
it extenuates the demerit of sin, and supposes it possible for
others to do that for them by their prayers, which they neglected
to do whilst they were alive, who, from this presumptuous
supposition, did not see an absolute necessity of holiness to salvation.
These, and many other doctrines, which might have
been mentioned, cast the highest reflection on the holiness of
God, and not only evince the justice and necessity of the reformation,
but oblige, us to maintain the contrary doctrines.
If it be objected, by way of reprisal, that there are many doctrines,
which we maintain, that lead to licentiousness, I hope
we shall be able to exculpate ourselves; but this we reserve for
its proper place, that we may avoid the repetition of things,
which we shall be obliged to insist on elsewhere.
3. Let us not practically deny, or cast contempt on this divine
perfection; which we may be said to do.
(1.) When we live without God in the world, as though we
were under no obligation to holiness. The purity of the divine
nature is proposed in scripture, not only as a motive, but, so far
as conformity to it is possible, as an exemplar of holiness: and
therefore we are exhorted to be holy, not only because he is
holy, but as he is holy, 1 Pet. i. 15, 16. or so far as the image
of God in man consists therein; therefore they who live without
// File: b164.png
.pn +1
God in the world, being alienated from his life, viz. his holiness,
and giving themselves over unto lasciviousness, to work
all uncleanness with greediness, regard not the holiness of his
nature or law. These sin presumptuously, and accordingly, are
said to reproach the Lord, Numb. xv. 30. as though he was a
God that had pleasure in wickedness; or if they conclude him
to be infinitely offended with it, they regard not the consequence
of being the objects of his displeasure, and fiery indignation.
(2.) Men reflect on the holiness of God when they complain
of religion, as though it were too strict and severe a thing; a
yoke that sits very uneasy upon them, which they resolve to
keep at the greatest distance from, especially unless they may
have some abatements made, or indulgence given, to live in the
commission of some beloved lusts. These cannot bear a faithful
reprover: thus Ahab hated Micaiah, because he did not prophesy
good concerning him, but evil; and the people did not
like to hear of the holiness of God; therefore they desire that
the prophets would cause the Holy One of Israel to cease before
them, Isa. xxx. 11. and to this we may add,
(3.) They do, in effect, deny or despise this attribute, who
entertain an enmity or prejudice against holiness in others,
whose conversation is not only blameless, but exemplary; such
make use of the word saint, as a term of reproach, as though
holiness were not only a worthless thing, but a blemish or disparagement
to the nature of man, a stain on his character, and
to be avoided by all who have any regard to their reputation,
or, at least as though religion were no other than hypocrisy, and
much more so, when it shines brightest in the conversation of
those who esteem it their greatest ornament. What is this, but
to spurn at the holiness of God, by endeavouring to bring that
into contempt, which is his image and delight?
XIII. God is most just. This attribute differs but little
from that of holiness, though sometimes they are thus distinguished;
as holiness is the contrariety, or opposition of his nature
to sin, justice is an eternal and visible display thereof; and,
in particular, when God is said to be just, he is considered as
the governor of the world; and therefore when he appears in
the glory of his justice, he bears the character of a judge; accordingly
it is said concerning him, Shall not the Judge of all
the earth do right? Gen. xviii. 25. and he is said, without respect
of persons, to judge according to every man’s work, 1 Pet.
i. 17. Now the justice of God is sometimes taken for his faithfulness,
which is a doing justice to his word; but this will be
more particularly considered, when we speak of him as abundant
in truth. But, according to the most common and known
sense of the word, it is taken either for his disposing, or his distributive
// File: b165.png
.pn +1
justice; the former is that whereby his holiness shines
forth in all the dispensations of his providence, as all his ways
are equal, of what kind soever they be; the latter, to wit, his
distributive justice, consists either in rewarding or punishing,
and so is styled either remunerative or vindictive; in these two
respects, we shall more particularly consider this attribute.
1. The justice of God, as giving rewards to his creatures;
this he may be said to do, without supposing the persons, who
are the subjects thereof, to have done any thing by which they
have merited them: we often find, in scripture, that the heavenly
glory is set forth as a reward, Mat. x. 41, 42. and 1 Cor.
iii. 14. and it is called, a crown of righteousness, which the Lord,
the righteous judge, shall give at that day, 2 Tim. iv. 8. to wit,
when he appears, in the glory of his justice, to judge the world
in righteousness; and it is also said, that it is a righteous thing
with God to recompense to his people who are troubled, rest,
when the Lord shall be revealed from heaven, 2 Thess. i. 6. 7.
But, for the understanding such like expressions, I humbly conceive,
that they import the necessary and inseparable connexion
that there is between grace wrought in us, and glory conferred
upon us: it is called, indeed, a reward, or a crown of
righteousness, to encourage us to duty; but, without supposing
that, what we do has any thing meritorious in it. If we ourselves
are less than the least of all God’s mercies, then the best
actions put forth by us must be so, for the action cannot have
more honour ascribed to it than the agent; or if, as our Saviour
says, when we have done all, we must say, we are unprofitable
servants, Luke xvii. 10. and that sincerely, and not in a way of
compliment, as some Popish writers understand it, consistently
with their doctrine of the merit of good works, we must conclude
that it is a reward not of debt, but of grace; and therefore
the word is taken in a less proper sense. It is not a bestowing
a blessing purchased by us, but for us; Christ is the purchaser,
we are the receivers; it is strictly and properly the reward of
his merit, but, in its application, the gift of his grace.
2. There is his vindictive justice, whereby he punishes sin,
as an injury offered to his divine perfections, an affront to his
sovereignty, a reflection on his holiness, and a violation of his
law, for which he demands satisfaction, and inflicts punishment,
proportioned to the nature of the crime, which he continues to
do, till satisfaction be given: this is called, his visiting iniquity,
Deut. v. 9. or visiting for it, Jer. v. 9. and it is also called, his
setting his face against a person, and cutting him off from
amongst his people, Lev. xvii. 10. and when he does this, his
wrath is compared to flames of fire; it is called, The fire of his
jealousy, Zeph. i. 18. and they, who are the objects hereof, are
// File: b166.png
.pn +1
said to fall into the hands of the living God, who is a consuming
fire, Heb. x. 31. compared with chap. xii. 29.
But that we may farther consider how God glorifies this perfection,
and thereby shews his infinite hatred of sin, we may observe,
(1.) An eminent instance thereof in his inflicting that punishment
that was due to our sins, on the person of Christ our
Surety. It was, indeed, the highest act of condescending grace
that he was willing to be charged with, or to have the iniquity
of his people laid upon him; but it was the greatest display of
vindictive justice, that he was accordingly punished for it, as
he is said to be made sin for us, who knew no sin, 2 Cor. v. 21.
and accordingly God gives a commission to the sword of his
justice, to awake and exert itself, in an uncommon manner,
against him, the man his fellow, Zech. xiii. 7. In this instance,
satisfaction is not only demanded, but fully given, in which it
differs from all the other displays of vindictive justice; but of
this, more will be considered under some following answers.[60]
(2.) The vindictive justice of God punishes sin in the persons
of finally impenitent sinners in hell, where a demand of
satisfaction is perpetually made, but can never be given, which
is the reason of the eternity of the punishment inflicted, which
is called, everlasting destruction, from the presence of the Lord,
and from the glory of his power, 2 Thes. i. 9. this we shall also
have occasion to insist on more largely, under a following an
answer.[61]
In these two instances, punishment is taken in a strict and
proper sense: but there is, indeed, another sense, in which many
evils are inflicted for sins committed, which, though frequently
called punishments, yet the word is taken in a less proper
sense, to wit, when believers, who are justified upon the
account of the satisfaction which Christ has given for their
sins, are said to be punished for them; as when it is said,
Thou, our God, hast punished us less than our iniquities deserve,
Ezra ix. 13. and if his children forsake my law, and keep
not my commandments, then will I visit their transgression
with the rod, and their iniquity with stripes; nevertheless, my
loving kindness will I not utterly take from him, Psal. lxxxix.
30-31. and the prophet, speaking of some, for whom God
would execute judgment, and be favourable to them in the end,
so that they should behold his righteousness; yet he represents
them, as bearing the indignation of the Lord, because they had
sinned against him, Micah vii. 9. And, as these evils are exceedingly
afflictive, being oftentimes attended with a sad apprehension
and fear of the wrath of God; so they are called
// File: b167.png
.pn +1
punishments, because sin is the cause of them: yet they differ
from punishment in its most proper sense, as but now mentioned,
in that, though justice inflicts evils on them for sin, yet it
doth not herein demand satisfaction, for that is supposed to
have been given, inasmuch as they are considered as justified;
and, to speak with reverence, it is not agreeable to the nature
of justice to demand satisfaction twice. Nevertheless, it is one
thing for God really to demand it, and another thing for believers
to apprehend or conclude that such a demand is made;
this they may often do, as questioning whether they are believers,
or in a justified state: however, God’s design, in these afflictive
dispensations, is to humble them greatly, and shew them
the demerit of sin, whatever he determines shall be the consequence
thereof.
Moreover, the persons, who are the subjects of this punishment,
are considered not as enemies, but as children, and therefore
the objects of his love, at the same time that his hand is
heavy upon them; for which reason some have called them castigatory
punishments, agreeably to what the apostle saith, Whom
the Lord loveth he chasteneth; and that herein he dealeth with
them as with sons, Heb. xii. 6, 7.
From what has been said, concerning the justice of God in
rewarding or punishing, we may infer,
1. Since the heavenly blessedness is called a reward, to denote
its connexion with grace and duty, let no one presumptuously
expect one without the other: the crown is not to be put
upon the head of any one, but him that runs the Christian
race; and it is a certain truth, that without holiness no man
shall see the Lord, chap. xii. 14.
And, on the other hand, as this is a reward of grace, founded
on Christ’s purchase, let us take heed that we do not ascribe
that to our performances, which is wholly founded on
Christ’s merit. Let every thing that may be reckoned a spur
to diligence, in the idea of a reward, be apprehended and improved
by us, to quicken and excite us to duty; but whatever
there is of praise and glory therein, let that be ascribed to
Christ; so that when we consider the heavenly blessedness in
this view, let us say, as the angels, together with that blessed
company who are joined with them, are represented, speaking,
Worthy is the Lamb that was slain, to receive power, riches,
wisdom, and strength, and honour, and glory, and blessing, Rev.
v. 12. It is the price that he paid which gives it the character
of a reward and therefore the glory of it is to be ascribed to
him.
2. From what has been said concerning the vindictive justice
of God inflicting punishments on his enemies, let us learn
// File: b168.png
.pn +1
the evil and heinous nature of sin, and so take warning thereby,
that we may not expose ourselves to the same or like judgments.
How deplorable is the condition of those, who have
contracted a debt for which they can never satisfy! who are
said, to drink of the wrath of the Almighty, which is poured out,
without mixture, into the cup of his indignation, Job xxi. 20.
compared with Rev. xiv. 10. This should induce us to fly
from the wrath to come, and to make a right improvement of
the price of redemption which was given by Christ, to deliver
his people from it.
3. Believers, who are delivered from the vindictive justice
of God, have the highest reason for thankfulness; and it is a
very great encouragement to them, under all the afflictive evils,
which they endure, that the most bitter ingredients are taken
out of them. It is true, they are not in themselves joyous, but
grievous; nevertheless, afterwards they yield the peaceable fruit
of righteousness to them, who are exercised thereby, Heb. xii.
11. and let us not presume without ground, but give diligence,
that we may conclude that these are the dispensations of a reconciled
Father, who corrects with judgment not in anger, lest
he should bring us to nothing, Jer. x. 24. It will afford great
matter of comfort, if we can say, that he is, at the same time, a
just God, and a Saviour, Isa. xlv. 21. and, as one observes,
though he punishes for sin, yet it is not with the punishment of
sin.
XIV. God is most merciful and gracious, long-suffering,
and abundant in goodness, all which perfections are mentioned
together in Exod. xxxiv. 7. and we shall first consider his
goodness, which, in some respects, includes the other, though
in others it is distinguished from them, as will be more particularly
observed. This being one of his communicable perfections,
we may conceive of it, by comparing it with that goodness
which is in the creature, while we separate from it all the
imperfections thereof, by which means we may arrive to some
idea of it.
Therefore persons are denominated good, as having all those
perfections that belong to their nature, which is the most large
and extensive sense of goodness; or else it is taken in a moral
sense, and so it consists in the rectitude of their nature, as we
call a holy man a good man; or lastly, it is taken for one who
is beneficent, or communicatively good, and so it is the same
with benignity. Now to apply this to the goodness of God, it
either includes in it all his perfections, or his holiness in particular,
or else his being disposed to impart or communicate
those blessings to his creatures, that they stand in need of, in
// File: b169.png
.pn +1
which sense we are here to understand it as distinguished from
his other perfections.
This goodness of God supposes that he has, in himself, an
infinite and inexhaustible treasure of all blessedness, enough to
fill all things, and to make his creatures completely happy.
This he had from all eternity, before there was any object in
which it might be displayed, or any act of power put forth to
produce one. It is this the Psalmist intends, when he says,
Psal. cxix. 68. Thou art good, and when he adds, thou doest
good; as the former implies his being good in himself, the latter
denotes his being so to his creatures.
Before we treat of this perfection in particular, we shall observe
the difference that there is between goodness, mercy,
grace, and patience, which, though they all are included in the
divine benignity, and imply in them the communication of
some favours that tend to the creatures advantage, as well as
the glory of God, yet they may be distinguished with respect
to the objects thereof: thus goodness considers its object, as
indigent and destitute of all things, and so it communicates
those blessings that it stands in need of. Mercy considers its
object as miserable, therefore, though an innocent creature be
the object of the divine bounty and goodness, it is only a fallen,
miserable, and undone creature, that is an object of compassion.
And grace is mercy displayed freely, therefore its
object is considered not only as miserable, but unworthy; however,
though the sinner’s misery, and worthiness of pity, may
be distinguished, these two ideas cannot be separated, inasmuch
as that which renders him miserable, denominates him
at the same time guilty, since misery is inseparably connected
with guilt, and no one is miserable as a creature, but as a sinner;
therefore we are considered as unworthy of mercy, and
so the objects of divine grace, which is mercy extended freely,
to those who have rendered themselves unworthy of it. And
patience, or long-suffering, is the suspending deserved fury,
or the continuing to bestow undeserved favours, a lengthening
out of our tranquillity; these attributes are to be considered
in particular. And,
1. Of the goodness of God. As God was infinite in power
from all eternity, before there was any display thereof, or act
of omnipotency put forth; he was eternally good, before there
was any communication of his bounty, or any creature, to
which it might be imparted; so that the first display of this
perfection was in giving being to all things, which were the objects
of his bounty and goodness, as well as the effects of his
power; and all the excellencies, or advantages, which one
creature hath above another, are as so many streams flowing from
// File: b170.png
.pn +1
this fountain, He giveth to all, life and breath, and all things,
Acts xvii. 25.[62]
2. The mercy of God, which considers its object as miserable,
is illustrated by all those distressing circumstances, that
render sinners the objects of compassion. Are all, by nature,
bond-slaves to sin and Satan? It is mercy that sets them free,
delivers them, who, through fear of death, were all their life-time
subject to bondage, Heb. ii. 15. Are we all, by nature,
dead in sin, unable to do what is spiritually good, alienated
from the life of God? Was our condition miserable, as being
without God in the world, and without hope: like the poor
infant, mentioned by the prophet, cast out in the open field, to
// File: b171.png
.pn +1
the loathing of our persons, whom no eye pitied? it was mercy
that said to us, live, Ezek. xvi. 4, 5, 6. accordingly God is
said to have remembered us in our low estate, for his mercy endureth
for ever, Psal. cxxxvi. 23.
The mercy of God is either common or special; common
mercy gives all the outward conveniencies of this life, which
are bestowed without distinction; as he causes his sun to rise
on the evil and the good, and sendeth rain on the just and on
the unjust, Matth. v. 45. so it is said, his tender mercies are
over all his works, Psal. cxlv. 9. but his special mercy is that
which he bestows on, or has reserved for the heirs of salvation,
which he communicates to them in a covenant way, in and
through a Mediator; so the apostle speaks of God, as the Father
of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Father of mercies, and the
God of all comfort, 2 Cor. i. 3.
3. As God is said to be merciful, or to extend compassion
to the miserable, so he doth this freely, and accordingly is said
to be gracious; and as grace is free, so it is sovereign, and bestowed
in a discriminating way; that is given to one which he
denies to another, and only because it is his pleasure: thus
says one of Christ’s disciples, Lord, how is it that thou wilt
manifest thyself unto us, and not unto the world? John xiv. 22.
And our Saviour himself glorifies God for the display of his
grace, in such a way, when he says, I thank thee, O Father,
Lord of heaven and earth, because thou hast hid these things
from the wise and prudent, and hast revealed them unto babes;
and considers this as the result of his sovereign will, when he
adds, even so Father, for so it seemed good in thy sight, Matth.
xi. 25, 26. Now the discriminating grace of God appears in
several instances; as,
(1.) In that he should extend salvation to men, rather than
to fallen angels; so our Saviour took not on him the nature of
angels, but the seed of Abraham, because he designed to save
the one, and to reserve the other, in chains, under darkness,
unto the judgment of the great day, Heb. ii. 16. compared with
Jude ver. 6. And among men, only some are made partakers
of this invaluable blessing, which all were equally unworthy
of; and their number is comparatively very small, therefore
they are called a little flock, and the gate, through which they
enter, is strait, and the way narrow that leads to life, and few
there be that find it, Luke xii. 32. compared with Matth. vii.
13, 14. And there are many who make a considerable figure
in the world, for riches, honours, great natural abilities, bestowed
by common providence, that are destitute of special
grace, while others, who are poor, and despised in the world,
are called, and saved; the apostle observed it to be so in his
day, when he says, not many mighty, not many noble, are called;
// File: b172.png
.pn +1
but God hath chosen the foolish things of the world to confound
the wise, and the weak things of the world to confound
the things that are mighty, and base things of the world, and
things which are despised hath God chosen, yea, things that are
not, to bring to nought things that are, 1 Cor. i. 26, 27, 28.
(2.) In several things relating to the internal means, whereby
he fits and disposes men for salvation: thus the work of
conversion is an eminent instance of discriminating grace, for
herein he breaks through, and overcomes, that reluctancy and
opposition, which corrupt nature makes against it; subdues
the enmity and rebellion that was in the heart of man, works a
powerful change in the will, whereby he subjects it to himself,
which work is contrary to the natural biass and inclination
thereof; and that which renders this grace more illustrious, is,
that many of those who are thus converted, were, before this,
notorious sinners; some have been blasphemers, persecutors,
and injurious, as the apostle says concerning himself before
his conversion, and concludes himself to have been the chief
of sinners; and tells us, how he shut up many of the saints in
prison, and, when they were put to death, he gave his voice
against them; punished them often in every synagogue, and
compelled them to blaspheme, and, being exceedingly against
them, persecuted them unto strange cities, 1 Tim. i. 13, 15.
compared with Acts xxvi. 10, 11. But you will say, he was,
in other respects, a moral man; therefore he gives an instance
elsewhere of some who were far otherwise, whom he puts in
mind of their having been fornicators, idolaters, adulterers, effeminate,
abusers of themselves with mankind, thieves, covetous,
drunkards, revilers, extortioners; such, says he, were some of
you; but ye are washed, but ye are sanctified, but ye are justified.
Moreover, the change wrought in the soul is unasked
for, and so it may truly be said, God is found of them that
sought him not; and undesired; for though unregenerate sinners
desire to be delivered from misery, they are far from desiring
to be delivered from sin, or to have repentance, faith,
and holiness: if they pray for these blessings, it is in such a
manner, that the Spirit of God hardly calls it prayer; for the
Spirit of grace, and of supplications, by which alone we are
enabled to pray in a right manner, is what accompanies or flows
from conversion; if therefore God bestows this privilege on
persons so unworthy of it, and so averse to it, it must certainly
be an instance of sovereign and discriminating grace.
(3.) This will farther appear, if we consider how much they,
who are the objects thereof, differ from what they were; or
if we compare their present, with their former state. Once
they were blind and ignorant of the ways of God, and going
astray in crooked paths; the apostle speaks of this in the abstract,
// File: b173.png
.pn +1
Ye were sometimes darkness, Eph. v. 8. and that the god
of this world, had blinded the minds of some, lest the light of
the glorious gospel of Christ should shine unto them, 2 Cor. iv.
4. but now they are made light in the Lord, and brought into
the way of truth and peace. Their hearts were once impenitent,
unrelenting, and inclined to sin, without remorse, or self-reflection;
nothing could make an impression on them, as
being past feeling, and giving themselves over to lasciviousness,
to work all uncleanness with greediness, Eph. iv. 19. but now
they are penitent, humble, relenting, and broken under a sense
of sin, afraid of every thing that may be an occasion thereof,
willing to be reproved for it, and desirous to be set at a greater
distance from it. Once they were destitute of hope, or
solid peace of conscience; but now they have hope and joy in
believing, and are delivered from that bondage, which they
were, before this, exposed to; such a happy turn is given to
the frame of their spirits: and as to the external and relative
change which is made in their state, there is no condemnation
to them, as justified persons; and therefore they who, before
this, were in the utmost distress, expecting nothing but hell
and destruction, are enabled to lift up their heads with joy, experiencing
the blessed fruits and effects of this grace in their own
souls.
(4.) The discriminating grace of God farther appears, in that
he bestows these saving blessings on his people, at such seasons,
when they appear most suitable, and adapted to their
condition; as he is a very present help in a time of trouble,
when their straits and difficulties are greatest, then is his time
to send relief; when sinners sometimes have wearied themselves
in the greatness of their way, while seeking rest and
happiness in other things below himself, and have met with
nothing but disappointment therein; when they are brought
to the utmost extremity, then he appears in their behalf. And
so with respect to believers, when their comforts are at the
lowest ebb, their hope almost degenerated into despair, their
temptations most prevalent and afflicting, and they ready to
sink under the weight that lies on their spirits, when, as the
Psalmist says, their hearts are overwhelmed within them; then
he leads them to the rock that is higher than they, Psal. lxi. 2.
when they are even desolate and afflicted, and the troubles of
their hearts are enlarged, then he brings them out of their distresses,
Psal. xxv. 16, 17.
Thus the grace of God eminently appears, in what he bestows
on his people; but if we look forward, and consider what
he has prepared for them, or the hope that is laid up in heaven,
then we may behold the most amazing displays of grace, in
which they who shall be the happy objects thereof, will be a
// File: b174.png
.pn +1
wonder to themselves, and will see more of the glory of it than
can be now expressed in words; as the Psalmist says, in a way
of admiration, Oh, how great is thy goodness, which thou hast
laid up for them that fear thee; which thou hast wrought for
them that trust in thee before the sons of men! Psal. xxx. 19.
Object. 1. If it be objected, that the afflictions, which God’s
people are exposed to in this life, are inconsistent with the
glory of his grace and mercy.
Answ. To this it may be replied, that afflictive providences
are so far from being inconsistent with the glory of these perfections,
that they tend to illustrate them the more. For since
sin has rendered afflictions needful, as an expedient, to humble
us for it, and also to prevent it for the future, so God designs
our advantage thereby; and however grievous they are,
yet since they are so over-ruled by him, as the apostle says,
that they yield the peaceable fruit of righteousness unto them,
who are exercised thereby, Heb. xii. 11. they are far from being
inconsistent with the mercy and grace of God.
And this will farther appear, if we consider that these outward
afflictions are often attended with inward supports, and
spiritual comforts; so that, as the apostle says concerning himself,
as the sufferings of Christ abound in them, their consolations
abound by him, 2 Cor. i. 5. or as the outward man perishes, the
inward man is renewed day by day, chap. iv. 16. it was nothing
but this could make him say, I take pleasure in infirmities, in
reproaches, in necessities, in persecutions, in distresses for
Christ’s sake, for when I am weak, then am I strong, chap.
xii. 10.
Object. 2. It is farther objected, that the doctrine of free
grace leads men to licentiousness; and therefore that what we
have said concerning it, is either not true and warrantable, or,
at least, should not be much insisted on, for fear this consequence
should ensue.
Answ. The grace of God doth not lead to licentiousness,
though it be often abused, and presumptuous sinners take occasion
from thence to go on, as they apprehend, securely therein,
because God is merciful and gracious, and ready to forgive,
which vile and disingenuous temper the apostle observed
in some that lived in his days, and expresses himself with the
greatest abhorrence thereof, Shall we continue in sin, that grace
may abound? God forbid, Rom. vi. 1, 2. But does it follow,
that because it is abused by some, as an occasion of licentiousness,
through the corruption of their natures, that therefore it
leads to it? The greatest blessings may be the occasion of the
greatest evils; but yet they do not lead to them. That which
leads to licentiousness, must have some motive or inducement
in it, which will warrant an ingenuous mind, acting according
// File: b175.png
.pn +1
to the rules of equity and justice, to take those liberties; but
this nothing can do, much less the grace of God. His great clemency,
indeed, may sometimes give occasion to those who hate
him, and have ingratitude and rebellion rooted in their nature,
to take up arms against him; and an act of grace may be abused,
so as to make the worst of criminals more bold in their
wickedness, who presume that they may commit it with impunity:
but this is not the natural tendency, or genuine effect thereof;
nor will it be thus abused by any, but those who are abandoned
to every thing that is vile and ungrateful. As the law of
God prohibits all sin, and his holiness is opposite to it, so his
grace affords the strongest motive to holiness; it is therefore the
neglect or contempt of this grace, and a corrupt disposition to
act contrary to the design thereof, that leads to licentiousness.
Grace and duty are inseparably connected, so that where God
bestows the one, he expects the other; yea, duty, which is our
act, is God’s gift, as the power to perform it is from him: thus
when he promises to give his people a new heart, and put his
Spirit within them, and cause them to walk in his statutes, he
tells them, that they should remember their evil ways and doings,
and loathe themselves in their own sight for their iniquities;
which is not only a prediction, respecting the event, but a promise
of what he would incline them to do; and when he adds,
that for this he would be enquired of by them, Ezek. xxxvi. 26,
27, 31, 37. or that they should seek them by fervent prayer, he
secures to them, by promise, a disposition and grace to perform
this great duty, which is inseparably connected with expected
blessings. God himself therefore will take care that, however
others abuse his grace, it shall not lead those who are in a distinguishing
way, the objects thereof, to licentiousness.
And to this we may add, that it is a disparagement to this
divine perfection to say, that, because some take occasion from
it to continue in sin, therefore its glory is to be, as it were, concealed,
and not published to the world. As some of old did not
care to hear of the holiness of God, and therefore, if the prophets
would render their doctrine acceptable to them, they must
not insist on that perfection, but cause the Holy One of Israel to
cease from before them, Isa. xxx. 11. so there are many who
are as little desirous to hear of the free and discriminating grace
of God, which contains the very sum and substance of the gospel,
lest it should be abused, whereas the glory thereof cannot
be enough admired; and therefore it ought often to be recommended,
as what leads to holiness, and lies at the very root of
all religion.
And that it may be so improved, let it be farther considered,
that it is the greatest inducement to humility, as well as one
of the greatest ornaments and evidences of a true Christian.
// File: b176.png
.pn +1
This appears from the nature of the thing, for grace supposes
its object unworthy, as has been but now observed; and it argues
him a debtor to God for all that he enjoys or expects,
which, if it be duly considered, will make him appear vile and
worthless in his own eyes, and excite in him a degree of thankfulness
in proportion to the ground he has to claim an interest
therein, and the extensiveness of the blessed fruits and effects
thereof.
4. We proceed to speak of God as long-suffering, or as he
is styled by the apostle, The God of patience, Rom. xv. 5. sometimes
this attribute is set forth in a metaphorical way, and called
a restraining his wrath, Psal. lxxvi. 10. and a refraining
himself, and holding his peace, or keeping silence, Isa. xlii. 14.
and Psal. l. 21. and, while he does this, he is represented, speaking
after the manner of men, as one that is weary with forbearing,
Isa. i. 13. chap. vii. 13. Mal. ii. 17. and he is said to be
pressed, under a provoking people, as a cart is pressed that is
full of sheaves, Amos ii. 13. By all which expressions, this perfection
is set forth in a familiar style, according to our common
way of speaking: but that we may briefly explain the nature
thereof, let us consider, in general; that it is a branch of his
goodness and mercy, manifested in suspending the exercise of
his vindictive justice, and in his not punishing in such a degree
as sin deserves. But that we may consider this more particularly,
we shall observe something concerning the objects thereof,
and the various instances in which it is displayed; how it is
glorified; and how the glory thereof is consistent with that of
vindictive justice; and lastly, how it is to be improved by us.
(1.) Concerning the objects of God’s patience. Since it is the
deferring of deserved wrath, it follows from hence, that an innocent
creature cannot be the object of it, inasmuch as vindictive
justice makes no demand upon him; nor has it any reserves of
punishment laid up in store for him; such an one is, indeed the
object of goodness, but not of forbearance; for punishment cannot
be said to be deferred where it is not due: and, on the other
hand, they cannot be said to be the objects thereof, in whom the
vindictive justice of God is displayed to the utmost, when all the
vials of his wrath are poured forth. Whether the devils are, in
some sense, the objects of God’s forbearance, as having ground
to expect a greater degree of punishment after the final judgment,
is disputed by some, who contend about the sense of the
word forbearance; they are said, indeed, to be reserved in chains,
under darkness, unto the judgment of the great day, Jude, ver.
6. that is, though their state be hopeless, and their misery
great, beyond expression, yet there is a greater degree of punishment,
which they bring upon themselves, by all the hostilities
they commit against God in this world: this farther appears,
// File: b177.png
.pn +1
from what they are represented, as saying to our Saviour, Art
thou come to torment us before the time? Matth. viii. 29.[63] By
which it is sufficiently evident that their misery shall be greater
than now it is. However, this less degree of punishment, inflicted
on them, is never called in scripture, an instance of God’s
patience, or long-suffering, towards them; therefore we must
conclude that they are not, properly speaking, the objects of
the glory of this attribute. Patience then is only extended to
sinful men, while in this world: for it is called, in scripture,
The riches of his goodness, and forbearance, and long-suffering,
Rom. ii. 4. and it is said to lead those, who are the objects of
it, to repentance; therefore there must be, together with the exercise
of this perfection, a day or season of grace granted,
which is called, in scripture, with a peculiar emphasis, the sinner’s
day, or the time of his visitation, in which it ought to be
his highest concern to know the things of his peace, Luke xix.
42, 44. and the gospel that is preached, in this season of God’s
forbearance, is called, The word of his patience, Rev. iii. 10. so
that there is something more in this attribute than barely a deferring
of punishment. Accordingly God is said, to wait that
he may be gracious, Isa. xxx. 18. and the effects and consequences
thereof are various, (as may be said of all the other means
of grace) so that sinners, who neglect to improve it, have not only
thereby a reprieve from deserved punishment, but all those
advantages of common grace, which attend it: but, with respect
to believers, it may be said, as the apostle expresses it,
The long-suffering of our Lord is salvation, 2 Pet. iii. 15. It is
evidently so to them, and therefore God doth not spare them,
// File: b178.png
.pn +1
that he may take a more fit opportunity to punish them; but he
waits till the set time to favour them is come, that he may extend
salvation to them; and, in this respect more especially, the
exercise of this perfection is founded in the death of Christ.
And inasmuch as the elect, who are purchased thereby, were,
by the divine appointment, to live throughout all the ages of
time, and to have the saving effects of his redemption applied
to them, one after another, it was necessary that the patience of
God should be so long continued, which is therefore glorified
more immediately with respect to them, as the result thereof;
and, in subserviency thereunto, it is extended to all the world.
(2.) The patience of God has been displayed in various instances.
1st, It was owing hereto that God did not immediately destroy
our first parents as soon as they fell; he might then, without
the least impeachment of his justice, have banished them
for ever from his presence, and left their whole posterity destitute
of the means of grace, and have punished them all in proportion
to the guilt contracted; therefore that the world is continued
to this day, is a very great instance of God’s long-suffering.
2dly, When mankind was universally degenerate, and all
flesh had corrupted their way, before the flood, and God determined
to destroy them, yet he would not do this, till his patience
had spared them, after he had given an intimation of this
desolating judgment, an hundred and twenty years before it
came, Gen. vi. 2, 3. and Noah was, during this time, a preacher
of righteousness, while the long-suffering of God is said to
have waited on them, 2 Pet. ii. 5. compared with 1 Pet. iii. 20.
3dly, The Gentiles, who not only worshipped and served the
creature more than the Creator, but committed other vile abominations,
contrary to the dictates of nature, and thereby filled
up the measure of their iniquity, are, notwithstanding, said to
be the objects of God’s patience, though in a lower sense, than
that in which believers are said to be so; accordingly the apostle
observes, that in times past, God suffered all nations to walk
in their own ways, that is, God did not draw forth his sword
out of its sheath, by which metaphor the prophet sets forth the
patience of God; he did not stir up all his wrath, but gave them
rain from heaven and fruitful seasons, filling their hearts with
food and gladness, Acts xiv. 16, 17. Ezek. xxi. 3.
4thly, The church of the Jews, before the coming of Christ,
had long experience of the forbearance of God. It is said, that
he suffered their manners forty years in the wilderness, Acts xiii.
18. and afterwards, when they often revolted to idolatry, following
the customs of the nations round about them, yet he did
not utterly destroy them, but, in their distress, raised them up
// File: b179.png
.pn +1
deliverers; and when their iniquity was grown to such a height
that none but a God of infinite patience, could have borne with
them, he, notwithstanding, spared them many years before he
suffered them to be carried away captive into Babylon; and afterwards,
when their rebellion against him was arrived to the
highest pitch, when they had crucified the Lord of glory, yet
he spared them some time, till the gospel was first preached to
them, and they had rejected it, and thereby judged themselves
unworthy of eternal life, Acts xiii. 46.
5thly, After this, the patience of God was extended to those
who endeavoured to pervert the gospel of Christ, namely, to
false teachers and backsliding churches, to whom he gave space
to repent, but repented not, Rev. ii. 21. And to this we may
add, that he has not yet poured forth the vials of his wrath on
the Antichristian powers, though he has threatened, that their
plagues shall come in one day, chap. xviii. 1.
(3.) We are next to consider the method which God takes in
glorifying this attribute. We have already observed that, with
respect to believers, the patience of God is glorified in subserviency
to their salvation; but, with respect to others, by whom
it is abused, the patience of God discovers itself,
1st, In giving them warning of his judgments before he sends
them. He speaketh once, yea twice, but man perceiveth it not,
that he may withdraw man from his purpose, and hide pride
from man, Job xxxiii. 14, 17. and, indeed, all the prophets
were sent to the church of the Jews, not only to instruct them,
but to warn them of approaching judgments, and they were
faithful in the delivery of their message. In what moving terms
doth the prophet Jeremiah lament the miseries, which were
ready to befal them! And with what zeal doth he endeavour,
in the whole course of his ministry, to bring them to repentance,
that so the storm might blow over, or, if not, that their ruin
might not come upon them altogether unexpected!
2dly, When the divine warnings are not regarded, but wrath
must be poured forth on an obstinate and impenitent people, this
is done by degrees. God first sends lesser judgments before
greater, or inflicts his plagues, as he did upon Egypt, one after
another, not all at once; and so he did upon Israel of old, as
the prophet Joel observes, first the palmer-worm, then the locust;
after that, the canker-worm, and then the caterpillar, devoured
the fruits of the earth, one after another, Joel i. 4. So the prophet
Amos observes, that God first sent a famine among them,
which he calls cleanness of teeth in all their cities, and afterwards
some of them were overthrown, as God overthrew Sodom
and Gomorrah, Amos iv. 8, 18. Some think, that the gradual
approach of divine judgments is intended by what the prophet
Hosea says, when the judgments of God are compared to the
// File: b180.png
.pn +1
light that goeth forth, Hos. vi. 5. which implies more than is
generally understood by it, as though the judgments of God
should be rendered visible, as the light of the sun is; whereas
the prophet seems hereby to intimate, that the judgments of
God should proceed, like the light of the morning, that still increases
unto a perfect day. And it is more than probable that
this is intended by the same prophet, when he represents God
as speaking concerning Ephraim, that he would be to them as
a moth, which doth not consume the garment all at once, as
when it is cast into the fire, but frets it by degrees, or like rottenness,
which is of a spreading nature, chap. v. 12. Thus the
judgments of God are poured forth by degrees, that, at the
same time, there may be comparatively, at least, a display of divine
patience.
3dly, When God sends his judgments abroad in the world,
he often moderates them; none are proportionate to the demerit
of sin; as it is said of him, that being full of compassion, he
forgave the iniquity of a very rebellious people, that is, he did
not punish them as their iniquity deserved, and therefore he
destroyed them not, and did not stir up all his wrath, Psal.
lxxviii. 38. so the prophet Isaiah says concerning Israel, that
God hath not smitten him, as he had smote those that smote him;
nor is he slain according to the slaughter of them that are slain by
him; but that he would debate with them in measure, who stayeth
his rough wind in the day of his east wind, Isa. xxvii. 7, 8.
4thly, When God cannot, in honour, defer his judgments any
longer, he pours them forth, as it were, with reluctancy; as a
judge, when he passeth sentence on a criminal, doth it with a
kind of regret, not insulting, but rather pitying his misery,
which is unavoidable, because the course of justice must not be
stopped. Thus the prophet says, that God doth not afflict willingly,
that is, with delight or pleasure, nor grieve the children
of men, Lam. iii. 35. that is, he doth not punish them, because
he delights to see them miserable; but to secure the rights of
his own justice in the government of the world: so when Israel
had been guilty of vile ingratitude and rebellion against him,
and he threatens to turn his hand upon them, and destroy them,
he expresseth himself in such terms, speaking after the manner
of men, as imply a kind of uneasiness, when he says, Ah! I will
ease me of mine adversaries, and avenge me of mine enemies, Isa.
i. 24. and before God gave up Israel into the hands of the Assyrians,
he seems, again speaking after the manner of men, to
have an hesitation or debate in his own mind, whether he should
do this or no, when he says, How shall I give thee up, Ephraim?
How shall I deliver thee, Israel? How shall I make thee as Admah?
How shall I set thee as Zeboim? Mine heart is turned
within me, my repentings are kindled together, Hos. xi. 8. and
// File: b181.png
.pn +1
when our Saviour could not prevail upon Jerusalem to repent
of their sins, and embrace his doctrine, when he was obliged to
pass a sentence upon them, and to tell them, that the things of
their peace were hid from their eyes, and that their enemies
should cast a trench about the city, and should lay it even with
the ground, he could not speak of it without tears; when he beheld
the city, he wept over it, Luke xix. 41, &c.
(4.) The next thing to be considered, concerning the patience
of God, is, that the glory of it is consistent with that of
his vindictive justice; or how he may be said to defer the
punishment of sin, and yet appear to be a sin-hating God.
It is certain that the glory of one divine perfection cannot
interfere with that of another; as justice and mercy meet together
in the work of redemption, so justice and patience do
not oppose each other, in any of the divine dispensations. It is
true, their demands seem to be various; justice requires that
the stroke should be immediately given; but patience insists
on a delay hereof, inasmuch as without this it does not appear
to be a divine perfection; if therefore patience be a divine attribute,
and its glory as necessary to be displayed, as that of
any of his other perfections, it must be glorified in this world,
and that by delaying the present exercise of vindictive justice
in the highest degree, or it cannot be glorified at all: justice
will be glorified, throughout all the ages of eternity, in those
who are the objects thereof; but patience can then have no
glory, since (as has been observed) the greatest degree, either
of happiness or misery, is inconsistent with the exercise thereof;
therefore this being a perfection, which redounds so much
to the divine honour, we must not suppose that there is no expedient
for its being glorified, or that the glory of vindictive
justice is inconsistent with it.
Now this harmony of these two perfections must be a little
considered. Justice, it is true, obliges God to punish sin, yet
it does not oblige him to do it immediately; but the time, as
well as the way, is to be resolved into his sovereign will. In
order to make this appear, let us consider, that the design of
vindictive justice, in all the punishment it inflicts, is either to
secure the glory of the holiness of God; or to assert his rights,
as the governor of the world; now if the deferring of punishment
doth not interfere with either of these, then the glory of
God’s patience is not inconsistent with that of his vindictive
justice. But more particularly,
First, The glory of his holiness is, notwithstanding this, sufficiently
secured; for though he delays to punish sin, in the
highest degree, yet, at the same time, he appears to hate it, by
the threatenings which he hath denounced against sinners, which
shall certainly have their accomplishment, if he says, that he is
// File: b182.png
.pn +1
angry with the wicked every day, and that his soul hateth them,
is there any reason to suppose the contrary? or if he has threatened
that he will rain upon them snares, fire and brimstone, and
an horrible tempest, which shall be the portion of their cup, and
that because, as the righteous Lord, he loveth righteousness, Psal.
vii. 11. and xi. 6, 7. is not this a sufficient security, for the glory
of his holiness, to fence against any thing that might be alleged
to detract from it? If threatened judgments be not sufficient,
for the present, to evince the glory of this divine perfection;
then it will follow, on the other hand, that the promises he has
made of blessings not yet bestowed, are to be as little regarded
for the encouraging our hope, and securing the glory of his
other perfections; and then his holiness would be as much blemished
in delaying to reward, as it can be supposed to be in
delaying to punish.
If therefore the truth of God, which will certainly accomplish
his threatenings, be a present security for the glory of his
holiness, it is not absolutely necessary that vindictive justice
should be immediately exercised in the destruction of sinners,
and so exclude the exercise of God’s forbearance and long-suffering.
And to this it may be added, that there are many terrible
displays of God’s vindictive justice in his present dealing with
sinners; as it is said, The Lord is known by the judgments
which he executes, as well as by those he designs to pour forth
on his enemies; the wicked are now snared in the work of their
own hands, but in the end they shall be turned into hell, and all
the nations that forget God, Psal. ix. 16, 17. If vindictive justice
takes occasion to inflict many temporal and spiritual judgments
upon sinners in this world, then the glory of God’s holiness
is illustrated at the same time that his patience is prolonged.
This may be observed in God’s dealing with his murmuring
and rebellious people in the wilderness which gave him occasion
to take notice of the abuse of his patience, and to say,
Numb. xiv. 11, 18-21. How long will this people provoke me?
and how long will it be ere they believe me, for all the signs
which I have shewed among them? Upon this, justice is ready
to strike the fatal blow; I will, says God, smite them with the
pestilence, and disinherit them; which gives Moses occasion to
intercede for them, and plead the glory of God’s patience, The
Lord is long-suffering, and of great mercy; Pardon, says he, I
beseech thee, the iniquity of this people, as thou hast forgiven
them from Egypt, even until now; by which he means, as I humbly
conceive, spare thy people, as thou hast often done, when,
by reason of their provocations, thou mightest justly have destroyed
them; and God answers him in the following words,
I have pardoned, according to thy word; but he adds, As truly
// File: b183.png
.pn +1
as I live, all the earth shall be filled with the glory of the Lord,
that is, with the report of the glory of his vindictive justice,
which should be spread far and near; and then he threatens
them that they should not see the land of Canaan, viz. those
who murmured against him; so that vindictive justice had its
demands fulfilled in one respect, while patience was glorified in
the other; on which occasion the Psalmist says, Psal. xcix. 8.
Thou answeredst them, O Lord, namely, Moses’s prayer for
them, but now mentioned, Thou wast a God that forgavest them,
though thou tookest vengeance of their inventions.
Secondly, Consider the vindictive justice of God, as tending to
secure his rights, as the governor of the world, and being ready
to take vengeance for sin, which attempts to control his sovereign
authority, and disturb the order of his government: now
the stroke of justice may be suspended for a time, that it may
make way for the exercise of patience, provided there be no just
occasion given hereby for men to trample on the sovereignty of
God, despise his authority, or rebel against him, without fear:
but these consequences will not necessarily result from his extending
forbearance to sinners; for we do not find that the delaying
to inflict punishment among men is any prejudice to their
government, therefore why should we suppose that the divine
government should suffer any injury thereby; when a prince,
for some reasons of state, puts off the trial of a malefactor for
a time, to the end that the indictment may be more fully proved,
and the equity of his proceedings more evidently appear,
this is always reckoned a greater excellency in his administration,
than if he should proceed too hastily therein; and we never
find that it tends to embolden the criminal to that degree
as impunity would do; for he is punished, in part, by the loss
of his liberty, and if he be convicted, then he loses the privilege
of an innocent subject; his life is forfeited, and he is in
daily expectation of having it taken away. If such a method
as this tends to secure the rights of a government, when a prince
thinks fit to allow a reprieve to some for a time; may not God
stop the immediate proceedings of vindictive justice for a time,
without the least infringement made, either on his holiness, or
his rectoral justice? Which leads us to consider,
(5.) How the patience of God is to be improved by us; and,
1st, Since it is a divine perfection, and there is a revenue of
glory due to God for the display thereof, this should put us
upon the exercise of those graces, which it engages us to. Some
of the divine attributes tend to excite our fear, but this should
draw forth our admiration and praise: and we have more reason
to adore and admire the divine forbearance, when we consider,
First, How justly he might destroy us. The best man on
// File: b184.png
.pn +1
earth may say, with the Psalmist, If thou, Lord, shouldst mark
iniquities, O lord, who shall stand? Psal. cxxx. 3. He need
not watch for occasions, or diligently search out some of the
inadvertencies of life, to find matter for our conviction and condemnation,
since the multitude and heinous aggravation of our
sins, proclaim our desert of punishment, which might provoke,
and immediately draw down, his vengeance upon us; and that
which farther enhances our guilt is, that we provoke him, though
laid under the highest obligations to the contrary.
Secondly, How easily might he bring ruin and destruction
upon us? He does not forbear to punish us for want of power,
as earthly kings often do; or because the exercise of justice
may be apprehended, as a means to weaken their government,
or occasion some rebellions, which they could not easily put a
stop to. Thus David says concerning himself, that he was
weak, though anointed king, and that the sons of Zeruiah were
too hard for him, on the occasion of Joab’s having forfeited his
life, when the necessity of affairs required the suspending his
punishment, 2 Sam. iii. 39. but this cannot be said of God, who
is represented as slow to anger, and great in power, Nah. i. 3.
that is, he does not punish, though he easily could: it would be
no difficulty for him immediately to destroy an ungodly world,
any more than it is for us to crush a moth or a worm, or break
a leaf: finite power can make no resistance against that which is
infinite: what are briars and thorns before the consuming fire?
2dly, Let us take heed that we do not abuse this divine perfection;
it is a crime to abuse the mercy of God in the smallest
instances thereof, but much more to slight and contemn the
riches of his forbearance, or mercy, extended to so great a
length, as it has been to most of us; and this is done,
1. By those who infer, from his forbearing to pour forth his
fury on sinners, that he neglects the government of the world;
or take occasion from thence to deny a providence, and because
his threatenings are not executed at present, therefore they do,
as it were, defy him to do his worst against them; this some
are represented as doing, with an uncommon degree of presumption,
and that with a scoff; for they are termed scoffers,
walking after their own lusts; saying, Where is the promise of
his coming? for since the fathers fell asleep, all things continue
as they were from the beginning of the creation, 2 Pet.
iii. 3, 4.
2. By those who take occasion from hence to sin presumptuously;
and because he not only delays to punish, but, at the
same time, expresses his willingness to receive returning sinners,
at what time soever they truly repent, take occasion to
persist in their rebellion, concluding that it is time enough to
submit to him; which is not only to abuse, but, as it were, to
// File: b185.png
.pn +1
wear out his patience, and provoke his indignation, like them,
of whom it is said, that 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, Eccl. viii. 11. But you will say,
these are uncommon degrees of wickedness, which only the vilest
part of mankind are chargeable with; therefore let us add,
3. That a bare neglect to improve our present season, and
day of grace, or to embrace the great salvation offered in the
gospel, is an abuse of God’s patience; and this will certainly
affect the greatest number of those who are favoured with the
gospel dispensation; and, indeed, who are there that improve
it as they ought? and therefore all are said more or less, to
abuse the patience of God, which affords matter of great humiliation
in his sight.
Now that we may be duly sensible of this sin, together with
the consequences thereof, let us consider; that this argues the
highest ingratitude, and that more especially, in a professing
people; therefore the apostle, reproving the Jews for this sin,
puts a very great emphasis on every word, when he says, Or
despisest thou the riches of his goodness, and forbearance, and
long-suffering? Rom. ii. 4. Let us also consider, that the consequence
thereof is very destructive, inasmuch as this is the only
opportunity that will be afforded to seek after those things
that relate to our eternal welfare. What stress does the apostle
lay on the word now, which is twice repeated, as well as the
word behold, which is a note of attention, implying, that he had
something remarkable to communicate, when he says, Behold,
now is the accepted time; behold, now is the day of salvation,
2 Cor. vi. 2. And to this we may add, which is a very awakening
consideration, that the abuse of God’s patience will expose
finally impenitent sinners to a greater degree of his vengeance.
Thus when the forbearance of God had been extended to Israel
for many years, from his bringing them up out of the land
of Egypt; and this had been attended all that time with the
means of grace, and many warnings of approaching judgments,
he tells them; You only have I known, of all the families of the
earth, therefore will I punish you, that is, my wrath shall fall
more heavily upon you, for all your iniquities, Amos iii. 2.
and when God is represented, as coming to reckon with Babylon,
the cup of his wrath must be filled double; how much she
hath glorified herself, saith God, and lived deliciously, so much
sorrow and torment give her; for she saith in her heart, I sit
as a queen, and am no widow, and shall see no sorrow, Rev.
xviii. 6, 7.
3dly, Let us, on the other hand, improve God’s patience, by
duly considering the great end and design thereof, and what
encouragement it affords to universal holiness: it is a great relief
// File: b186.png
.pn +1
to those who are at the very brink of despair; for if they
cannot say that it has hitherto led them to repentance, as apprehending
themselves to be yet in a state of unregeneracy, let
us consider, that, notwithstanding this, a door of hope is still
opened, the golden sceptre held forth, and the invitation given
to come to Christ; therefore let this excite us to a diligent attendance
on the means of grace, for though forbearance is not
to be mistaken, as it is by many, for forgiveness, yet we are encouraged
to wait and hope for it, in all God’s holy institutions,
according to the tenor of the gospel.
And they who are not only spared, but pardoned, to whom
grace has not only been offered, but savingly applied, may be
encouraged to hope for farther displays thereof, as well as to
improve what they have received, with the greatest diligence
and thankfulness.
4thly, Let us consider the great obligation we are laid under,
by the patience of God, to a constant exercise of the grace
of patience, in our behaviour towards God and man.
1. In our behaviour towards God; we are hereby laid under
the highest engagements to submit to his disposing will, and, in
whatever state we are, therewith to be content, without murmuring,
or repining, when under afflictive providences, Shall we
receive good at his hand, and shall we not receive evil? Job ii.
10. Has he exercised so long forbearance towards us, not only
before we were converted, when our life was a constant course
of rebellion, against him; but he has since, not only passed by,
but forgiven innumerable offences? And shall we think it strange
when he testifies his displeasure against us in any instances?
Shall we be froward and uneasy, because he does not immediately
give us what we desire, or deliver us from those evils
we groan under?
2. Let us exercise patience, in our behaviour towards men.
Shall we give way to, or express, unbecoming resentment
against those whom we converse with, for injuries done us,
which are often rather imaginary than real? Or if they are very
great, as well as undeserved, let not our passions exceed their
due bounds; especially let us not meditate revenge, but consider
how many injuries the great God has passed over in us,
and how long his patience has been extended towards us.
XV. God is abundant in truth. That we may understand
what is meant by this perfection, we may observe the difference
between his being called a true God, and a God of truth;
though they seem to import the same thing, and are not always
distinguished in scripture: thus he that receiveth Christ’s testimony,
is said to set to his seal that God is true, that is, in accomplishing
what he has promised, respecting the salvation of
his people, or that he is a God of truth; and elsewhere it is
// File: b187.png
.pn +1
said, Let God be true, but every man a liar, that is, a God of
truth: yet they are, for the most part, distinguished; so that
when he is called the true God, or the only true God, it does
not denote one distinct perfection of the divine nature, but the
Godhead, in which respect it includes all his divine perfections,
and is opposed to all others, who are called gods, but are
not so by nature: but this will be more particularly considered
in the next answer.
But when, on the other hand, we speak of him, as the God of
truth, we intend hereby that he is true to his word, or a God
that cannot lie, whose faithfulness is unblemished, because he
is a God of infinite holiness; and therefore whatever he has
spoken, he will certainly bring it to pass. This respects either
his threatenings, or his promises: as, to the former of these, it
is said, that the judgments of God, that is, the sentence he has
passed against sinners, is according to truth, Rom. ii. 2. and the
display of his vindictive justice is called, his accomplishing his
fury, Ezek. vi. 12. This renders him the object of fear, and
it is, as it were, a wall of fire round about his law, to secure
the glory thereof from the insults of his enemies.
There is also his faithfulness to his promises, in which respect
he is said to be the faithful God, who keepeth covenant and
mercy with them that love him, and keep his commandments, unto
a thousand generations, Deut. vii. 9. This is that which encourages
his people to hope and trust in him, and to expect
that blessedness, which none of his perfections would give them
a sufficient ground to lay claim to, were it not promised, and
this promise secured by his infinite faithfulness. Almighty
power is able to make us, happy, and mercy and goodness can
communicate every thing that may contribute thereunto; but it
does not from hence follow that they will, since God is under
no natural obligation to glorify these perfections: but when he
is pleased to give forth a promise relating hereunto, and the
accomplishment thereof ascertained to us by his infinite faithfulness;
this renders these blessings not only possible, but certain,
and so affords, to the heirs of salvation, strong consolation.
It is this that renders things future as certain as though
they were present, and so lays a foundation for our rejoicing in
hope of eternal life, whatever difficulties may seem to lie in the
way of it.
Here we may take occasion to consider the blessings which
are secured by the faithfulness of God, of which some respect
mankind in general, and the blessings of common providence,
viz. that the world should be preserved, and all flesh not perish
out of it, from the deluge to Christ’s second coming; and that,
during this time, the regular course of nature should not be altered,
but that seed-time and harvest, cold and heat, summer and
// File: b188.png
.pn +1
winter, day and night, should not cease, Gen. ix. 11. compared
with chap. viii. 22.
There are also promises made to the church in general, that
it should have a being in the world, notwithstanding all the
shocks of persecution, which it is exposed to; and, together
with these, God has given the greatest security, that the ordinances
of divine worship should be continued, and that, in all
places where he records his name, he will come to his people and
bless them, Exod. xx. 24. And to this we may add, that he
has promised to increase and build up his church; and that to
Shiloh, the great Redeemer, should the gathering of the people
be, and that he would multiply them, that they should not be few,
and also, glorify them, that they should not be small, Gen. xlix.
10. compared with Jer. xxx. 19. and that the glory should be of
an increasing nature, especially that which it should arrive to
in the latter ages of time, immediately before its exchanging
this militant for a triumphant state in heaven.
Moreover, there are many great and precious promises made
to particular believers, which every one of them have a right
to lay claim to, and are oftentimes enabled so to do, by faith,
which depends entirely on this perfection: and these promises
are such as respect the increase of grace; that they shall go from
strength to strength, or that they who wait on the Lord shall
renew their strength, Psal. lxxxiv. 7. and Isa. xl. 31. and that
they shall be recovered, after great backslidings, Psal. xxxvii.
14. Psal. lxxxix. 30-33. and be enabled to persevere in that
grace, which is begun in them, till it is crowned with compleat
victory, 2 Cor. xii. 9. Rom. xvi. 20. Job xvii. 9. 1 Cor. xv. 57.
and also that they shall be made partakers of that inward peace
and joy, which accompanies or flows from the truth of grace,
Isa. xi. 1. chap. lvii. 19. chap. xxxii. 17. and that all this shall
be attended with perfect blessedness in heaven at last, Psal.
lxxiii. 24. 2 Tim. iv. 8. The scripture abounds with promises
of the like nature, which are suited to every condition, and afford
relief to God’s people, under all the difficulties they meet
with in the world; the accomplishment whereof is made sure
to them by this divine perfection.
Object. 1. It is objected against this divine attribute; that
God has not, in some instances, fulfilled his threatenings, which
has tended to embolden some in a course of obstinacy and rebellion
against him; particularly that the first threatening was
not executed as soon as man fell; for though God told our first
parents, that in the very day they should eat of the forbidden
fruit, they should surely die: yet Adam lived after this, nine
hundred and thirty years, Gen. ii. 17. compared with chap. v. 5.
It is also objected, that God threatened to destroy Nineveh,
within forty days after Jonah was sent to publish this message
// File: b189.png
.pn +1
to them, Jonah iii. 4. nevertheless they continued in a flourishing
state many years after.
Answ. 1. As to what respects the first threatening, that death
should immediately ensue upon sin’s being committed, we shall
have occasion to speak to this in its proper place,[64] and therefore
all that need be replied to it at present is, that the threatening
was in some respect, executed the day, yea, the moment
in which our first parents sinned: If we take it in a legal sense,
they were immediately brought into a state of condemnation,
which, in a forensic sense, is often called death; they were immediately
separated from God, the fountain of blessedness, and
plunged into all those depths of misery, which were the consequence
of their fall; or if we take death, the punishment threatened,
for that which is, indeed, one ingredient in it, to wit, the
separation of soul and body; or for the greatest degree of punishment,
consisting in everlasting destruction, from the presence
of the Lord, and the glory of his power; then it is sufficient to
say, that man’s being liable hereunto was the principal thing intended
in the threatening. Certainly God did not hereby design
to tie up his own hands, so as to render it impossible for him
to remit the offence, or to recover the fallen creature out of this
deplorable state; and therefore if you take death for that which
is natural, which was not inflicted till nine hundred and thirty
years after, then we may say, that his being exposed to, or
brought under an unavoidable necessity of dying the very day
that he sinned, might be called his dying from that time; and
the scripture will warrant our using the word in that sense,
since the apostle, speaking to those who were, by sin, liable to
death, says, The body is dead, because of sin, Rom. viii. 10. that
is, it is exposed to death, as the consequence thereof, though it
was not actually dead; and if we take death for a liability to
eternal death, then the threatening must be supposed to contain
a tacit condition, which implies, that man was to expect nothing
but eternal death, unless some expedient were found out, which
the miserable creature then knew nothing of, to recover him out
of that state into which he was fallen.
2. As to what concerns the sparing of Nineveh; we have
sufficient ground to conclude that there was a condition annexed
to this threatening, and so the meaning is; that they should
be destroyed in forty days, if they did not repent: this condition
was designed to be made known to them, otherwise Jonah’s
preaching would have been to no purpose, and the warning
given would have answered no valuable end; and it is plain,
that the Ninevites understood it in this sense, otherwise there
would have been no room for repentance; so that God connected
the condition with the threatening: and as, on the one hand,
// File: b190.png
.pn +1
he designed to give them repentance, so that the event was not
dubious and undetermined by him, as depending on their conduct,
abstracted from his providence; so, on the other hand,
there was no reflection cast on his truth, because this provisionary
expedient, for their deliverance, was as much known by
them as the threatening itself.
Object. 2. It is objected that several promises have not had
their accomplishment. Thus there are several promises of spiritual
blessings, which many believers do not experience the
accomplishment of in this life; which has given occasion to some
to say, with the Psalmist, Doth his promise fail for evermore?
Psal. lxxvii. 8.
Answ. It is true, that all the promises of God are not literally
fulfilled in this world to every particular believer; the
promise of increase of grace is not actually fulfilled, while God
suffers his people to backslide from him, and the work of grace
is rather declining than sensibly advancing; neither are the
promises, respecting the assurance and joy of faith, fulfilled
unto one that is sinking into the depths of despair; nor those
that respect the presence of God in ordinances, to such as are
destitute of the influences of his grace therein; nor are the promises
of victory over temptation fulfilled, to those who are not
only assaulted, but frequently overcome by Satan, when it is as
much as they can do to stand their ground against him; and
there are many other instances of the like nature: notwithstanding,
the truth of God may be vindicated, if we consider,
1. That there is no promise made, whereof there are not
some instances of their accomplishment in kind; this therefore
is a sufficient conviction to the world, that there are such blessings
bestowed as God has promised.
2. Those who are denied these blessings, may possibly be
mistaken when they conclude themselves to be believers; and
then it is no wonder that they are destitute of them, for God
has promised to give joy and peace only in a way of believing;
or first to give the truth of grace, and then the comfortable
fruits and effects thereof. But we will suppose that they are
not mistaken, but have experienced the grace of God in truth;
yet their graces are so defective, that they know but little of
their own imperfections, if they do not take occasion from
thence, to justify God, who with-holdeth those blessings from
them, and to adore, rather than call in question, the equity of
his proceeding therein. And if remunerative justice be not
laid under obligations to bestow these blessings by any thing
performed by us, then certainly the faithfulness of God is not
to be impeached, because he is pleased to deny them.
3. In denying these blessings, he oftentimes takes occasion to
advance his own glory some other way, by trying the faith and
// File: b191.png
.pn +1
patience of his people, correcting them for their miscarriages,
humbling them by his dealings with them, and over-ruling all
for their good in the end; which is an equivalent for those joys
and comforts which they are deprived of. And, indeed, God
has never promised these blessings to any, but with this reserve,
that if he thinks it necessary, for his own glory, and their good,
to bring about their salvation some other way, he will do it,
without the least occasion given hereby to detract from the
glory of his faithfulness.
4. All these promises, which have not had their accomplishment
in kind, in this world, shall be accomplished in the next,
with the greatest advantage; so that then they will have no reason
to complain of the least unfaithfulness in the divine administration.
If rivers of pleasures at God’s right hand for ever,
will not compensate for the want of some comforts, while we
are in this world, or silence all objections against his present
dealings with men, nothing can do it; or if the full accomplishment
of all the promises hereafter, will not secure the glory of
this perfection, it is a sign that men are disposed to contend
with the Almighty, who deny it; therefore to such we may
justly apply God’s own words to Job, He that reproveth God,
let him answer it; or, as he farther says, Wilt thou disannul my
judgment? Wilt thou condemn me, that thou mayest be righteous?
Job xl. 2. compared with ver. 8.
We shall now consider how the faithfulness of God ought to
be improved by us. And,
(1.) The consideration thereof may be a preservative against
presumption on the one hand, or despair on the other. Let no
one harden himself in his iniquity; or think that because the
threatnings are not yet fully accomplished, therefore they never
shall; it is one thing for God to delay to execute them, and
another thing to resolve not to do it. We may vainly conclude,
that the bitterness of death is past, because our houses are safe
from fear, neither is the rod of God upon them; but let it be considered,
that the wicked are reserved for the day of destruction;
they shall be brought forth to the day of wrath, Job xxi. 9. compared
with ver. 30. the zeal of the Lord of hosts will do this.
His threatenings lay him under an obligation to punish finally
impenitent sinners, because he is a God of truth; therefore let
none harden themselves against him, or expect impunity in a
course of open rebellion against him. And, on the other hand,
let not believers give way to despair of obtaining mercy, or conclude,
that, because God is withdrawn, and hides his face from
them, therefore he will never return; or, because his promises
are not immediately fulfilled, therefore they never shall, since
his faithfulness is their great security; he will ever be mindful
of his covenant, Psal. cxi. 5.
// File: b192.png
.pn +1
(2.) Let us compare the providences of God with his word,
and see how every thing tends to set forth his faithfulness. We
are very stupid, if we take notice of the great things that are
doing in the world; and we behold them to little purpose, if
we do not observe how this divine perfection is glorified therein.
The world continues to this day, because God has several
things yet to do in it, in pursuance of his promises; the whole
number of the elect are to be gathered, and brought in to
Christ; their graces must be tried, and their faith built up in
the same way, as it has been in former ages; therefore the
church is preserved, and the gates of hell have not prevailed against
it, according to his word, Matth. xvi. 18. and as it was
of old, so we now observe that the various changes which are
made in civil affairs, are all rendered subservient to its welfare;
the earth helps the woman, Rev. xii. 16. not so much from
its own design, as by the appointment of providence; and why
does God order it so, but that his promises might be fulfilled?
And that the same ordinances should be continued, and that
believers should have the same experience of the efficacy and
success thereof, as the consequence of his presence with them,
which he has given them ground to expect unto the end of the
world, Matth. xxviii. 20. are blessings in which his faithfulness
is eminently glorified.
(3.) This divine perfection is a sure foundation for our faith.
As his truth, with respect to what he has revealed, is an infallible
ground for our faith of assent, so his faithfulness, in fulfilling
his promises, affords the highest encouragement for our
trust and dependence on him: thus we are said to commit the
keeping of our souls to him in well-doing, as unto a faithful Creator,
1 Pet. iv. 19. and, when we lay the whole stress of our
salvation upon him, we have no reason to entertain any doubt
about the issue thereof. Moreover, are we exposed to evils in
this world? we may conclude, that as he has delivered, and does
deliver, so we have reason to trust in him, that he will deliver
us, 2 Cor. i. 10. and is there much to be done for us, to make
us meet for heaven? we may be confident of this very thing,
that he that has begun a good work in us, will perform it until
the day of Jesus Christ, Phil. i. 6.
(4.) The faithfulness of God should be improved by us, as a
remedy against that uneasiness and anxiety of mind, which we
often have about the event of things, especially when they seem
to run counter to our expectation. Thus when there is but a
very melancholy prospect before us, as to what concerns the
glory of God in the world, and the flourishing state of his
church in it, upon which we are ready to say with Joshua,
Lord, what wilt thou do unto thy great name? Josh. vii. 9. or
when we have many sad thoughts of heart about the rising
// File: b193.png
.pn +1
generation, and are in doubt whether they will adhere to, or abandon,
the interest of Christ; when we are ready to fear whether
there will be a reserve of faithful men, who will stand up
for his gospel, and fill the places of those who are called off the
stage, after having served their generation by the will of God;
or when we are too much oppressed with carking cares about
our outward condition in the world, when, like Christ’s disciples,
we are immoderately thoughtful what we shall eat, what
we shall drink, or wherewithal we shall be clothed, Matth. vi. 31.
or how we shall be able to conflict with the difficulties that lie
before us: our great relief against all this solicitude is to be derived
from the faithfulness of God; for since godliness has the
promise annexed to it, of the life that now is, as well as of that
which is to come, 1 Tim. iv. 18. this promise shall have its accomplishment,
so far as shall most redound to God’s glory, and
our real advantage.
(5.) The consideration of the faithfulness of God should be
improved, to humble, and fill us with shame and confusion of
face, when we consider how treacherously we have dealt with
him, how unsteadfast we have been in his covenant, how often
we have broke our own promises and resolutions that we would
walk more closely with him, how frequently we have backslidden
from him, contrary to all the engagements which we have
been laid under. Have we found any unfaithfulness in him?
Has he, in the least instance, been worse than his word? as God
says, when he reproves his people, What iniquity have your fathers
found in me, that they are gone far from me, and have
walked after vanity, and are become vain? Jer. ii. 5.
.fn 48
His ideas are not the effects, but causes of things. Vide post p. #124#, #125#.
.fn-
.fn 49
There is not succession in His ideas, but he exists in every point of time.
.fn-
.fn 50
Effects spring from power, not laws, and prove a virtual, or influential, revelation,
an essential ubiquity.
.fn-
.fn 51
Quest. xv. and xviii.
.fn-
.fn 52
Quest. lxvii.
.fn-
.fn 53
Vide Edwards on Free-will, part I. sect. IV.
.fn-
.fn 54
The Divine knowledge is as undeniable as the Divine existence, and as certain
as human knowledge. “He that formed the eye doth he not see? He that
planted the ear doth he not hear? He that teacheth man knowledge doth he not
know?” But though human knowledge proves the Divine, as the effect does its
cause, it by no means follows, that they are similar. Our knowledge principally
consists of the images of things in the mind, or springs from them; but if the
Divine knowledge were such, it would result that things were prior to his knowledge,
and so that he is not the Creator of them; all things must therefore be the
representations of his ideas, as an edifice represents the plan of the skilful architect.
On this account our knowledge is superficial, extending only to the external
appearances of things; but their intimate natures are known to him, who
made them conformed to his original ideas. Our knowledge is circumscribed,
extending only to the things which are the objects of our senses, or which have
been described to us; but the universe, with all its parts, the greatest and the
smallest things, are all known to him, who called them into existence, and moulded
them according to his own plan. Our knowledge embraces only the things
which are, or have been; with respect to the future, we can know nothing, except
as he, upon whom it depends, shall reveal it to us; or as we may draw inferences
from his course of action in former instances. But the Creator knows
not only the past and the present, but the future. He knows the future, because
it wholly depends on him; and nothing can take place without him, otherwise it
is independent of God, but this is incompatible with his supremacy. If he know
not the future, his knowledge is imperfect; if he is to know hereafter what he
does not now know, he is increasing in knowledge, this would argue imperfection;
if his knowledge be imperfect, he is imperfect; and if he be imperfect, he is
not God.—But all things to come are to be what he designs they shall be; there
accompanies his knowledge of the future, also a purpose, that the thing designed
shall be effectuated; and his wisdom and power being infinite guarantee the accomplishment
of his purposes.
To be the subjects of foreknowledge, such as has been mentioned, implies the
absolute certainty of the things, or occurrences, thus foreknown. A failure in
their production, would not less prove imperfection, than a defect of the foreknowledge
of them. Contingency belongs not to the things in futurity, but to
the defective knowledge of imperfect beings, and is always proportional to our
ignorance.
That the future is categorically certain with God, appears by the invariable
succession of effects to their causes in the natural world; miracles themselves
may not be exceptions; but would always, it is probable, flow from the same causes,
which are occult from us. The voluntary actions of moral agents, how uncertain
soever to themselves, are also not exceptions from the Divine knowledge
and purposes; “He doth his will in the army of Heaven, and among the inhabitants
of the earth”; “The wrath of man praises him, and the remainder he doth
restrain.” Every prophecy, which has been fulfilled, so far as it was accomplished
by the voluntary actions of men, proves the certainty of the divine foreknowledge,
the absolute certainty of the then future event, and that the will of man is
among the various means, which God is pleased to make use of to accomplish his
purposes.
If there be such certainty in God’s foreknowledge, and in the events themselves
in the Kingdom of Providence, we may reasonably expect his conduct will be similar
in the Kingdom of Grace; and the more especially if man’s salvation from
first to last springs from, and is carried on, and accomplished by him.
.fn-
.fn 55
As knowledge is a faculty of which wisdom is the due exercise, the proofs of
divine wisdom are so many evidences of the knowledge of God. Wisdom consists
in the choice of the best ends, and the selection of means most suitable to attain
them. The testimonies of the wisdom of God must therefore be as numerous and
various, as the works of his creation. The mutual relations and subserviency of one
thing to another; as the heat of the sun, to produce rain; both, to produce vegetation;
and all, to sustain life; ensation, digestion, muscular motion,
the circulation of the fluids, and, still more, intelligence, and above all, the moral
faculty, or power of distinguishing good and evil, are unequivocal proofs of the
wisdom, and consequently of the knowledge, of God.—He that formed the eye,
doth he not see: he that planted the ear, &c.
Mortal artificers are deemed to understand their own work, though ignorant of
the formation of the materials and instruments they use: but the Creator uses no
mean or material which he has not formed. He therefore knows, from the globe
to the particle of dust or fluid, and from the largest living creature to the smallest
insect. He has knowledge equally of the other worlds of this system, and
every system; of all things in heaven, earth, and hell.
Our knowledge is conversant about his works; he knows all things which are
known to us, and those things which have not come to our knowledge.
He formed and sustains the human mind, and knows the thoughts: this is necessary
to him as our Judge. He knows equally all spiritual creatures, and sustains
his holy spirits in holiness.
Our knowledge springs from things; but things spring from his purposes: they
are, because he knows them; otherwise they existed before his knowledge, and
so independently of him.
We know but the external appearances, he the intimate nature of things. We
inquire into the properties of things by our senses, by comparing them, by analizing,
&c: but nothing possesses a property which he did not purpose and give;
otherwise his hands have wrought more than he intended. We look up through
effects unto their causes: he looks down through intermediate causes, and sees
them all to be effects from him.
We are furnished with memories to bring up ideas, being only able to contemplate
a part at a time; but his comprehension embraces all things.
He never changes; his purposes of the future embrace eternity: all things that
are really future are certain, because his purposes cannot fail of accomplishment.
But all future things to us are contingent, except as he has revealed their certainty.
That the future is known to him, also appears by the accomplishment of
every prophecy.
But man’s sin receives hereby no apology. He gives the brutal creation the capacity
of deriving pleasure from gratification of sense, and provides for such appetites.
He offers to man, pleasures which are intellectual: he has tendered him
the means, and requires man to seek his spiritual happiness in God. When he refuses
and withholds his return of service from God, man is alone to blame. And
the more numerous and powerful the motives which he resists, the guilt is the
greater. The divine foreknowledge of this is no excuse for man. When the Lord
overpowers man’s evil with good, the glory of man’s salvation belongs to God.
.fn-
.fn 56
See Ray’s Wisdom of God in the Works of Creation, and Derham’s Physico-Theology.
See also Fenelon, Newenlyle, Paley, and Adams’s Philosophy.
.fn-
.fn 57
See Page #46#.
.fn-
.fn 58
See Quest. clvi. and clvii.
.fn-
.fn 59
Quest. xvi. xvii. xxi. and xxx.
.fn-
.fn 60
The Quest. xliv. and lxxi.
.fn-
.fn 61
Quest. xxix. and lxxix.
.fn-
.fn 62
All the good which we behold in Creation, Providence, and redemption,
flows from goodness in God, and are the proofs of this attribute. If all the evil,
which we discover, springs from the liberty given to creatures to conform, or
not, to the revealed will; or if all moral evil be productive of good, the remainder
being restrained; then the evil, which exists, is no exception to the proofs of
Divine goodness. What Deity now is, he always was; he has not derived his
goodness; he is not a compounded being; his goodness therefore belongs to his
essence. His goodness has been distinguished into immanent and communicative.
The latter discovers to us the former, but his communicative goodness, though
flowing in ten thousand streams, and incalculable, is less than his immanent,
which is an eternal fountain of excellency.
Infinite knowledge discerns things as they are, and a perfect being will esteem
that to be best, which is so; God therefore discerns, and esteems his own immanent
goodness as infinitely exceeding all the good, which appears in his works,
for the excellency in these is but an imperfect representation of himself. The
happiness of Deity must consist consequently in his own self-complacency; he
made all things for his pleasure, or glory, but they are only so far pleasing, as they
reflect his own picture to himself. Yet when we suppose Deity to be the subject
of motives, we are ever in danger of erring.
Divine communicative goodness has been termed benevolence when in intention,
beneficence when carried into effect. This is nearly the same as moral rectitude,
because the government of the Universe must, that it may produce the good of
the whole, be administered in righteousness. The correct administration of justice
in rewarding every good, if there be merit in a creature, and punishing
every evil is no less an effect of benevolence, than the conferring of benefits,
which are purely gratuitous. In like manner the punishment of offenders in civil
society has for its object general utility, whether we imagine the power which
judges and inflicts, to spring from the social compact, or to have been ordained
of God.
The cutting off of flagrant offenders, as by the deluge, the destruction of
Sodom, &c. has been obviously designed to prevent the spreading contagion of
sin. But there is a time appointed, unto which all things are tending, and unto
which men generally refer the wrongs they sustain, in which perfect justice shall
be administered. Some attributes of Deity seem to be ground of terror, and
others of love; but God is one; he is subject to no perturbation of mind; his
wrath and indignation are but other terms for his steady and unchangeable
goodness, bearing down the evil, which sinful creatures oppose to his purposes
of general advantage. Those acts of justice which are accounted by the guilty
to be unnecessary severity, are deemed, by glorified saints and angels, the effects
of that goodness, which they make the subject of their Hallelujahs. Thus the
highest proof of God’s goodness consisted in his not sparing his own Son, nor
abating any thing from the demands of his law. After this all hopes that Divine
goodness shall favour the finally impenitent must be utterly vain.
.fn-
.fn 63
“Mark iii. 11, v. 7; Luke viii. 28; and Mat. viii. 29. These extraordinary personages
in the New Testament, are not called devils, Διαβολοι, in the original; that
word never occurring in the Christian scriptures, but in the singular number, and
as applied to one Being alone. They are called dæmons, Δαιμονες or Δαιμονια. Yet
they are plainly devils in fact; being called Unclean Spirits, though sometimes
only Spirits (Mark ix. 20; and Luke x. 20;) and showing themselves to be devils,
by their whole history. In Mat. xii. 24 and 26 particularly, the Pharisees say
‘our Saviour casts out devils, (dæmons) by Beelzebub the prince of the devils
(dæmons);’ and our Saviour replies, that then ‘Satan casts out Satan.’ See
also Luke x. 17-18; where the apostles rejoicing declare, ‘even the devils (dæmons)
are subject unto us;’ and our Saviour says unto them, ‘I beheld Satan
as lightning fall from heaven.’ So very false in itself, and directly contradicted
by the very words of our Saviour, is that hypothesis of Dr. Campbell’s in his new
translation of the Gospels; which asserts these possessions of the New Testament
to be nowhere attributed to the devil, and which avers the dominion or authority
of the devil to be nowhere ascribed to the dæmons! Beelzebub is expressly called
the prince of the dæmons, the dæmons are expressly denominated Satan with
him, and these are only inferior devils subordinate to the great one. And though
the word dæmons (as Dr. Campbell urges) might critically be more exact in a
translation; yet the word devils better accords, with the usages of our language
and the course of our ideas. Exactness therefore has been properly sacrificed to
utility.”
WHITAKER.
.fn-
.fn 64
See Quest. xx.
.fn-
.sp 4
.h2
Quest. VIII.
.sp 2
.pm letter-start
Quest. VIII. Are there more Gods than one?
Answ. There is but one only, the living and true God.
.pm letter-end
.sp 2
I. In this answer, God is described as the living and true
God. As life is the greatest excellency belonging to the
nature of any finite being, upon which account some have concluded
that the lowest degree thereof renders a creature more
excellent in itself, than the most glorious creatures that are
without it; and inasmuch as intelligent creatures have a superior
excellency to all others, because that which gives life to
them, or the principle by which they act as such, is most excellent;
so the life of God is that whereby he infinitely excels
all finite beings; therefore, when he is called the living God,
this is not one single perfection of the divine nature, but it is
expressive of all his divine perfections. Thus when God represents
himself, in scripture, as giving his people the highest assurance
of any thing which he designs to do, he useth the form
// File: b194.png
.pn +1
of an oath, and sweareth by his life, As I live; or, as truly as I
live, Isa. xlix. 18. and Numb. xiv. 21. which imports the same
thing, as when he says, I have sworn by myself, Gen. xxii. 16.
so that when he is called the living God, his glory is set forth,
as a God of infinite perfection: but this has been considered
under the last answer.
Therefore we may farther observe, that when God is styled
the living God, it connotes the display of all his perfections, as
life is a principle of action; and hereby he is distinguished from
lifeless idols, who were reputed gods by their stupid and profane
worshippers. Thus the apostle lays down both the terms
of opposition, when he speaks to some, as having turned from
idols, or false gods, to serve the living and true God, 1 Thess.
i. 9. Here we might consider the origin and progress of idolatry,
as men were inclined to worship the creature more than the
Creator, Rom. i. 25. or to do service to them, who, by nature,
are no gods, Gal. iv. 8. and shew how some seemed to have
been destitute of common sense, as they were of true religion,
when they not only worshipped God by idols, of their own making,
but prayed to them, and said, Deliver us, for ye are our
gods; this the prophet takes notice of, Isa. xliv. 17. and exposes
their unaccountable stupidity, by observing to them that
these gods were first growing among the trees of the forest,
then cut down with their own hands, and fashioned into their
designed form, and part thereof cast into the fire, as destined
for common uses. These were lifeless gods, without a metaphor,
and their senseless worshippers but one remove from
them, as the Psalmist says, They that make them are like unto
them, and so is every one that trusteth in them, Psal. cxv. 8.
But this we shall have occasion to insist on in a following part
of this work[65], and therefore shall pass it over at present, and
consider,
II. The unity of the Godhead. Scripture is very express in
asserting this: thus it is said, The Lord our God is one Lord,
Deut. vi. 4. and, I, even I, am he; and there is no God with
me, chap. xxxii. 39. and, The Lord he is God; there is none else
besides him, chap. iv. 35. and elsewhere, Thou art God alone,
Psal. lxxxvi. 10. And this is a truth, not barely founded on a
few places of scripture that expressly assert it, but it may be
deduced from every part thereof; yea, it is instamped on the
very nature of man, and may be as plainly proved, from the light
of nature, as that there is a God; and every one of the divine
perfections, which were particularly considered under the last
answer, will supply us with arguments to confirm our faith
therein: but that this may farther appear, let it be considered,
// File: b195.png
.pn +1
1. That the idea of a God implies that he is the first cause of
all things, in which respect he is opposed to the creature; it follows,
therefore, that he was from all eternity. Now there can be
no more than one being, who is without beginning, and who
gave being to all other things, which appears from the very nature
of the thing; for if there are more Gods, then they must
derive their being from him, and then they are a part of his
creation, and consequently not gods, for God and the creature
are infinitely opposed to each other: and since there is but one
independent being, who is in and of himself, and derives his perfections
from no other, therefore there can be but one God.
2. There is but one being, who is the ultimate end of all
things, which necessarily follows from his being their Creator;
for he that produced them out of nothing must be supposed to
have designed some valuable end hereby, which, ultimately considered,
cannot be any thing short of himself, for that is inconsistent
with the wisdom and sovereignty that is contained in the
idea of a Creator; therefore he is said to have made all things
for himself, Prov. xvi. 4. and consequently the glory that results
from thence is unalienable, and so cannot be ascribed to any
other God; therefore to suppose that there are other gods, is to
ascribe a divine nature to them, divested of that glory which
is essential to it. And to this we may add, that if God be the
ultimate end of all things, he is to be glorified as such, and all
worship is to terminate in him; and we must proclaim him to
be our chief good, and only portion and happiness, which is
plainly inconsistent with a plurality of gods. Besides, he that is
the object of adoration must be worshipped, and loved with all
our heart, soul, strength, and mind, Luke x. 27. our affections
must not be divided between him and any other. Therefore
since man is under a natural obligation to give supreme worship
to him, it follows that there is no other God that has a
right to it, and therefore that he is the only true God.
3. Infinite perfection being implied in the idea of a God, as
has been proved under the last answer, it is certain that it cannot
belong to more than one; for as it implies that this perfection
is boundless, so it denotes that he sets bounds to the perfections
of all others; therefore, if there are more Gods than
one, their perfections must be limited, and consequently that
which is not infinite is not God. And as infinite perfection implies
in it all perfection, so it cannot be divided among many,
for then no being, that has only a part thereof, could be said to
be thus perfect; therefore, since there is but one that is so, it follows
that there is no other God besides him.
4. Since omnipotency is a divine attribute, there can be but
one almighty being, and therefore but one God; which will
farther appear, if we consider, that if there were more Gods
// File: b196.png
.pn +1
than one, all of them must be said to be able to do all things,
and then the same individual power, that is exerted by one,
must be exerted by another, than which nothing is more absurd.
And it will also follow, that he, who cannot do that which is
said to be done by another, is not almighty, or able to do all
things, and consequently that he is not God.
5. There is but one being, who has an absolute sovereign
will, who, though he can controul all others, is himself subject
to no controul; who has a natural right to give laws to all who
are his subjects, but is subject to none himself; for absolute dominion
and subjection are as opposite as light and darkness.
Two persons may as well be said to give being to each other,
as to have a right to give laws to each other. Moreover, if there
were more Gods than one, then there would be a confusion in
the government of the world; for whatever one decrees, another
may reverse; or whatever is done by one, the contrary might
be done by the other, for that is the consequence from a sovereignty
of will. And as there might be opposite things commanded,
or forbidden, pursuant to the different wills of a plurality
of gods, so the same thing, with respect to those who are
under an obligation to yield obedience, would be both a sin and
a duty, and the same persons would be both condemned and
justified for the same action.
6. There is but one being, who is, as God is often said to
be, the best and the greatest; therefore, if there were more
Gods than one, either one must be supposed to be more excellent
than another, or both equally excellent. If we suppose the
former of these, then he, who is not the most excellent, is not
God; and if the latter, that their excellencies are equal, then infinite
perfection would be divided, which is contrary to the idea
thereof, as was before hinted; as well as to what is expressly
said by God, To whom will ye liken me, or shall I be equal?
saith the Holy One, Isa. xl. 25. From these, and several other
arguments to the same purpose, which might have been taken
from every one of the divine attributes, and from all essential
and relative glory which belongs to him, the unity of the divine
essence appears, even to a demonstration. And indeed to assert
that there are more Gods than one is, in effect, to say that
there is no God; so the apostle deems it, when he tells the church
at Ephesus, that, before their conversion, when they worshipped
other gods, they were without God in the world, which implies
as much as that they were atheists therein, as the words
αθεοι ἐν τω κόσμω may, with equal propriety, be rendered.[66]
// File: b197.png
.pn +1
Having considered the unity of the Godhead, not only as evinced
from scripture, but as it may be demonstrated by the
// File: b198.png
.pn +1
light of nature, it will be necessary that we obviate an objection
that may be brought against this latter method of proving it, viz.
// File: b199.png
.pn +1
Object. If the unity of the Godhead might be known by the
dictates of nature, or demonstrated by other arguments, besides
// File: b200.png
.pn +1
those which are matter of pure revelation, how comes it to pass
that the heathen owned, and worshipped, a plurality of gods?
and as it was not one particular sect among them that did so,
but this abominable practice universally obtained, where revealed
religion was not known, therefore, though this be an undoubted
truth, yet it is not founded in the light of nature.
Answ. That they did so is beyond dispute, especially after
idolatry had continued a few ages in the world, and so had extinguished
those principles of revealed religion, which mankind,
before this, were favoured with; yet it must be considered, that
though the ignorant and unthinking multitude, among them,
believed every thing to be a God, which the custom of the countries
where they lived had induced them to pay divine adoration
to, yet the wiser sort of them, however guilty of idolatry,
by paying a lower kind of worship to them, have, notwithstanding,
maintained the unity of the Godhead, or that there is one
God superior to them all, whom they often call the father of
gods and men; to whom probably the Athenians erected that
altar, as the apostle Paul observes, with this inscription, To
the unknown GOD; because he says, in the words immediately
following, Whom therefore ye ignorantly worship, him
declare I unto you, Acts xvii. 23.
This appears from what they assert to the same purpose,
whereby they plainly discover their belief of but one supreme
God, who has all the incommunicable perfections of the divine
nature, however, in other instances, their conduct seemed to
run counter to their method of reasoning: thus it appears, by
their writings, that many of them assert that there is a God,
who is the first cause, or beginning, of all things; and that he
was from eternity, or in the beginning, and that time took its
rise from him; that he is the living God, the fountain of life,
and the best of all beings[67]: Also, that this God is self-sufficient,
and therefore it is absurd to suppose that he stands in
need of, or can receive advantage from, any one[68]; and that
he is the chief good, or contains in himself whatever is good,
and that by him all things consist; and that no one hath enough
in himself to secure his own safety and happiness, which is to
be derived from him[69].
And there are others also, who plainly assert the unity of
God in as strong terms, as though they had learned it from
divine revelation, calling him, the beginning, the end, and author
of all things; who was before, and is above all things, the
Lord of all, the fountain of life, light, and all good, yea, goodness
itself; the most excellent being; and many other expressions
// File: b201.png
.pn +1
to the like purpose. I could multiply quotations for the
proof of this, from Proclus, Porphyry, Iamblicus, Plotinus,
Plutarch, Epictetus, and several others; but this has been already
done by other hands[70]; by which it appears, that though
they mention other gods, they suppose them to be little more
than titular or honorary gods; or at least persons, who were
the peculiar favourites of God, and admitted to the participation
of divine honours, as well as employed in some part of
the government of the world. They frequently speak of them
as having derived their being from God, whom they call the
cause of causes, the God of gods. Some of them speak of God
in the singular number, throughout the greatest part of their
writings, and only make mention of the gods occasionally, especially
when they treat of those works that become a God, or
the greatest honours that are due to him; thus Seneca and Plato,
and, in particular, the latter of them says, concerning himself[71],
that when he wrote any thing in a grave and serious
manner, his custom was, to preface his epistles with the mention
of one God; though, it is true, when he wrote otherwise,
he used the common mode of speaking, and talked of other
gods; and it is observed, in his writings, that he sometimes
uses this phrase; If it please God, or by the help of God, not
the gods.
But, notwithstanding this, they were all idolaters, for they
joined in the rites of worship performed to the false gods of
their respective countries; yea, Socrates himself, who fell under
the displeasure of the Athenians, for asserting the unity of
the Godhead, which cost him his life, did not refuse to pay
some religious honour to the heathen gods. So that it is plain
they paid some religious worship to them, but it was of an inferior
and subordinate nature, not much unlike to that which
the Papists give to saints and angels: but they are far from
setting them upon a level with God; for they confess they were
but men, who formerly lived in this world; they give an account
of their birth and parentage; where they lived and died;
write the history of their lives, and what procured them the
honour they suppose them after death advanced to[72]; how some
of them obtained it, as the reward of virtue, or in commemoration
of the good they had done to the world in their life: as
some were advanced to this honour, who were the inventors
of arts, beneficial to mankind, or were successful in wars, or a
public blessing to the country where they lived, others had
this honour conferred upon them, especially among the Romans,
at the request of their surviving friends; and this was
done after Julius Cæsar’s time, by the decree of the senate,
// File: b202.png
.pn +1
who, at the same time, when they ranked them among the
number of their gods, appointed also the rites of worship that
should be paid to them; and some of the Roman emperors
obliged the senate to deify them while they were alive. These
things are very largely insisted on, by many ancient and
modern writers[73]; so that, upon the whole, it plainly appears,
that, whatever they say of a plurality of gods, the wiser sort
among the heathen did not deny the unity of the divine essence,
in the highest and most proper sense; and, inasmuch as
they received the knowledge hereof from the light of nature,
we may from hence conclude that this truth might be known
that way, as well as by divine revelation.
We shall conclude with some practical inferences from the
doctrine contained in this answer.
1. Since he, who is the object of our worship, is the living
God; this reproves that lifeless formal way, in which many
address themselves to him, in the performance of religious duties,
without that reverence and due regard to the divine perfections,
which are contained in this character of the Godhead.
It is also a very great aggravation, not only of apostacy, but
of any degree of backsliding, in those who have made a profession
of religion; that it is a departure from the living God,
Heb. iii. 12. Is he the God and giver of life, and shall we
forsake him, who has the words of eternal life, John vi. 68.
whose sovereign will has the sole disposal thereof?
Again, this consideration, of his being the living God, renders
his judgments most terrible, and his wrath insupportable;
as the apostle says, It is a fearful thing to fall into the hands of
the living God, Heb. x. 31.
2. From his being the true God, we infer, that all hypocrisy,
both in heart and life, is to be avoided; and we should
draw nigh to him with a true heart and faith unfeigned; and
not like those whom the prophet reproves, when he says, God
was near in their mouth, and far from their reins, Jer. xii. 2.
Moreover, let us take heed that we do not set up an idol in
our hearts, in opposition to him as the true God: whatever
has a greater share in our affections than God, or is set up in
competition with him, that is, to us, a god, and is therefore
inconsistent with our paying that regard which is due to him;
as our Saviour says, Ye cannot serve God and mammon, Mat.
vi. 24. and, upon this account, covetousness is styled idolatry,
Col. iii. 5. as the world is loved more than him; and we read
of some whose God is their belly, Phil. iii. 19. who make provision
for the flesh, to fulfil the lusts thereof, as though this
was their chief good. And when we confide in any thing below
// File: b203.png
.pn +1
him, in a religious way, or expect that from the creature
which is only to be found in him; or when we esteem men as
lords of our faith; or when his sovereignty, or right to govern
us, is called in question, while we presumptuously, or wilfully,
rebel against him; this is, in effect, a dethroning, or denying
him to be the true God: but more of this when we consider
the sins forbidden in the first commandment[74].
3. From the unity of the Godhead, we may infer, that we
ought to take heed that we do not entertain any conceptions of
the divine Being, which are inconsistent herewith; therefore,
as we are not to assert a plurality of gods, so we are not to
think or speak of God in such a way as tends to overthrow the
simplicity of the divine nature; therefore we must not conceive
that it is compounded of various parts, all which, being
taken together, tend to constitute the divine essence; which
gives occasion to that known aphorism, generally laid down by
those who treat of this subject, that whatever is in God, is God;
which we must reckon as one of the incomprehensibles of the
divine Being, which when we attempt to speak of, we only
give an evident proof of the imperfection of our finite understandings,
and that we cannot order our words, by reason of
darkness: however, it is necessary, when we lay down this
proposition, that we signify what we intend hereby, that so
we may not be supposed to use words without ideas; and especially
that we may, in some measure, account for those
modes of speaking, which are agreeable to scripture, which so
often describes God as having a plurality of perfections, and
those, in some respects, distinct; and yet, at the same time,
that we may not hereby be led to infer a plurality of gods.
Here let it be considered,
(1.) That we have not the least similitude, or resemblance,
of this in any finite being. Every thing below God is composed
of parts, some of which we call integral, as all the parts of
matter taken together constitute the whole; others are called
essential, as when we say an intelligent being has various powers
or properties which are essential to it; so that it would
not be complete without every one of them; and that these
are all of them distinct, so that we cannot say whatever is in
the soul of man is the soul, but every one of those powers, or
properties, taken together, constitute the man; but this is by
no means to be applied to the divine Being; therefore,
(2.) When we conceive of God, as holy, powerful, just,
good, &c. we must not suppose that these perfections are so
many ingredients in the divine Being, or that, when taken together,
they constitute it, as the whole is constituted of its
parts; for then every one of them would have no other than
// File: b204.png
.pn +1
a partial perfection, and consequently the essential glory of one
of those attributes would not be equal to the glory of the divine
Being, which is supposed to consist of them all; and therefore
there would be something in God less than God, or a
divine perfection less than all the divine perfections taken together,
which we are not to suppose. These are the properties
of composition; and therefore, when we speak of God as
a simple or uncompounded Being, we cannot forbear to mention
them as what are inconsistent with his perfection as such.
Neither are the divine perfections distinct or different from
one another, as the various parts of which the whole is constituted
are said to be distinct; which follows from the former,
since the divine essence has no parts; therefore we are
not to suppose, that the divine attributes, considered as they
are in God, are so distinguished, as one thing, or being, is
from another; or as wisdom, power, justice, mercy, &c. are
in men; for that would be to suppose the divine Being as having
several distinct, infinitely perfect beings contained in it,
which is contrary to its simplicity or unity; or, at least, if we
call it one, it would be only so by participation and dependence,
as a general or complex idea is said to be one, which partakes
of, and depends on, all those particular or simple ideas that
are contained in it; or, to illustrate it by numbers, as one
hundred is one, as it contains such a number of units in it, as
are, all taken together, equal to a hundred; this is not what
we mean, when we say God is one.
Moreover, when we speak of the divine perfections, as being
in God, we suppose them all essential to him, as opposed
to what is accidental. Now an accident is generally described,
as what belongs, or is superadded, to a being or subject, which
it might have existed without, or have been destitute of, and
yet sustained no loss of that perfection, which is essential to
it: thus, wisdom, holiness, justice, faithfulness, are accidents
in men; so that they who have them not, do not cease to be
men, or to have the essential perfection of the human nature:
but this is by no means to be applied to the divine Being and
attributes; for to suppose God to be destitute of any of them,
is as much as to say that he is not infinitely perfect, or that he
is not God. This, I think, is generally intended, when it is
said, whatever is in God, is God; which, because it may be reckoned
by some to be a metaphysical speculation, I should have
avoided to mention, had it not been, in some respects, necessary,
since the unity of God cannot well be conceived of, unless
his simplicity be defended; and I do not see how that can
be maintained, if this proposition be not duly considered. If
I have used more words than are needful, or repeated the
same ideas too often, in attempting to explain it, I have done
// File: b205.png
.pn +1
it to avoid some scholastic modes of speaking, or with a design
to render what has been said more intelligible; but to this
we may add,
(3.) That when we speak of the divine perfections as many,
or distinct from one another, as we often do, and have scripture
warrant to justify us therein, namely, when we speak of
the justice of God, as different from his mercy, or these, from
his power, wisdom, faithfulness, &c. this must not be deemed
inconsistent with what has been said concerning the divine
simplicity: and therefore let it be considered, that the nature
and perfections of God are incomprehensible; and therefore all
the ideas which we have of them are taken from our comparing
them with some small resemblance that there is thereof
in intelligent creatures, and, at the same time, separating from
them whatever argues imperfection.
And from hence it follows, that we are not supposed to
know, or be able to describe, what God is in himself, and, as
I humbly conceive, never shall: such knowledge as this is
too great for any but a divine person; therefore our conceptions
of him are taken from and conformed to those various
ways, by which he condescends to make himself visible, or
known to us, namely, by various acts conversant about certain
objects, in which he is said to manifest his perfections: thus,
when an effect is produced, we call that perfection that produces
it his power; or as the divine acts are otherwise distinguished
with respect to the objects, or the manner of his
glorifying himself therein, these we call his wisdom, justice,
goodness, &c. And this is what we mean, when we speak of
various perfections in God; though some suppose that they express
themselves more agreeably to the nature of the subject,
or to the simplicity of God, in that, whenever they speak of
any of the divine perfections, they speak of them in such a way,
as that they are denominated from the effect thereof; as when
they take occasion to mention the power of God, they call it
God acting powerfully; or of his justice or faithfulness, they
express those perfections by, God acting justly or faithfully[75].
But however we express ourselves, when we speak of the distinct
perfections of the divine nature, this is what we principally
intend thereby: and here our thoughts must stop, and make
what is too great for a finite mind to conceive of the subject
of our admiration, and adore what we cannot comprehend:
such knowledge is too wonderful for us; it is high, we cannot
attain to it.
.fn 65
See Quest. cv.
.fn-
.fn 66
“As gravity is the common quality of all bodies, arising not from the nature
and properties of matter, nor to be explained without the agency of a foreign cause,
yet producing numberless uniform effects in the corporeal system, it is in all reason
to be attributed to one contrivance, rather than the different designs of two
or more partial independent causes. What a vast variety of appearances in nature
depend on this one? The self-balanced earth hangs upon its centre; the mountains
are set fast; there is a perpetual flux and reflux of the sea; vapours continually
arise; the clouds are balanced till by their own weight they descend in rain;
animals breathe and move; the heavenly bodies hold their stations, and go on in
their constant course, by the force of gravity, after the ordinance of that wisdom
which appointed them this law. Now when we see a multitude of effects proceeding
from one Cause, effects so various in their kind and so important, a Cause simple
and unvaried in all the diversity produced by it, can we avoid ascribing this
to an unity of intelligence, if there be intelligence in it all? For could we suppose
different independent beings, acting with different designs, and by distinct operations
to have formed the several parts of the world, and the several species of
creatures which are in it, what reason can be imagined why they should all be
governed by, and all necessarily depend upon, one law? The Maker of the sun, or,
if a partial cause of nature could be supposed to have an understanding large enough
for it, the Contriver of the whole visible heavens, must, one would think,
have finished his scheme independently on any other, without borrowing aid from
the work of another God. In like manner the Gods of the seas and of the dry land,
and the Creator of animals, would have completed their several systems, each by
itself, not depending on any other for its order and preservation. Whereas, on the
contrary, we see in fact they are none of them independent, but all held together
by the common bond of gravity. The heavens and the earth continue in their situations
at a proper distance from each other by the force of this law; the sea keeps
within its channels; and animals live and move by it. All which lead us to acknowledge
one directing Counsel in the whole frame. For what but an understanding
which comprehends the whole extent of nature, reaching from the utmost
circuit of heaven to the centre of the earth, could have fixed such a common
law, so necessary to all its parts, that without it not one of them could subsist,
nor the harmony of the whole be preserved? The strict cohesion of the parts
which constitute particular bodies requires a peculiar cement, different from that
of the gravitating force; and as it can never be explained by the nature and properties
of matter itself, and is absolutely necessary to the forms and the uses of
bodies in the several far distant regions of the world, it must in like manner be
attributed to the contrivance of an understanding, and the agency of a power,
which takes in the whole corporeal system, not to a partial cause, limited in its
intelligence and operation.
“2dly, The beautiful order and harmony of the universe, since it must be acknowledged
to be the work of understanding, has all the appearance which is necessary
to satisfy any fair inquirer, of its being formed under the direction of one governing
wisdom. Disconcerted counsels can never produce harmony. If a plurality
of intelligent causes pursue each his separate design, disunion will continually
cleave to their works; but when we see an intire piece made up of many parts,
all corresponding to each other, and conspiring together so as to answer one common
end, we naturally conclude unity of design. As a work of art is formed according
to the preconceived idea of a designing artificer, without which it has not
its necessary intireness and uniformity, the same may be observed in the works of
nature. A tree is as much one as a house; an animal as complete a system in it
self, (only much more curiously framed,) as a clock. If we carry our views farther
into nature, and take in whole regions of the universe, with all their contents,
the same characters of unity are still visible. The earth itself is not a confused
mass, or a medley of incoherent and unrelated parts, but a well contrived fabric,
fitted and plainly designed for use. If we consider what a multitude of living creatures
are in it, of different kinds and degrees of perfection, each sort having proper
apartments assigned them, where they dwell conveniently together, with suitable
provision made for them, and instincts directing them to the use of it; if we
consider the interests of the several kinds, not interfering in the main, but rather
serviceable to each other, furnished with necessary defences against the inconveniences
to which they are liable, either by the preventing care of nature, which
without any thought of their own has provided for their safety, by the appointed
advantages of their situation, or by an implanted wisdom directing them to find
out the means of it; and if we consider the constant interposition of the same liberal
intelligent nature, appearing by the daily new productions from the same
fertile womb of the earth, whereby the returning wants of animals are relieved
with fresh supplies, all the species of living things having the common benefit of
the air, without which they could not subsist, and the light of the sun, which cannot
at once illuminate the whole globe, being dispensed among them with so good
œconomy, that they have every one what is sufficient to guide them in the exercise
of their proper functions, that they may fulfil the purposes of their beings;—when
we consider all this, can we doubt but the earth is disposed and governed
by one intending Cause? If in a large house, wherein are many mansions, and a
vast variety of inhabitants, there appears exact order, all from the highest to the
lowest continually attending their proper business, and all lodged and constantly
provided for suitably to their several conditions, we find ourselves obliged to acknowledge
one wise œconomy. And if in a great city or commonwealth there be
a perfectly regular administration, so that not only the whole society enjoys an
undisturbed peace, but every member has the station assigned him which he is
best qualified to fill; the unenvied chiefs constantly attend their more important
cares, served by the busy inferiors, who have all a suitable accommodation, and
food convenient for them, the very meanest ministering to the public utility and
protected by the public care; if, I say, in such a community we must conclude
there is a ruling Counsel, which if not naturally, yet is politically one, and, unless
united, could not produce such harmony and order, much more have we reason
to recognize one governing Intelligence in the earth, in which there are so many
ranks of beings disposed of in the most convenient manner, having all their several
provinces appointed to them, and their several kinds and degrees of enjoyment
liberally provided for, without encroaching upon, but rather being mutually useful
to each other, according to a settled and obvious subordination. What else can
account for this but a sovereign Wisdom, a common provident nature, presiding
over, and caring for the whole?
“But the earth, as great as it appears to us, complicated in its frame, and having
such a variety in its constitution, sustaining and nourishing so many tribes of
animals, yet is not an intire system by itself, but has a relation to, and dependence
on, other parts of the universe, as well as the beings it contains have upon it. It
owes its stability to the common law of gravitation; it derives its light and its
heat from the sun, by which it is rendered fruitful and commodious to its inhabitants.
In short, a bond of union runs through the whole circle of being, as far as
human knowledge reaches; and we have reason to make the same judgment concerning
the parts of the world which we do not know, and to conclude that they
all together compose one great whole, which naturally leads us to acknowledge
one supreme uniting Intelligence. To object against this the possibility of wild
confusion reigning in worlds unknown is to feign, and not to argue; and to suppose
disorder prevalent in an infinity of being which we are unacquainted with,
which is the Atheistic hypothesis, is to take away all rational foundation for regularity
any where, though we see it actually obtains every where, as far as our observation
can reach. But confining our speculations on this subject within the
compass of known existence, as we ought to do in a fair inquiry, the apparent order
of the effects is a strong evidence of unity in the Cause. For if different independent
causes produced, each, a part, why are there no footsteps of this in the
whole extent of nature? Why does not so much as one piece appear, as the separate
monument of its author’s power and wisdom? From divided counsels one
would naturally expect interfering schemes; but, on the contrary, we see an universal
harmony. Men indeed from a sense of their indigence, and by the direction
of instincts, which must be attributed to the designing author of their constitution,
join in societies; which, though composed of many, are governed by one
counsel: but that is only an artificial union, a submission to the majority, or to
those who have the supreme power delegated to them, rather than an agreement
in design. But this cannot be the case of independent beings, self-existent, and
each complete in itself, without relation to any other. And yet we see in nature
a perfect harmony, from whence it is plain there must be an agreement at least in
counsel and design, if we could suppose a plurality of independent causes. But
whence comes this agreement? To say by chance, is atheistically, and very unreasonably,
to attribute the most perfect of all effects, universal order, to no cause at
all. If we say by design, it must be one comprehensive design forming the whole
scheme of nature and providence, which directly brings us to what we are looking
for, one sovereign commanding Intelligence in the universe, or one God. This
was the argument by which some of the ancient philosophers proved that there
is one only eternal and independent Principle, the Fountain of being and the Author
of all things. Pythagoras called it a Monad; and Aristotle argued from the
phænomena that all things are plainly co-ordered, to one, the whole world conspiring
into agreeing harmony: Whereas, if there were many independent principles,
the system of the world must needs have been incoherent and inconspiring; like
an ill-agreeing drama, botched up of many impertinent intersertions. And he concludes
that things are well administered, which they could not be under the government
of many, alluding to the verse in Homer, Ουκ αγαθον Πολυκοιρανιη, εις Κοιρανος
εστω.
“3dly, The condition and order of inferior, derived, and evidently dependent intelligent
agents shew not only intelligence, but unity of intelligence, in the Cause
of them. Every man, a single active conscious self, is the image of his Maker.
There is in him one undivided animating principle, which in its perceptions and
operations runs through the whole system of matter that it inhabits; it perceives
for all the most distant parts of the body; it cares for all, and governs all, leading
us, as a resemblance, to form an idea of the one great quickening Spirit, which
presides over the whole frame of nature, the spring of motion and all operation in
it, understanding and active in all the parts of the universe, not as its soul indeed,
but as its Lord, by whose vital directing influence it is, though so vast a bulk,
and consisting of so many parts, united into one regular fabric. Again, the general
apparent likeness which there is among all the individuals of the human kind is
a strong evidence of their being the children of one Father. I do not mean principally
the similitude of the exterior form, (though even that, in reason, should be
attributed to the direction of one intelligent Cause,) but that whereby we are especially
God’s offspring, our intellectual capacities, which as far as we can judge
are very nearly alike. A great difference there may be, no doubt there is, in the
improvement of them; but the powers themselves, and all the original modes of
perception, in the different individuals of mankind, seem to resemble each other,
as much as any real distinct things in nature. Now from a multitude, or a constant
series of similar effects which do not arise from necessity, we infer unity
of design in the Cause. So great a number of rational beings as the whole human
race, disposed of in the same manner, endued with like faculties and affections,
having many, and those principal things in their condition, common, provided
for out of the same fund, and made for the same purposes, may reasonably be
supposed to belong to one family, to be derived from the same origin, and still
under the same paternal care.
“Above all, the moral capacity of mankind, which is a most important part of
their constitution, tending to the highest perfection of their nature, and the principal
bond of regular society among them, as it proceeds from a wise intending
Cause, shews unity of wisdom in the Cause; and the government over the moral,
as well as the natural, world evidently appears to be a monarchy.”
ABERNETHY
.fn-
.fn 67
See Arist. Metaphys. Lib. I. Cap. 2. & Lib. XII. Cap. 7.
.fn-
.fn 68
Vid. ejus. Mag. Moral. Lib. II. Cap. 15.
.fn-
.fn 69
Vid. ejus. De Moribus, Lib. IX. Cap. 4. & De Mundo, Cap. 6.
.fn-
.fn 70
Vid. Mornæi de Verit. Relig. Christ. cap. 3.
.fn-
.fn 71
Epist. XIII. ad Dionys.
.fn-
.fn 72
See Cicero de Natura Deorum.
.fn-
.fn 73
See Tertull. Apol. Lactant. de falsa Relig. Arnob. contra Gentes; Minut.
Fel. Herodian. Hist. Lib. IV. See also Mede’s apostasy of the latter times, chap. 3, 4.
.fn-
.fn 74
Quest. cv.
.fn-
.fn 75
See de Vries Exercitat. Rational.
.fn-
// File: b206.png
.pn +1
.sp 4
.h2
Quest. IX., X., XI.
.sp 2
.pm letter-start
Quest. IX. How many persons are there in the Godhead?
Answ. There be three Persons in the Godhead, the Father,
the Son, and the Holy Ghost; and these three are one, true,
eternal God, the same in substance, equal in power and glory;
although distinguished by their personal properties.
Quest. X. What are the personal properties of the three Persons
in the Godhead?
Answ. It is proper to the Father to beget the Son, and to the
Son to be begotten of the Father, and to the Holy Ghost to
proceed from the Father and the Son from all eternity.
Quest. XI. How doth it appear that the Son and the Holy
Ghost are God equal with the Father?
Answ. The scriptures manifest, that the Son and the Holy
Ghost are God equal with the Father; ascribing unto them
such names, attributes, works, and worship, as are proper to
God only.
.pm letter-end
.sp 2
In these three answers is contained the doctrine of the ever
blessed Trinity, which is a subject of pure revelation;[76]
and, because it is so much contested in the age in which we live,
we are obliged to be more large and particular, in laying down
// File: b207.png
.pn +1
the reasons of our belief of it, and in our defence thereof, against
those that deny it. It is a doctrine that has been defended by
some of the most judicious writers, both in our own and other
nations; whereof some have proved that it was maintained by
the church in the purest ages thereof, which therefore renders
it less necessary for us to enter into that part of the controversy;
but we shall principally insist on it as founded on the sacred
writings: and whereas others have rendered some parts of this
doctrine more obscure, by confining themselves to the scholastic
ways of speaking, we shall endeavour to avoid them, that so it
may be better understood by private Christians; and the method
we shall pursue in treating of it shall be,
I. To premise some things which are necessary to be considered,
with relation to it in general.
II. We shall consider in what sense we are to understand the
words Trinity, and Persons in the Godhead, and in what respect
the divine Persons are said to be One.
III. We shall prove that the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost,
have distinct personal properties, and therefore that we have
sufficient reason to call them Persons, in the Godhead, as they
are in the first of these answers; and under this head shall
consider what is generally understood by what is contained in
the second of them, which respects the eternal generation of
the Son, and the procession of the Holy Ghost; and what cautions
we are to use, lest, by mistaking the sense thereof, we be
led into any error, derogatory to, or subversive of the doctrine
of the Trinity; and also shall endeavour to explain those scriptures,
which are generally brought to establish that doctrine.
IV. We shall endeavour to prove that these three Persons,
especially the Son and Holy Ghost, are truly divine, or that
they have all the perfections of the divine nature; and therefore
that they are, in the most proper sense, the one only living
and true God.[77]
// File: b208.png
.pn +1
I. We shall premise some things which are necessary to be
considered, with relation to the doctrine of the Trinity in general.
And,
// File: b209.png
.pn +1
1. It is a doctrine of the highest importance, and necessary
to be believed by all Christians, who pay a just deference to
// File: b210.png
.pn +1
revealed religion. It may probably be reckoned an error in
method to speak of the importance of this doctrine, before we
// File: b211.png
.pn +1
attempt to prove the truth thereof: however, it is not altogether
unjustifiable, since we address ourselves to those who believe
it, hoping thereby to offer some farther conviction, or establishment,
to their faith therein, as well as to others who deny it;
we may therefore be allowed to consider it as an important
doctrine, that we may be excited to a more diligent enquiry
into the force of some of those arguments, which are generally
brought in its defence.
Now to determine a doctrine to be of the highest importance,
we must consider the belief thereof as connected with
salvation, or subservient to that true religion, which is ordained
by God, as a necessary means leading to it, without which
we have no warrant to expect it: and such doctrines are sometimes
called fundamental, as being the basis and foundation on
which our hope is built. Here, I think, it will be allowed, by
all whose sentiments do not savour of scepticism, that there are
some doctrines of religion necessary to be believed to salvation.
There are some, it is true, who plead for the innocency of
error, or, at least, of those who are sincere enquirers after
truth, who, in the end, will appear to have been very remote
from it, as though their endeavours would entitle them to salvation,
without the knowledge of those things, which others
conclude to be necessarily subservient to it. All that we shall
say concerning this is, that it is not the sincerity of our enquiries
after important truths, but the success thereof, that is to be
regarded in this, as well as other means, that are to be used to
obtain so valuable an end. We may as well suppose that our
sincere endeavours to obtain many of those graces that accompany
salvation, such as faith, love to God, and evangelical obedience,
will supply, or atone for, the want of them; as assert
that our unsuccessful enquiries after the great doctrines of religion
will excuse our ignorance thereof; especially when we
// File: b212.png
.pn +1
consider, that blindness of mind, as well as hardness of heart;
is included among those spiritual judgments, which are the consequence
of our fallen state; and also that God displays the sovereignty
of his grace as much, in leading the soul into all necessary
truth, as he does in any other things that relate to salvation.
However, it is not our business to determine the final
state of men; or how far they make advances to, or recede
from, the knowledge of such important doctrines; or what will
be the issue thereof; but rather to desire of God, that so far
as we, or others, are destitute of this privilege, he would grant
us and them repentance, to the acknowledgment of the truth,
1 Tim. ii. 25. And here we cannot but observe, that the question
relating to important or fundamental articles of faith is
not whether any doctrines may be so called? but what those
doctrines are: in determining of which, many make provision
for their own particular scheme of doctrine: and accordingly
some, as the Papists in particular, assert several doctrines to
be fundamental, without scripture warrant; yea, such as are
directly contrary thereunto; and others allow no doctrine to be
so, but what will, if adhered to, open a door of salvation to all
mankind, and these set aside the necessity of divine revelation;
and others, who desire not to run such lengths, will allow, that
some scripture-doctrines are necessary to be believed to salvation:
but these are only such as may include those who are in
their way of thinking; thus they who deny the doctrine of the
Trinity, are obliged in conformity to their own sentiments, to
deny also that it is an important article of faith. These may
justly demand a convincing proof of the truth thereof, before
they believe it to be of any importance, especially to themselves;
and therefore it would be a vain thing to tell them, that
the belief thereof is connected with salvation; or that it is necessary,
inasmuch as divine worship is so, which supposes the
belief of the divinity of the Persons, whom we adore; without
first proving that the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, are divine
Persons: and it would be as little to their edification to
say that there are several doctrines necessary to be believed;
such as that of Christ’s satisfaction, and our justification, depending
thereon, and that of regeneration and sanctification,
as the effects of the divine power of the Holy Ghost; all which
suppose the belief of their being divine Persons; unless we first
give some convincing proof of the truth of these doctrines,
which are supposed to stand or fall with it; for it would be immediately
replied, that one is false, and consequently far from
being of any importance; therefore so is the other.
But inasmuch as we reserve the consideration of these things
to their proper place; we shall only observe at present, that
there are some who do not appear to deny the doctrine of the
// File: b213.png
.pn +1
Trinity, but rather the importance of it; and express themselves
with very great indifference about it, and blame all attempts
to defend it, as needless, or litigious, as though it were
only a contest about words: thus they say, though we hold it
ourselves, others who deny it, may have as much to say in defence
of their own cause as we have, and therefore that these
disputes ought to be wholly laid aside. Now, with respect to
these, what we have hinted, concerning the importance of this
doctrine, may not be altogether misapplied; therefore we have
taken occasion to mention it in this place, that we may not be
supposed to plead a cause which is not worth defending, as
though the doctrine of the Trinity were no other than an empty
speculation; but as that which we are bound to esteem a doctrine
of the highest importance.
2. We are next to consider what degree of knowledge of this
doctrine is necessary to, or connected with salvation. It cannot
be supposed that this includes in it the knowledge of every
thing that is commonly laid down in those writings, wherein it
is attempted to be explained; for when we speak of this, as a
doctrine of the highest importance, we mean the scripture-doctrine
of the Trinity. This is what we are to assent to, and to
use our utmost endeavours to defend; but as for those explications,
which are merely human, they are not to be reckoned
of equal importance; especially every private Christian is not
to be censured as a stranger to this doctrine, who cannot define
personality in a scholastic way, or understand all the terms
used in explaining it, or several modes of speaking, which
some writers tenaciously adhere to; such as hypostasis, subsistence,
consubstantiality, the modal distinction of the Persons
in the Godhead, filiation, or the communication of the divine
essence by generation, or its being farther communicated by
procession; some of which rather embarrass the minds of men,
than add any farther light to the sense of those scriptures, in
which this doctrine is contained.
But when we consider how far the doctrine of the Trinity is
to be known, and believed to salvation, we must not exclude
the weakest Christian from a possibility of knowing it, by supposing
it necessary for him to understand some hard words,
which he doth not find in his Bible; and if he meets with
them elsewhere, will not be much edified by them. That knowledge,
therefore, which is necessary to salvation, is more plain
and easy, and to be found in every part of scripture: accordingly,
every Christian knows, that the word God signifies a being
that has all those divine perfections, which are so frequently
attributed to him therein, and are displayed and glorified in
all his works of common providence and grace; and that this
God is one. To which we may also add, that he learns from
// File: b214.png
.pn +1
his Bible, and therefore firmly believes that the Father, Son,
and Holy Ghost, are possessed of these divine perfections, and
consequently that they are this one God; and that they are
distinguished, as we often find in scripture, by such characters
and properties, which we generally call personal, and so apply
the word Person to each of them, and conclude that the divine
glory attributed to them is the same, though their personal properties,
or characters, are distinct; which is the substance of
what is contained in the first of those answers, under our present
consideration. And he that believes this, need not entertain
any doubt as though he wanted some ideas of this sacred
doctrine, which are necessary to salvation; since such a degree
of knowledge, attended with a firm belief thereof, is sufficient
to warrant all those acts of divine worship, which we are obliged
to ascribe to the Father, Son, and Spirit, and is consistent
with all those other doctrines, which are founded on, or suppose
the belief thereof, as was before observed under our last
head.
3. We shall consider this doctrine as a great mystery, such
as cannot be comprehended by a finite mind; and therefore we
shall first enquire what we are to understand by the word Mystery,
as it is used in scripture. This word sometimes denotes
a doctrine’s having been kept secret, or, at least, revealed more
obscurely, upon which account it was not so clearly known before;
in which sense, the gospel is called, The mystery which
hath been hid from ages, and from generations, but now is made
manifest to his saints Col. i. 26. It was covered with the ceremonial
law, as with a vail, which, many of the people, through
the blindness of their minds, did not so fully understand; and
accordingly, when persons are led into a farther degree of knowledge
thereof, it is said, as our Saviour tells his disciples, that
to them it is given to know the mysteries of the kingdom of
heaven, Matt. xiii. 11. or when something is revealed in scripture,
which the world was not in the least apprised of before;
this is, by way of eminence, called a mystery, as the apostle
says, speaking concerning the change that shall be passed on
those that shall be found alive at the last day; Behold, I shew
you a mystery; we shall not all sleep, but we shall all be changed
in a moment, in the twinkling of an eye, 1 Cor. xv. 51, 52.
But to this we may add, that there is also another idea affixed
to the word Mystery, namely, that though it be revealed,
yet it cannot be fully comprehended; and it is in this sense that
we call the doctrine of the Trinity a Mystery. Both these ideas
seem to be contained in the word, in some scriptures, particularly
where the apostle says, Unto me, who am less than the
least of all saints, is this grace given, that I should preach among
the Gentiles the unsearchable riches of Christ, and to make all
// File: b215.png
.pn +1
men see what is the fellowship of the mystery, which, from the
beginning of the world, hath been hid in God, Eph. iii. 8, 9.
where he speaks of the gospel, not only as hid, but unsearchable;
and he speaks of the mystery of God, even the Father, and
of Christ, in whom are hid all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge,
Col. ii. 3. where the word mystery seems to contain both
these ideas; for few will deny, that the glory of the Father,
who is here spoken of, as well as Christ, is incomprehensible
by a finite mind; and if it be said, that the gospel is hereby intended,
and so that the words ought to be rendered, in which
are hid all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge; this must
be supposed to be incomprehensible, as well as formerly less
known, otherwise this character of it would be too great.
But suppose the word Mystery were always used to signify
a doctrine, not before revealed, without the other idea of its being
incomprehensible contained in it; this would not overthrow
our argument in general, since we can prove it to be incomprehensible
from other arguments, which we shall endeavour
to do.
And that we may prepare our way for this, let it be considered,
that there are some finite things, which we cannot now
comprehend, by reason of the imperfection of our present state,
which are not incomprehensible in themselves. How little do
we know of some things, which may be called mysteries in nature;
such as the reason of the growth and variety of colours
and shapes of plants; the various instinct of brute creatures;
yea, how little do we know comparatively of ourselves, the nature
of our souls, any otherwise, than as it is observed by their
actions, and the effects they produce; the reason of their union
with our bodies, or of their acting by them, as the inspired writer
observes; so that it may well be said, Thou knowest not the
way of the spirit, nor how the bones do grow in the womb of her
that is with child; even so thou knowest not the works of God,
who maketh all things, Eccles. xi. 5. and Elihu, together with
some of the other wonderful works of nature, which he challengeth
Job to give an account of, speaks of this in particular.
Dost thou know how thy garments are warm, when he quieteth
the earth, by the south wind? Job xxxvii. 17, &c. which not
only signifies that we cannot account for the winds producing
heat or cold, as blowing from various quarters of heaven; but
that we know not the reason of the vital heat, which is preserved
for so many years, in the bodies of men, the inseparable concomitant
and sign of life; or what gives the first motion to the
blood and spirits, or fits the organized body to perform its various
functions. These things cannot be comprehended by us.
But if we speak of that which is infinite, we must conclude it
to be incomprehensible, not only because of the imperfection of
// File: b216.png
.pn +1
our present state, but because, as has been before observed, of
the infinite disproportion that there is between the object and
our finite capacities. In this respect we have before shewn
that the perfections of the divine nature cannot be comprehended,
such as the immensity, eternity, omnipresence, and
simplicity of God; yet we are to believe that he is thus infinitely
perfect. And it seems equally reasonable to suppose the
doctrine of the Trinity to be incomprehensible; for the mutual
relation of the Father, Son, and Spirit, to each other, and their
distinct personality, are not the result of the divine will; these
are personal perfections, and therefore they are necessary, and
their glory infinite, as well as that of his essential perfections;
and if we are bound to believe one to be incomprehensible, why
should we not as well suppose the other to be so? or if there
are some things which the light of nature gives us some ideas
of, concerning which we are notwithstanding bound to confess
that we know but little of them, for the reason but now mentioned,
why should it be thought strange, that this doctrine,
though the subject of pure revelation, should be equally incomprehensible?
This consequence appears so evident, that
some of them, who deny the doctrine of the Trinity to be incomprehensible,
do not stick to deny the perfections of the divine
nature to be so, when they maintain that there is nothing
which is the object of faith but what may be comprehended by
us, which is to run such lengths in the defence of their cause,
as no one who hath the least degree of that humility, which becomes
a finite creature, should venture to do. But they proceed
yet farther, as the cause they defend seems to require it,
and say, that every doctrine which we cannot comprehend is to
be rejected by us, as though our understandings were to set
bounds to the truth and credibility of all things.
This, I think, is the true state of the question about mysteries
in Christianity: it is not whether the word Mystery is never
used in scripture to signify what is incomprehensible; for if
that could be sufficiently proved, which I think hath not yet
been done, we would assert the doctrine of the Trinity to be
more than a mystery, namely, an incomprehensible doctrine;
and the proof thereof seems absolutely necessary, since the Antitrinitarians,
and some of them with an air of insult, conclude
this to be our last resort, which we betake ourselves to when
they have beaten us out of all our other strong holds; and
therefore we may suppose, that this would be opposed with the
greatest warmth, but I do not find that it has hitherto been
overthrown: and indeed when they call it one of our most
plausible pretences, as though we laid the whole stress of the
controversy upon it, it might be expected that it should be attacked
with stronger arguments than it generally is. Sometimes
// File: b217.png
.pn +1
they bend their force principally against the sense of the
word Mystery; and here they talk not only with an air of insult,
but profaneness, when they compare it with the abominable
mysteries of the heathen, which were not to be divulged to
any but those of them who were in the secret; and the doctrine
of the Trinity, and that of transubstantiation, are compared together,
so that they are to be reckoned equally mysterious, that
is, according to their application of the word, absurd and nonsensical.
And this way of arguing has so far prevailed among
them, that no one must apply the word to any doctrines of religion
without exposing himself to scorn and ridicule; but this
will do no service to their cause, nor prejudice to our doctrine,
in the opinion of those who enquire into the truth thereof, with
that seriousness and impartiality, that the importance of the
doctrine calls for.[78]
// File: b218.png
.pn +1
The question therefore in controversy is; whether any doctrines
of religion may be deemed incomprehensible, that is, such
// File: b219.png
.pn +1
as we can have no adequate ideas of, because of the disproportion
between them and our finite minds? and whether the incommunicable
// File: b220.png
.pn +1
perfections of God are not to be reckoned among
these incomprehensible doctrines? if they are not, then it will
be reasonable to demand that every thing relating to them be
particularly accounted for, and reduced to the standard of a
finite capacity; and if this cannot be done, but some things
must be allowed to be incomprehensible in religion, then it
will be farther enquired, Why should the doctrine of the Trinity
be rejected, because we cannot account for every thing that
relates to the personal glory of God, any more than we can for
those things that respect his essential glory? or may not some
things, that are matter of pure revelation, be supposed to exceed
our capacities, and yet we be bound to believe them, as well
as other things which appear to be true, and at the same time,
incomprehensible, by the light of nature? But, that we may
enter a little more particularly into this argument, we shall consider
the most material objections that are brought against it,
and what may be replied to them.
Object. 1. It is objected that we take up with the bare sound
of words, without any manner of ideas affixed to them. And,
2. That it is unbecoming the divine wisdom and goodness to
suppose that God should give a revelation, and demand our
belief thereof, as necessary to salvation, when, at the same time,
it is impossible for our understandings to yield an assent to it,
since nothing that is unintelligible can be the object of faith.
3. That practical religion is designed to be promoted in the
world hereby, and therefore the will of man must follow the dictates
of the understanding, and not blindly embrace, and be conversant
about we know not what, which is to act unbecoming
our own character as intelligent creatures.
4. That the design of divine revelation is to improve our
understandings, and render our ideas of things more clear, and
not to entangle and perplex them.
Answ. 1. As to our using words without ideas, there is no
// File: b221.png
.pn +1
Christian, that I know of, who thinks there is any religion in
the sound of words, or that it is sufficient for us to take up with
the word Trinity, or Persons in the Godhead, without determining,
in some measure, what we understand thereby. We
will therefore allow that faith supposes some ideas of the object,
namely, that we have some knowledge of what we believe
it to be: now our knowledge of things admits of various degrees;
some of which we only know that they are what they are
determined, or proved to be; if we proceed farther in our enquiries,
and would know how every thing is to be accounted
for, that may justly be affirmed concerning them, here our ideas
are at a stand; yet this is not in the least inconsistent with the
belief of what we conclude them to be. For the illustrating of
which, let it be considered that we believe that God’s eternity is
without succession, his immensity without extension; this we
know and believe, because to assert the contrary would be to
ascribe imperfection to him. In this respect, our faith extends
as far as our ideas: but as for what exceeds them, we are
bound to believe that there is something in God, which exceeds
the reach of a finite mind, though we cannot comprehend, or
fully describe it, as though it was not infinite. And to apply
this to the doctrine of the Trinity; it is one thing, to say that
the Father, Son, and Spirit, have the perfections of the divine
nature attributed to them in scripture, as well as distinct personal
characters and properties, and because the Godhead is
but one, that therefore these three are one, which we firmly believe,
inasmuch as it is so clearly revealed in scripture; and
another thing, to say, that we can fully describe all the properties
of their divine personality, which, though we cannot do,
yet we believe that they subsist in an incomprehensible manner.
And while we compare them with finite persons, as we
do the perfections of God with those of the creature, we separate
from the one, as well as the other, whatever savours of
imperfection.
2. As to the unintelligibleness of divine revelation, and its
being unbecoming the wisdom and goodness of God to communicate
those doctrines that are so, it may be replied, that
we must distinguish between the rendering a doctrine, which
would be otherwise easy to be understood, unintelligible, by
the perplexity or difficulty of the style in which it is delivered,
and the imparting a doctrine which none can comprehend; the
former of these cannot be charged on any part of scripture, and
it is only a revelation, which is liable to such a charge, that
could be reckoned inconsistent with the wisdom and goodness
of God. As to the latter, the design of revelation is not to
make us comprehend what is in itself incomprehensible: as, for
instance, God did not design, when he made known his perfections
// File: b222.png
.pn +1
in his word, to give us such a perfect discovery of himself,
that we might be said hereby to find him out unto perfection,
or that we should know as much of his glory as is possible
to be known, or as much as he knows of it himself; for that
is to suppose the understanding of man infinitely more perfect
than it is. Whatever is received, is received in proportion to
the measure of that which contains it; the whole ocean can
communicate no more water than what will fill the vessel, that is
to contain it. Thus the infinite perfections of God being such as
cannot be contained in a finite mind, we are not to suppose
that our comprehending them was the design of divine revelation;
God, indeed, designed hereby that we should apprehend
some things of himself, namely, as much as should be subservient
to the great ends of religion; but not so much as might be
inconsistent with our humble confession, that we are but of yesterday,
and know, comparatively, nothing, Job viii. 9.
And this is applicable, not only to the essential, but the personal,
glory of God, Who hath ascended into heaven, or descended?
Who hath gathered the wind in his fists? Who hath bound
the waters in a garment? Who hath established all the ends of
the earth? What is his name, and what is his Son’s name, if
thou canst tell? Prov. xxx. 4. Our Saviour, indeed, speaks of
his having ascended into heaven, John iii. 13. as having a comprehensive
knowledge of all divine truths; but this he affirms
concerning himself as a divine person, exclusively of all creatures.
Moreover, when it is said, in this objection, that God makes
the comprehensive knowledge of these things a term of salvation,
this we must take leave to deny; and we need not add any
more as to that head, since we have already considered what
degree of knowledge is necessary thereunto, namely, such as is
subservient to religion, which teaches us to adore what we apprehend
to be the object thereof, though we cannot comprehend
it.
As to that part of the objection, that which is unintelligible,
is not the object of faith, we must distinguish before we grant
or deny it; therefore, since the object of faith is some proposition
laid down, it is one thing to say that a proposition cannot
be assented to, when we have no ideas of what is affirmed or
denied in it; and another thing to say that it is not believed,
when we have ideas of several things contained therein, of
which some are affirmed, and others denied; as, for instance,
when we say God is an infinite Spirit, there is a positive idea
contained in that proposition, or some things affirmed therein,
viz. that he is able to put forth actions suitable to an intelligent
being; and there is something denied concerning him, to wit,
his being corporeal; and in concluding him to be an infinite
// File: b223.png
.pn +1
Spirit, we deny that they are limits of his understanding; all
this we may truly be said to understand and believe: but if we
proceed farther, and enquire what it is to have such an understanding,
or will? this is not a proposition, and consequently
not the object of faith, as well as exceeds the reach of our understanding.
So as to the doctrine of the Trinity, when we
affirm that there is one God, and that the Father, Son, and
Spirit, have all the perfections of the Godhead; and that these
perfections, and the personality of each of them, are infinitely
greater than what can be found in the creature, this we yield
our assent to; but if it be enquired how far does God herein
exceed all the ideas which we have of finite perfections, or personality,
here our understandings are at a loss; but so far as
this does not contain the form of a proposition, it cannot, according
to our common acceptation of the word, be said to be
the object of faith.
3. As to what concerns practical religion, the ideas we have
of things subservient to it are of two sorts; either such as engage
our obedience, or excite our adoration and admiration: as to
the former of these, we know what we are commanded to do;
what it is to act, as becomes those who are subject to a divine
person, though we cannot comprehend those infinite perfections,
which lay us under the highest obligation to obey him:
as to the latter, the incomprehensibleness of the divine personality,
or perfections, has a direct tendency to excite our admiration,
and the infiniteness thereof our adoration. And, since all
religion may be reduced to these two heads, the subject matter
of divine revelation is so far from being inconsistent with it,
that it tends to promote it. Things commanded are not, as
such, incomprehensible, as was but now observed, and therefore
not inconsistent with that obedience, or subjection, which is
contained in one branch thereof; and things incomprehensible
do not contain the form of a command, but rather excite our
admiration, and therefore they are not only consistent with, but
adapted to promote the other branch thereof. Is it not an instance
of religion to adore and magnify God, when we behold
the display of his perfections in his works? And is he less to
be adored, or admired, because we cannot comprehend them?
Or should we not rather look upon them with a greater degree
of astonishment, than if they did not exceed the reach of a finite
mind? Must a person be able to measure the water of the
ocean, or number all the particles of matter that are contained
in the world; or can our ideas be no ways directed to shew
forth the Creator’s praise? Or must we be able to account for
every thing that is a mystery in nature; or can we not improve
it to promote some of the ends of practical religion, that we are
// File: b224.png
.pn +1
engaged to thereby? May we not say, with wonder, O Lord,
how manifold are thy works! in wisdom hast thou made them
all; the earth is full of thy riches? Psal. civ. 24. So when we
behold the personal glory of the Father, Son, and Spirit, as displayed
in the work of redemption, or as contained in scripture,
which is therein said to be an instance of his manifold wisdom,
Eph. iii. 10. should we not admire it the more, inasmuch as it
is, as the apostle calls it, unsearchable? Therefore practical
religion, as founded on divine revelation, is not, in all the
branches thereof, inconsistent with the incomprehensibleness of
those things, which are, some in one respect, and others in
another, the objects thereof.
And as to what is farther contained in this objection, concerning
the will’s following the dictates of the understanding,
and practical religion’s being seated therein, I own, that we
must first know what we are to do in matters of religion, before
we can act; thus we must first know what it is to worship,
love, and obey, the Father, Son, and Spirit, as also that
these three divine persons are the object of worship, love, and
obedience, and then the will follows the dictates of the understanding;
but it is one thing to know these things, and another
thing to be able to comprehend the divine, essential, or
personal glory, which belongs to them, and is the foundation
of these acts of religious worship.
4. As to what is farther objected, concerning the design of
divine revelation’s being to improve our understanding; or, as
it is sometimes expressed, that it is an improvement upon the
light of nature; this seems to have a double aspect, or tendency,
viz. to advance, or depreciate, divine revelation.
1. If we take it in the former view, we freely own,
(1.) That it is a very great improvement upon the light of
nature, and that, either as we are led hereby, not only into the
knowledge of many things which could not be discovered by
it, namely, the doctrine of the Trinity, the incarnation of the
Son of God, and that infinite satisfaction which was given by
him to the justice of God, in order to our discharge from condemnation,
as also that communion which believers have
with the Father, Son, and Spirit; and therefore, since the light
of nature gives us no discovery of these doctrines, divine revelation,
and particularly the gospel, makes a very great addition
to those ideas which we are led into by the light of nature.
It is true, they both take their rise from God, yet one excels
the other, as much as the light of the sun does that of a star;
and is, as the Psalmist says, when comparing them together,
perfect, converting the soul; and sure, making wise the simple,
Psal. xix. 7.
// File: b225.png
.pn +1
(2.) That when the same truths are discovered by the light
of nature, and by divine revelation, the latter tends very much
to improve our ideas: thus when the light of nature leads us
into the knowledge of the being and perfections of God, his
wisdom, power, and goodness, as illustrated in the works of
nature and providence, we have not so clear ideas thereof, as
we receive from the additional discoveries of them in divine
revelation; and in this respect one does not cloud or darken
those ideas which the other gives. But neither of these are
designed by those who bring this objection against the doctrine
of the Trinity: therefore we must suppose,
2. That they intend hereby to depreciate divine revelation,
and then the sense thereof is this; that though the light of nature
leads mankind into such a degree of the knowledge of divine
truths, as is sufficient, in its kind to salvation; so that
they, who are destitute of divine revelation, may thereby understand
the terms of acceptance with God, and the way which,
if duly improved, would lead to heaven; yet God was pleased
to give some farther discovery of the same things by his
word, and, in this sense, the one is only an improvement upon
the other, as it makes the same truths, which were known, in
some degree, without it more clear, and frees them from those
corruptions, or false glosses, which the perverse reasonings of
men have set upon them; whereas we, by insisting on inexplicable
mysteries, which we pretend to be founded on divine
revelation, though, in reality, they are not contained in it, cloud
and darken that light, and so make the way of salvation more
difficult, than it would otherwise be; and this certainly tends
to depreciate divine revelation, how plausible soever the words,
at first view, may appear to be; for it supposes those doctrines
but now mentioned, and many others of the like nature,
not necessary to salvation; so that this objection takes its first
rise from the Deists, however it may be applied, by the Anti-trinitarians,
in militating against the doctrine of the Trinity.
Therefore, since it is principally designed to overthrow this
doctrine, by supposing it to be unintelligible, and consequently,
according to their method of reasoning, in no sense the object
of faith, the only reply which need be made to it is, that
the discoveries of the glory of God, by the light of nature, are,
in some respects, as incomprehensible as the doctrine of the
Trinity; which we are not, for that reason, obliged to disbelieve,
or reject; and therefore there is no advantage gained
against our argument, by supposing that the light of nature
contains a discovery of truths, plain, easy, and intelligible by
all, in the full extent thereof, and that the doctrine of the
// File: b226.png
.pn +1
Trinity is otherwise, and consequently must not be contained
in divine revelation, and, as such, cannot be defended by us.
4. Another thing that may be premised, before we enter on
the proof of the doctrine of the Trinity, is, that it is not contrary
to reason, though it be above it; neither are our reasoning
powers, when directed by scripture-revelation, altogether useless,
in order to our attaining such a degree of the knowledge
thereof, as is necessary, and ought to be endeavoured after.
When a doctrine may be said to be above reason, has been
already considered, as well as that the doctrine of the Trinity
is so; and now we are obliged to obviate an objection, which
is the most popular one of any that is brought against it, namely,
that it is an absurd and irrational doctrine; and that they
who maintain it must first lay aside their reason, before they
can be induced to believe it, for it is as much as to say that
three are equal to one; which is contrary to the common sense
of all mankind, or else, that we maintain a plurality of gods,
which is contrary to the very first principles of the light of nature.
And here we are reflected on, as though we demanded
that our antagonists should lay aside their reason, before we
argue with them, and then it is easy to determine on which
side the argument will turn; therefore, to make way for what
might be said in defence of the doctrine of the Trinity, we
shall, under this head, consider,
(1.) When a doctrine may be said to be contrary to reason.
(2.) Shew that the doctrine of the Trinity is not so.
(3.) What is the use of reason, in establishing it, or any
other doctrines, which are the subject of pure revelation.
(1.) When we may conclude, that a doctrine is contrary to
reason. This it may be said to be, when it is contrary to the
methods of reasoning made use of by particular persons, which
are not always just, and therefore it does not follow, from
hence, that it is false or absurd, because our reasoning about
it is so, but rather the contrary; so that when they, on the
other side of the question, tell us, with an air of boasting, that
if the doctrine we are maintaining could have been accounted
for, how comes it to pass that so many men of sense and learning,
as are to be found among the Anti-trinitarians, have not
been able to do it? But this is nothing to our present argument;
therefore we suppose that a doctrine is contrary to reason,
when it contradicts some of the first principles, which the
mind of man cannot but yield its assent to, as soon as ever it
takes in the sense of the words which contain them, without
demanding any proof thereof; as that the whole is greater than
the part; and that a thing can be, and not be, at the same
time; or that two is more than one, &c. or when we can prove
a thing to be true to a demonstration, and yet suppose that a
// File: b227.png
.pn +1
contradictory proposition, in which the words are taken in the
same sense, may be equally true.[80]
(2.) That the doctrine of the Trinity is not contrary to reason.
This appears, inasmuch as we do not say that the three
Persons in the Godhead are one Person, or that the one divine
Being is three divine Beings.
Object. But it is objected, that it is contrary to reason, which
establishes and proves the unity of the Godhead, to say that
the divine nature may be predicated of more than one, inasmuch
as that infers a plurality of Gods, and every distinct
Person must be concluded to be a distinct God; therefore the
Trinitarian doctrine is down-right Tritheism, and consequently
contrary to reason; and here those words of the Athanasian
Creed are produced, as an instance hereof, namely, that the
Father is God, the Son is God, and the Holy Ghost is God,
// File: b228.png
.pn +1
yet there are not three Gods, but one God; so, that the Father
is Eternal, the Son is Eternal, and the Holy Ghost Eternal,
yet there are not three Eternals, but one Eternal; and the
Father Almighty, the Son Almighty, and the Holy Ghost Almighty,
yet are there not three Almighties, but one Almighty.
This they suppose, though without ground, to be a plain
contradiction.
Answ. But to this it may be replied, that when we say the
Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, are God, we do not say they
are distinct Gods, for the distinction between them respects
their personality, not their deity: and when we assert that
they are all Eternal, or Almighty, we do not suppose that
their duration, or power, are distinct; and the same may be
said of all other divine perfections that are attributed to them,
the perfections are the same in all of them, though the persons
are distinct. So that the charge of Tritheism lies in a narrow
compass: they say that there is one divine Being, so do we;
and to this they add, that this divine Being is a divine person,
since existence and personality are the same; therefore, if there
are more divine Persons, there must be more Gods; this consequence
they maintain, but we deny. But how do they prove
it? The proof amounts to no more than this; that there is no
instance in finite things, when we speak of angels or men, to
whom alone personality can be applied, of any distinct persons,
but at the same time their beings are distinct; therefore it
must be so with respect to the divine persons. This we are
bound to deny, since our ideas of personality and existence
are not the same; therefore, how inseparable soever they may
be in what respects creatures, we may have distinct ideas of
them, when we speak of the divine being and personality of
the Father, Son, and Spirit. Here it will, doubtless, be demanded,
that we determine wherein the difference consists;
or, in particular, since every distinct finite person is a distinct
being, what there is in the divine personality, that should exclude
the Father, Son, and Spirit, from being distinct beings,
because distinct persons; so that when we conclude that there
is a small or faint resemblance between divine and human personality,
we must be able to comprehend, and fully to describe,
that infinite disproportion that is between them, or else must
be charged with using words without any manner of ideas annexed
to them, and so our cause must fall to the ground. If,
indeed, the divine personality were finite, like that of the
creature, then it might be required that a finite mind should
account for it: but since it is not so, but incomprehensible, we
are bound to believe what we cannot comprehend.
But have we no ideas at all of the distinct personality of the
Father, Son, and Spirit? To this we may answer; that we
// File: b229.png
.pn +1
have finite ideas thereof, and more than these we have not of
any of the divine perfections. We are taught, by scripture, to
say that they are distinct persons; and we know what those
personal characters, or properties, from whence our ideas take
their rise, signify, when applied to men; but, at the same
time, abstract, in our thoughts, every thing from them that argues
imperfection; or, in short, our conceptions hereof proceed
in the same way, as when we think of any of the perfections
of the divine nature: these, as well as the divine personality,
are equally incomprehensible; yet, while we say they are
infinitely more than can be in any creature, we, notwithstanding,
retain such ideas of them, as tend to answer those ends
of religion, which suppose that we apprehend something of
them that is conducive hereunto. We are now to consider,
(3.) The use of reason in proving or defending the doctrine
of the Trinity, or any other doctrines of pure revelation. They
could not, indeed, have been at first discovered by reason, nor
can every thing that is revealed be comprehended by it, yet
our reason is not to be laid aside as useless; therefore some
call it a servant to faith. Thus revelation discovers what doctrines
we are to believe, demands our assent to them, and reason
offers a convincing proof that we are under an indispensable
obligation to give it: it proves the doctrine to be true,
and such as is worthy of God, as it is derived from him, the
fountain of truth and wisdom; and this office of reason, or the
subserviency thereof to our faith, is certainly necessary, since
what is false cannot be the object of faith in general; and nothing
unworthy of God can be the matter of divine revelation,
nor consequently the object of a divine faith.
Now, in order to reason’s judging of the truth of things, it
first considers the sense of words; what ideas are designed to
be conveyed thereby, and whether they are contrary to the common
sense of mankind; and if it appears that they are not, it
proceeds to enquire into those evidences that may give conviction,
and enforce our belief thereof; and leads us into the
nature of the truths revealed, receives them as instamped
with the authority of God, and considers them as agreeable to
his perfections, and farther leads us into his design of revealing
them, and what we are to infer from them; and in doing this
it connects things together, observes the dependence of one
thing on another, what is the importance thereof, and how they
are to be improved to answer the best purposes.
Now this may be applied particularly to the doctrine of the
Trinity; for it contains in it no absurdity contradictory to reason,
as has been already proved; and the evidences on which
our faith herein is founded will be farther considered, when we
// File: b230.png
.pn +1
prove it to be a scripture doctrine, by the express words thereof,
agreeable to the mind of the Holy Ghost, or by just consequences
deduced from it; by which it will farther appear,
that it is necessary for us to use our reason in stating those
doctrines, which are neither founded on, nor can be comprehended
by it.
5. We are now to consider from whence the doctrine of the
Trinity is to be deduced, or where we are to search for that
knowledge thereof, which we are to acquiesce in. And here it
must be observed, that it cannot be learnt from the light of nature,
for then we should certainly be able to behold some traces
or footsteps thereof in the works of creation and providence,
that so this might be understood thereby, as well as the
power, wisdom, and goodness of God, as the cause is known
by its effect; but we should never have known that God made
all things by his essential word, without whom nothing was
made, that was made, as the evangelist speaks, John i. 3. had
we not received this doctrine from divine revelation: likewise,
we should never have known that the Spirit, as a distinct Person
from the Father, created all things, and performed several
other works, by which his personal glory is demonstrated, had
we not received the account which we have thereof from scripture.
The light of nature could discover to us, indeed, that
God, who is a Spirit, or incorporeal Being, has produced many
effects worthy of himself; but we could not have known hereby,
that the word Spirit signifies a distinct person, which we are
beholden to divine revelation for.
And as for the work of our redemption, in which, more than
in all the other divine works, the personal glory of the Father,
Son, and Spirit, is demonstrated, we could have known as little
of that by the light of nature, as we do the persons to whom it
is attributed. But I am sensible that it will be objected to this,
Object. 1. That our first parents knew the doctrine of the
Trinity as soon as they were created, otherwise they could not
have given that distinct glory to the Persons in the Godhead
that is due to them; and if we are required, not only to worship
the divine Being, but to worship the Father, Son, and
Spirit; and, if this worship is due from us, as creatures, and
not merely as fallen and redeemed; then it will follow from
hence, that our first parents must know the doctrine of the
Trinity: but this they did not know by divine revelation; therefore
they knew it by the light of nature.
Answ. We will allow every thing contained in this objection,
excepting that they did not know this by divine revelation; for
certainly they had some ideas conveyed this way at first, otherwise
they could not have known any thing that related to instituted
// File: b231.png
.pn +1
worship, which, it is plain, they did. And shall it be
reckoned any absurdity to suppose that they received this doctrine
of the Trinity by divine revelation, though we have no
particular account thereof, in that short history which Moses
gives us of things relating to the state of innocency? It is therefore
sufficient to our purpose, to suppose that it was agreeable
to the wisdom and goodness of God to make known to them
this important truth, and consequently that he did so, though
not by the light of nature.
Object. 2. It is farther objected, that the heathen knew something
of the doctrine of the Trinity, as appears by their writings,
though they were unacquainted with scripture. To support this
objection, they refer to several mystical expressions in the works
of Plato, which seem to look that way, when he speaks of three
principles; one whereof he calls goodness, or a being that is
good; the second he calls his word, or reason; and the third a
spirit, which diffuses its influence throughout the whole system
of beings, and calls him sometimes the soul of the world; and
in other places, he speaks of them as having a distinct sovereignty.[81]
And he supposes the first of these to be the cause of
things most great and excellent; the second, the cause of things
of an inferior nature; the third, of things yet more inferior;
and some of his followers plainly call them three hypostases;
and sometimes, Father, Word, and Spirit.
Answ. The account which Plato and his followers seem to
have given of the doctrine of the Trinity does not appear to
have been taken from the light of nature, and therefore this
makes nothing to the objection. We have sufficient ground to
conclude that Plato travelled into Egypt, with a design to make
improvements in knowledge; and some suppose, that there he
saw some translation of a part of the Bible into Greek,[82] more
ancient than that which is commonly attributed to the LXX,
which was not compiled till an hundred years after his time.
But whether he did this, or no, is uncertain: it is true, he used
several expressions, which are contained in the books of Moses,
and took the plan of his laws from thence; upon which account
some have called him a second Moses, speaking Greek: but
whether he received his notions more immediately from scripture,
or by conversation with the Jews, of whom a great number
settled in Egypt, after Gedaliah’s death, is not material;
however, it is sufficiently evident, that he had not all of them,
in a way of reasoning, from the light of nature: and as for his
followers, such as Plotinus, Proclus, Porphyry, and others, they
lived in those ages, when Christianity prevailed in the world,
though none of them pretended to be Christians; and one of
// File: b232.png
.pn +1
them was the most inveterate enemy to Christianity that lived;
yet these might well be supposed to make their master Plato
speak several things, as to this mystery, which he never intended,
were it only to persuade the Christians to believe that he was not
inferior to Moses, or any other recorded in scripture.
Thus having answered the objections, we shall take leave to
consider how unwarily some divines, who have defended the
doctrine of the Trinity, have not only asserted that Plato understood
a great a deal of it, but have made use of this, as an answer
to the Anti-trinitarian objection before mentioned, that
the doctrine of the Trinity is unintelligible; and they have taken
a great deal of pleasure in accounting for this doctrine in
such a way as these philosophers have done:[83] and some of them
have taken notice of a few dark hints, which they have met with
in some of the poetical fictions, and from thence concluded that
there was something of the Trinity known, even by the Heathen
in general: thus when the word three is mentioned by them,
and applied to some things, which they relate concerning their
gods; or when they speak of gods delighting in an unequal number,
or in the number three. But this is too gross to be particularly
mentioned, lest it should give us an unbecoming idea of
this divine mystery, or of those who have better arguments than
these to defend it.
The reflection which I would make on this is, that what they
call an advantage to the doctrine has been certainly very detrimental
to it; and, as a late learned divine observes, has tended
only to pervert the simplicity of the Christian faith with
mixtures of philosophy and vain deceit.[84] And I doubt not but
the apostle had an eye to this, among other corruptions, which
they who were attached to the Heathen philosophy began to
bring into their scheme of divinity, and would notoriously do
in after ages, which he purposely fences against, when he says,
Beware, lest any man spoil you, through philosophy and vain
deceit, after the tradition of men, after the rudiments of the
world, and not after Christ, Col. ii. 8. And this corruption so
much prevailed, that it has given occasion to some of the Anti-trinitarians,
to reproach the doctrine of the Trinity, as though
it were a system of Platonism. And it is their being too fond of
using Plato’s words, in explaining the doctrine of the Trinity,
that has given occasion to some of the fathers to be suspected,
as though they were less favourable to the scripture account
thereof; by which means the adversaries have laid claim to
them as their own; and produced some unwary expressions out
of Justin Martyr, and others, supposing them to be in the Arian
// File: b233.png
.pn +1
scheme, who, in other parts of their writings, appear to be remote
from it.[85]
// File: b234.png
.pn +1
And this leads us to consider the method which some divines
have taken, in using similitudes to explain the doctrine of the
// File: b235.png
.pn +1
Trinity, which, at best, tend only to illustrate, and not to prove
a doctrine: and we can hardly make use of this method of illustrating
this doctrine, without conveying some ideas, which are
unbecoming, if not subversive thereof; and while we pretend
to explain that which is in itself inexplicable, we do no service
to the truth.
I shall here give a short specimen of this matter, that hereby
we may see how some have unwarily weakened the cause
which they have been maintaining. Some have taken a similitude
from three of the divine perfections, viz. that there are three
invisibles of God; power, wisdom, and goodness. Power creates,
wisdom governs, and goodness conserves; and so they have
gone on to explain this doctrine, till they had almost given it
into the hands of the Sabellians: and, indeed, they might have
instanced in more divine perfections than three, had it been to
their purpose.
Again, others have explained this doctrine by some resemblance
which they apprehend to be of it in man; and so they
speak of the soul as a principle of a threefold life, rational,
sensitive, and vegetative. Others speak of three causes concurring
to produce the same effect; such as the efficient, constitutive
and final cause. Others have taken their similitude
from inanimate things; as the sun, in which there is light, heat,
and motion, which are inseparably connected together, and
tend to produce the same effects.
Moreover, others illustrate it by a similitude, taken from a
fountain, in which there is the spring in the bowels of the earth,
the water bubbling out of the earth, and the stream diffusing itself
in a perpetual course, receiving all it communicates from
the fountain. I am sorry there is occasion to caution any against
// File: b236.png
.pn +1
this method of explaining the doctrine of the Trinity. But
these, and many other similitudes of the like nature, we find in
the writings of some, who consider not what a handle they give
to the common enemy. There are, indeed, in most of them,
three things, which are said, in different respects, to be one;
but we may observe, that all these similitudes, and others of
the like nature, brought to illustrate this doctrine, lead us to
think of the whole divided into those parts, of which they consist,
whereof they take notice of the number three; or they
speak of three properties of the same thing; and if their wit and
fancy saw it needful to speak of more than three, the same method
of illustrating would serve their purpose, as much as it does
the end for which they bring it. Therefore I would conclude
this head, by using the words of God to Job, Who is this that
darkeneth counsel by words without knowledge? Job xxxviii. 2.
Who are these, that, by pretending to illustrate the doctrine of
the Trinity by similitudes, do that, which, though very foreign
to their design, tends to pervert it?
6. We shall now consider what general rules may be observed
for our understanding those scriptures, on which our faith,
with respect to the doctrine of the Trinity, is founded; and
since it is a doctrine of pure revelation, as has been before observed,
we must keep close to scripture, even to the words
thereof, where they are express and distinct, as to this matter;
and to consequences deduced from it, so far as they are just,
and self-evident; and, at the same time, while we are sensible
that we cannot comprehend this mystery, we must take care
that we pretend not to be wise above what is revealed. Now
there are some rules, which may be of use to us, in our enquiries
into the sense of scripture concerning this doctrine; as,
(1.) We must not suppose that the words of scripture, relating
thereunto, are to be taken in a sense, which can be known
by none but criticks, as though it were designed only for them
to understand; or that the unlearned part of the world should
be left in the dark, or led astray, as to several things contained
in this important doctrine. Thus we are not to suppose that we
are at a loss as to the proper sense of the word God; or could
hardly know how to direct our faith and worship, founded
thereon, without the help of criticism; or, for want of being acquainted
with some distinctions, concerning one that may be
called God by nature, or the supreme God, and others who may
be called gods by office, or subordinate gods, we should be led
to ascribe divine honour where it is not due; or else we must
be able to distinguish also concerning worship, and, instead of
honouring the Son as we honour the Father, must give him an
inferior kind of divine worship, short of what is due to the
Father. This we have no scripture warrant for; neither are we
// File: b237.png
.pn +1
led by the scriptures to have any notion of a middle being between
God and the creature, or one that is not properly God,
so as the Father is, and yet more than a creature, as though
there were a medium between finite and infinite; neither are
we led, by scripture, to conceive of any being, that has an eternal
duration, whose eternity is supposed to be before time, and
yet not the same with the eternal duration of the Father. These
things we shall have occasion to mention in their proper place,
and therefore need make no farther use of them at present, but
only to observe, from hence, how intelligible the scripture would
be in what relates to this doctrine, if the words thereof had not
a plain and determinate sense; but we must make use of these
methods of reasoning, if we would arrive to the meaning thereof.
(2.) If some divine perfections are attributed in scripture to
the Son and Spirit, all the perfections of the divine nature, may,
by a just consequence from thence, be proved to belong to them,
by reason of the simplicity and unity thereof: therefore, if we
can prove, from scripture, that they have some perfections ascribed
to them, which, I hope, it will not be a difficult matter
to do, we are not to suppose that our argument is defective, or
that the doctrine of the Trinity is not sufficiently maintained, if
we cannot produce a scripture to prove every perfection of the
divine nature to be ascribed to them.
(3.) When any thing is mentioned in scripture, concerning
our Saviour, or the Holy Spirit, which argues an inferiority to
the Father, this is to be understood consistently with other
scriptures, which speak of their having the same divine nature;
since scripture does not, in the least, contradict itself; and how
this may be done, will be farther considered under a following
head.
(4.) If we have sufficient arguments to convince us of the
truth of this doctrine, our faith ought not to be shaken, though
we cannot fully understand the sense of some scriptures, which
are brought to support the contrary; not that we are to suppose
that the scripture gives countenance to two opposite doctrines:
but a person may be fully satisfied concerning the sense of those
scriptures that contain the doctrine of the Trinity, and yet not
be supposed perfectly to understand the meaning of every word
or phrase used in scripture, or of some particular texts, which
are sometimes brought to support the contrary doctrine; so that
objections may be brought, which he is not able readily to reply
to. Shall he therefore deny the truth, because he cannot
remove all the difficulties that seem to lie in the way of it?
That would be to part with it at too easy a rate, which, when
he has done, he will find greater difficulties attending the contrary
scheme of doctrine. Do they object, that we believe
things contrary to reason, because we assert the incomprehensibleness
// File: b238.png
.pn +1
of divine mysteries? or that we are Tritheists, because
we believe that there are three Persons in the Godhead,
and cannot exactly determine the difference between divine and
human personality? We could, on the other hand, point at
some difficulties, that they cannot easily surmount. What shall
we think of the head of giving divine worship to our Saviour,
when, at the same time, they deny him to have those perfections,
that denominate him God in the same sense as the Father
is so called? The Socinians found it very difficult, when the matter
was disputed among themselves, to reconcile their practice
with their sentiments, when they worshipped him, whose Deity
they denied. And the Arians will find that this objection equally
affects their scheme; and it will be no less difficult for them
to reconcile Christ’s character, as Redeemer, Governor of the
world, Judge of quick and dead, with their low ideas of him,
when denying his proper Deity. These things we only mention
occasionally at present, that it may not be thought that the doctrine
of the Trinity is exposed to greater difficulties than the
contrary doctrine, to the end that they who are not furnished
with all those qualifications, which are necessary for its defence,
may not reckon those arguments, by which they have been convinced
of the truth thereof, less valid, because they are not able,
at present, to answer all the objections that may be brought
against them.
(5.) The weight of several arguments, taken from scripture,
to prove this doctrine, is to be considered, as well as the arguments
themselves; we do not pretend that every one of them is
equally conclusive; there are some, which are oftentimes
brought to support it, which we can lay no great stress upon,
and therefore shall omit to mention them, among other arguments
brought to that purpose, lest we should give occasion to
the adversary to insult, or conclude that we take any thing for
an argument that has been brought as such to prove this doctrine.
Therefore we will not pretend to prove, or peremptorily
to determine, that the doctrine of the Trinity is contained in
those words of the Psalmist, Psal. xxxiii. 6. By the word of
the Lord were the heavens made, and all the Hosts of them by
the breath of his mouth. Nor will we pretend to prove this
doctrine from the threefold repetition of the word Jehovah, in
the form of benediction to be used by the high priest, Numb.
vi. 24, 25, 26. The Lord bless thee, and keep thee; the Lord
make his face to shine upon thee, and be gracious unto thee; the
Lord lift up his countenance upon thee, and give thee peace. Nor
do we lay any stress on the three-fold repetition of the word
Holy, holy, holy, is the Lord of Hosts, Isa. vi. 3. though we
shall shew, in its proper place, that there are several things
in this chapter, which prove this doctrine. However, if at
// File: b239.png
.pn +1
any time, together with arguments that are more conclusive,
we bring some that are less so; this use may be made of
it, to shew how the scripture way of speaking is consistent
therewith in those places that do not so directly prove it. This
we thought proper to mention, because it is a very common
thing for those, who cannot answer the most weighty arguments
that are brought to support a doctrine, to bend their greatest
force against those which have the least strength; and then to
triumph, as though they had gained the victory, when they have
only done it in what respects that which is less material.
II. We shall now consider in what sense we are to understand
the words Trinity and Persons in the Godhead; and in
what respect the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, are said to be
one. It is true, the word Trinity is not to be found in scripture,
but what we understand by it is plainly contained therein;
therefore we use the word, as agreeable thereunto: thus we
read of the three that bear record in heaven, viz. the Father,
the Word, and the Holy Ghost, and that these three are one, 1
John v. 7. These three here mentioned are Persons, because
they are described by personal characters; and we shall take
occasion elsewhere, when we prove the Deity of the Son and
Spirit, to consider their being one, that is, having the same divine
nature, which we shall therefore wave at present, being
only considering the sense of words commonly used by us in
treating of this doctrine. All contending parties, however they
have explained the word Trinity, according to their different
ways of thinking, have notwithstanding, in compliance with custom,
used the word, and so far explained it, as that we might
understand that they intend hereby three, who are, in some respect
one, though some have not cared to use the word Person;
or if they have, it is without the most known and proper idea
contained in it. Thus the Sabellians, whenever they use the
word, intend nothing by it, but three relations, which may be
attributed to the same Person; as when the same Person may
be called a father, a son, and a brother, in different respects;
or as when he that, at one time, sustains the person of a judge,
may, at another time, sustain that of an advocate: this is what
some call a Trinity of names; and they might as well have declined
to use the words altogether, as to explain them in this
sense.
Again, the Arians use the word Person; but these have run
into another extreme, inasmuch as that, whilst they avoid Sabellianism,
they would lay themselves open to the charge of
Tritheism, did they not deny the proper Deity of the Son and
Spirit; for they suppose that every distinct Person is a distinct
being, agreeable to the sense of personality, when applied to
men; but this, as has been before considered, is to be abstracted
// File: b240.png
.pn +1
from the idea of personality, when applied to the Persons in
the Godhead. These also understand the oneness of these divine
Persons, in a sense agreeable to their own scheme, and
different from ours, and therefore they speak of them as one in
will, consent, or design, in which respect God and the creature
may be said to be one: accordingly Arius, and his adherents, in
the council at Nice, refused to allow that the divine persons
were Ὁμοουσιοι consubstantial, and, with a great many evasions
and subterfuges, attempted to conceal their sentiments: all that
they could be brought to own was, that the Son was Ὁμοιος, or
Ὁμοιουσιος, which amounts to no more than this, that whatever
likeness there may be, in some respects, yet he has not the
same proper divine nature with the Father and Holy Ghost.
Which leads us to consider the sense in which it is generally
used by those who defend what we think to be the scripture-doctrine
of the Trinity. There are some, it is true, both among
ancient and modern writers, that attempt to explain what they
mean by the word Person, who are so unhappy as to leave the
sense thereof more dark than they found it, when they have
given a definition thereof, agreeable to what is used by metaphysicians
and schoolmen, to this effect, that it is a suppositum,
endowed with reason; or that it is one entire, individual, incommunicable,
rational subsistence: and when they define Personality,
some tell us, that it is a positive mode of a being terminating
and compleating its substantial nature, and giving incommunicability
to it, which words need to be explained more
than the thing defined thereby. And here I cannot but take
notice of that warm debate which there was between the Greek
and Latin church about the words Hypostasis and Persona;
the Latin, concluding that the word Hypostasis signified substance
or essence, thought, that to assert that there were three
divine Hypostases, was to say that there were three Gods: On
the other hand, the Greek church thought that the word Person
did not sufficiently guard against the Sabellian notion of the
same individual being sustaining three relations; whereupon
each part of the church was ready to brand the other with heresy,
till by a free and mutual conference, in a synod at Alexandria,
A. D. 362. they made it appear, that it was but a mere
contention about the grammatical sense of a word; and then it
was allowed, by men of temper on both sides, that either of the
two words might be indifferently used.[86] But what signifies the
use of them, when perplexed with the scholastic explications
thereof? This has given occasion to some, whose sentiments
have been very remote as to the doctrine of the Trinity, to express
themselves with some dislike; on the one hand, the Socinians,
and some among the Remonstrants, who made very great
// File: b241.png
.pn +1
advances toward their scheme, viz. Curcellæus, Episcopius, and
others,[87] have complained of clouding this doctrine with hard
words; and the complaint is not altogether groundless, though
it may be their design herein was to substitute such words in
the room of them, as would make the remedy worse than the
disease. On the other hand, some, who have embraced the
doctrine of the Trinity, would not have liked its advocates the
worse, had they chose to have defended it in a more plain intelligible
manner. Thus Calvin himself wishes, that some
words, which are so warmly opposed and defended on each
side, were altogether laid aside, and buried, provided that such
might be retained as express our faith in the doctrine of the
Father, Son, and Spirit, being the one God, but distinguished
by their personal properties.[88] And this is that plain sense of
the word, which I shall make use of, in what I shall farther attempt
to lay down in the defence thereof. And accordingly,
1. We never call any thing a person that is not endowed
with understanding and will; and therefore the most glorious
inanimate creatures, either in heaven or earth, whatever excellencies
they have, or how useful soever they are to the world,
they are not persons. Thus, when the sun is described as
though it were a person, and is compared to a bridegroom coming
out of his chamber, and rejoicing as a strong man to run
a race, Psal. xix. 5. the words are never understood in any
other but a metaphorical sense; so Behemoth and the Leviathan,
mentioned in Job, being no other than brute creatures,
are described with personal characters, in the same figurative
way of speaking; therefore we suppose a person to have an understanding
and will.
2. Whenever I, thou, or he, are applied to such a subject,
they always connote a person; I, a person speaking; thou, a
person spoken to; and he, or him, a person spoken of; and
when such modes of speaking are sometimes applied to things
that are destitute of reason, or to any moral virtues or principles
of acting, which, from the nature of the thing, cannot be denominated
persons, such expressions are very easily understood
in a figurative sense, which may without any difficulty be distinguished
from the proper one, whereby those who are so described
are denominated persons.
There are some characters which always denote persons, and
some works performed which are properly personal, which can
be performed by none but persons. Thus the character of a
father, or a son; so a Creator, a Redeemer, a benefactor, a
Mediator, an advocate, a surety, a judge, a lord, a law-giver,
and many others of the like nature, are all of them personal
// File: b242.png
.pn +1
characters. So that whoever acts with design, and has such-like
characters attributed to him, according to the proper acceptation
of the word, him we call a person; and these characters
we shall endeavour to apply to the Persons in the Godhead,
to prove their distinct personality.
But since we are at present only considering the acceptation
of words, we shall briefly observe the difference between a divine
and a human person, when some personal properties, characters,
or works, are attributed to each of them. And,
(1.) Human persons are separated one from the other: thus,
for instance, Peter, James, and John, were three persons, but
they were separated one from the other; whereas the Persons
in the Godhead, however distinguished by their characters and
properties, are never separated, as having the same divine essence
or nature. As for human persons, one of them might
have had a being and personality, had the other never existed,
because it exists by the will of God; but the divine persons
have a necessary existence and personality, as being, in all respects,
independent, so that as they could not but be God, they
could not but be divine Persons; the personality of the Son and
Spirit are equally independent with that of the Father, and as
much independent as their being and divine perfections.
(2.) Human persons have only the same kind of nature,
which is generally called a common specific nature, but not the
same individual nature with another person; so that though
every man has a nature like that of the rest of mankind, yet the
human nature, as attributed to one person, is not the same individual
human nature that is attributed to another, for then the
power and understanding, or the ideas that there are in one
man, would be the same individual power and ideas, that are in
another, which they are not. Whereas, when we speak of the
Persons in the Godhead, as having the divine nature and perfections,
we say that this nature is the same individual nature in
all of them, though the persons are distinct, otherwise the Father,
Son, and Holy Ghost, could not be said to be truly and
properly God, and to have the same understanding, will, and
other perfections of the divine nature.
(3.) When we speak of human persons, we say, that as many
persons as there are, so many beings there are; every human
person has its own proper being, distinct from all other persons
or beings; but we do not say so with respect to the divine Persons,
for the divine Being is but one, and therefore the Godhead
of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, is the very same; which
is what we understand when we say, that though there are three
Persons in the Godhead, yet they are the same in substance, or
the one only living and true God.
This leads us to consider in what respect the Father, Son,
// File: b243.png
.pn +1
and Holy Ghost, are said to be one; by which we mean, that
the Son and Holy Ghost have all the perfections of the divine
nature, in the same sense as the Father has; to say less than
this, is to assert no more than what our adversaries will allow;
for they will not deny them perfections, nor would they be
thought to deny them to have divine perfections; yea, many of
them will not stick to say, that they are truly and properly God;
by which they mean, that whatever deity is attributed to them
in scripture, by the appointment of the Father, that is, whatever
divine authority they have, this properly belongs to them:
but, I think, they will none of them allow that they have the divine
nature in the same sense in which the Father is said to
have it. This is what we shall endeavour to prove; and more
need not be said concerning them, in order to establish that supreme
worship which is due to them, as well as the Father;
and, in order hereto, we shall consider the force of those arguments
contained in one of these answers, and, together with
them, the sense of that scripture, John x. 30. in which our Saviour
says, I and my Father are one; as also that other scripture,
1 John v. 7. that the Father, the Word, and the Holy
Ghost, who bear record in heaven, are one; the consideration
whereof we shall reserve to a following head.
And inasmuch as they are said to be equal in power and
glory, we may observe, that there are two expressions, which
we often use, to set forth the deity of the Son and Spirit; sometimes
we say they are God, equal with the Father; at other
times, that they have the same essential perfections. To which,
it may be, some will reply, that if they are equal, they cannot
be the same; or, on the other hand, if they are the same, they
cannot be equal. For the understanding what we mean by such-like
expressions, let it be observed, that when we consider
them as having the divine essence, or any of the perfections
thereof, we do not chuse to describe them as equal, but the
same; we do not say that the wisdom, power, holiness, &c. of
the Son and Spirit are equal to the same perfections, as ascribed
to the Father: but when we speak of them as distinct Persons,
then we consider them as equal: the essential glory of the
Father, Son, and Spirit, is the same; but their personal glory is
equal; and in this sense we would be understood, when we say
the Son and Holy Ghost are each of them God, or divine Persons,
equal with the Father.[89]
// File: b244.png
.pn +1
III. We shall prove that the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost,
are distinct persons in the Godhead, by applying what has been
// File: b245.png
.pn +1
but now observed, by which any one may, by our common
mode of speaking, be denominated a person; and to this we
// File: b246.png
.pn +1
shall add something concerning those personal properties, mentioned
in one of the answers we are explaining, with respect to
// File: b247.png
.pn +1
the eternal generation of the Son, and the procession of the
Holy Ghost. And,
// File: b248.png
.pn +1
1. To prove the personality of the Son. If this be reckoned
needless, inasmuch as the Arians and Socinians never yet called
it in question, we own that it is not necessary, when we dispute
with them, to prove it: but inasmuch as the Sabellians deny it,
as a late writer[90] has done, who plainly gives in to that scheme,
and concludes the Son of God to be no other than the eternal
reason of God; and so he renders that text, John i. 1. In the
beginning was the word, that is, reason, and by him, that is, by
it, were all things made; and when it is objected, that this mode
of speaking signifies nothing more than a quality in God, the
only answer he gives to it, is, that it signifies no more a quality,
than if we should translate it, The word, as it is generally done:
I say, if persons, whether they pretend to be Sabellians or no,
express themselves in such a manner, it is certainly necessary
for us to prove the personality of the Son.
// File: b249.png
.pn +1
It appears, therefore, that the Son is a distinct Person from
the Father,
(1.) Inasmuch as we often read, in scripture, of two divine
Persons speaking to, or of, one another, the distinguishing personal
characters, I, thou, and he, being applied to them: thus it
is said, Psal. cx. 1. The Lord, that is the Father, said unto my
Lord, namely the Son, sit thou at my right-hand, till I make
thine enemies thy footstool: this may be observed throughout
the whole Psalm; thus, ver. 3. Thy people shall be willing;
and ver. 6. He, meaning the Son, shall judge among the heathen;
and ver. 7. He shall drink of the brook in the way; so Psal. xlv.
2. speaking of the Son, Thou art fairer than the children of
men; and ver. 6. Thy throne, O God, is for ever and ever. The
places of scripture, which have such modes of speaking concerning
the Son, are almost innumerable; and therefore we
proceed to consider,
(2.) Other personal characters given him; thus, when he is
called the Son of God, whatever we are to understand by that
relation or character, of which more under a following head, it
certainly denotes him a Person distinct from the Father; so
does his being sent into the world by the Father, which expression
is frequently used in the New Testament; now a quality,
relation or property, cannot be said to be sent as the Son is. So
when he is described as a Redeemer, a Mediator, a Surety, a
Creator; and when he is styled, by the prophet, the everlasting
Father; and often described as a prophet, priest, or king; or
Lord of all, or the Prince of peace, or the Prince of the kings of
the earth; all these characters sufficiently prove his personality;
and all those works which he performs, as sustaining these relations
or characters, are properly personal; and some of them
are never ascribed to any other person. Thus the Father, or
Holy Ghost, are never said to assume the human nature, or to
become sureties for the salvation of men, or to execute mediatorial
offices, subservient thereunto; from all which it evidently
appears, that the Son is a distinct Person: that he is a divine
Person, will be proved under a following head: we shall therefore
proceed,
2. To prove the distinct personality of the Holy Ghost.
This is denied, not only by the Sabellians, but by some of the
Socinians; yea, even by Socinus himself; who describes the
Holy Ghost as the power of God, intending hereby, as his mode
of speaking seems to denote, the energy of the divine nature,
or that whereby the Father, who is the only one, to whom, according
to him, the divine nature is attributed, produces those
effects which require infinite power; so that they call the Spirit
the power of God essentially considered; these set aside all
those proofs, that may be produced from scripture, to evince
// File: b250.png
.pn +1
his personality, which are so plain and evident, that many of
them have dissented from Socinus herein, and owned the Spirit
to be a person. Accordingly some of them have described
him as the chief of created spirits, or the head of the angels,
because they deny his divine nature. Thus a bold writer expresses
himself; “I believe that there is one principal minister
of God and Christ, peculiarly sent from heaven, to sanctify
the church, who, by reason of his eminency and intimacy
with God, is singled out of the number of other heavenly ministers,
or angels, and comprised in the holy Trinity, being
the third person thereof; and that this minister of God and
Christ is the Holy Spirit.[91]”
Now we shall prove the personality of the Holy Ghost, by
considering some personal characters ascribed to, and works
performed by him. Thus there are several such characters, by
which he is denominated a person; particularly when he is
called a Sanctifier, a Reprover, a Witness, a Comforter, it evidently
appears from hence that he is a person: thus when it is
said, in John xvi. 8. that when he, to wit, the Comforter is come,
he will reprove the world of sin, of righteousness and judgment;
and also, that he will guide you into all truth; he shall shew you
things to come, &c. And in John xiv. 16, 17. there is the distinct
personality of the three persons, and particularly of the
Holy Ghost, asserted; I will pray the Father, and he shall give
you another Comforter, even the Spirit of truth; and also in ver.
26. The Comforter, which is the Holy Ghost, whom the Father
will send in my name, he shall teach you all things.[92]
It is certain, that to be said to teach, or to instruct, is a personal
character; so it is to speak, or to dictate, to another what
he should say; but this he is said to do, as our Saviour says to
his disciples, Whatever shall be given you in that hour, that
speak ye; for it is not you that speak, but the Holy Ghost, Mark
xiii. 11.
Moreover, to witness, or testify, is a personal character; especially
when the testimony is not merely objective, as when
Job calls his wrinkles and his leanness a witness against him,
Job xvi. 8. But when there is a formal testimony given, he
// File: b251.png
.pn +1
that gives it is, according to our common way of speaking, generally
considered as a person; and thus the Holy Ghost is described,
Acts v. 32. We are his witnesses of these things, and so
is the Holy Ghost, whom God has given to them that obey him.
Here the Holy Ghost’s being a witness is as much a personal
character, as their being witnesses; and, Acts xx. 23. it is said,
The Holy Ghost witnesseth in every city, that bonds and afflictions
abide me.
Again, dwelling is a personal character; no one ever supposes
that any thing that is in a house dwells there, excepting
persons; but the Holy Ghost is said to dwell in believers, John
xiv. 17. and alluding hereto, as also connoting his divine personality,
it is said, 1 Cor. vi. 19. Your body is the temple of the
Holy Ghost; as a house is the dwelling-place of a person, so a
temple is the dwelling-place of a divine person.
Again, to send any one is a personal character; but this is
attributed to the Holy Ghost, Acts xiii. 4. The apostles being
sent forth by the Holy Ghost, departed.
Again, acting with a sovereign will and pleasure is what
belongs only to a person; but this is applied to the Holy Ghost,
Acts xv. 28. It seemed good to the Holy Ghost and to us.
Again, prohibiting, or forbidding, a person to act, is a personal
character; but this is applied to the Holy Ghost, Acts xvi.
6. The apostles were forbidden of the Holy Ghost to preach the
word in Asia.
Again, to constitute, or appoint, any one to execute an office
is a personal character; but this the Holy Ghost is said to do,
Acts xx. 28. he is said to have made them overseers. There are
several other personal works and characters, which might have
been mentioned; but these are, I humbly conceive, sufficient to
prove the thing intended, that the Holy Ghost is a person. I
have no more than mentioned the scriptures, which contain
these personal characters, because I shall have occasion under
a following head, to refer to some of them for the proof of his
deity.[93]
// File: b252.png
.pn +1
Object. It will be objected, by those who are favourers of the
Sabellian scheme, that the characters which we have laid down,
// File: b253.png
.pn +1
to prove the personality of the Son, and Holy Ghost, are not
Sufficient to answer that end; inasmuch as they are oftentimes
// File: b254.png
.pn +1
applied, in a metaphorical way, to those things which no one
supposes to be persons, and therefore that they may be taken
// File: b255.png
.pn +1
in this sense, when applied to the Son and Spirit. To support
this objection, they produce several instances out of the book
of Job, and some other parts of scripture, where things are described
with personal characters, which are not really persons.
Thus Job xxxix. 11, 12. speaking concerning the unicorn, it is
said; Wilt thou trust him? Wilt thou leave thy labour to him?
Wilt thou believe him, that he will bring home thy seed, and gather
it into thy barn? So concerning the horse, it is said, as
though he acted with design, as an intelligent creature, ver. 21.
&c. He goeth on to meet the armed men; he mocketh at fear;
neither believeth he that it is the sound of the trumpet; he saith
among the trumpets, Ha, ha! And concerning the eagle, ver.
28. She dwelleth in the rock. And concerning the leviathan,
chap. xli. 3. &c. Will he make many supplications to thee? Will
he speak soft words unto thee? Will he make a covenant with
// File: b256.png
.pn +1
thee? He esteemeth iron as straw, and brass as rotten wood.
Darts are counted as stubble; he laugheth at the shaking of the
spear. And ver. 34. He beholdeth all high things; he is a king
over all the children of pride. There are many other personal
characters given to brute creatures, which are taken in a metaphorical
sense; and sometimes they are applied to inanimate
creatures. Thus Job xxxviii. 28, &c. Hath the rain a father?
and who hath begotten the drops of dew? Out of whose womb
came the ice? and the hoary frost of heaven, who hath gendered
it? Canst thou bind the sweet influences of Pleiades, or loose the
bands of Orion? Canst thou bring forth Mazzaroth in his season,
or canst thou guide Arcturus with his sons? By which
nothing is intended but the signs in the Zodiack, or some of the
constellations, together with the particular stars of which they
consist; yet these are described, as though they were persons.
So ver. 35. Canst thou send lightnings, that they may go, and
say unto thee, here we are? Again, the powers and faculties of
the soul of man have sometimes personal characters ascribed to
them. Thus, conscience is said to bear witness, Rom. ix. 1.
And some instances may be brought from scripture of a person’s
speaking to himself; yet this doth not connote two persons
in man, one speaking, and the other spoken to. It is therefore
inferred from hence, that we cannot prove the personality
of the Son and Holy Ghost from those personal characters
ascribed to them, which may be taken in a metaphorical sense,
as well as in the instances but now mentioned.
Answ. In answer to this objection, several things may be
considered.
1. Though the scripture often uses figurative, and particularly
metaphorical, ways of speaking, yet these may be easily
distinguished from the like phrases used elsewhere, concerning
which we have sufficient ground to conclude that they are to be
taken in a proper sense; therefore, though it is true that there
are personal characters given to things which are not persons,
yet we are not to conclude from hence, that whenever the same
modes of speaking are used, and applied to those who are capable
of performing personal actions, that therefore these must be
taken in a metaphorical sense; which is a known exception
from the common idea contained in the same words.
2. Most of those passages of scripture, where personal characters
are attributed to things which are not persons, in a metaphorical
sense, are in the poetical books thereof; or in some
particular places, where there is a peculiar beautiful mode of
speaking taken from thence; will it therefore follow, that these
personal characters are used in other parts of scripture, in which
the Holy Ghost does not think fit to express himself in such an
elegancy of style? Now it is certain, that the personal characters
// File: b257.png
.pn +1
before mentioned are given to the Son and Holy Ghost,
throughout the whole scripture, without designing to use a
lofty, figurative, or uncommon way of speaking, as in the instances
before mentioned.
3. We must not suppose that the Holy Ghost uses any figurative
ways of speaking, so as to cast a veil on plain truths, or
to endanger our being led hereby out of the way, as we should
certainly be, if so many hundred places of scripture, in which
these personal characters are applied to the Son and Spirit,
were to be taken in a metaphorical sense, without any intimation
given in the context that they are so to be understood. And
it will be certainly very difficult to find out any place in scripture,
that may serve to direct us in our application of these characters,
viz. when they are to be taken in a metaphorical sense,
when applied to the Persons in the Godhead, and when not.
4. Though we find many metaphors in scripture, yet we observe
that the most important truths are laid down in the plainest
manner; so that the injudicious and unlearned reader, who
understands nothing of the art of rhetoric, or criticism, may
be instructed thereby; at least they are not universally wrapt
up in such figurative ways of speaking; and it would be strange,
if the account we have of the Personality of the Son and Holy
Ghost, which is a doctrine of the highest importance, and such
as renders them distinct objects of worship, should be expressed
in such a way, as that we should be at the greatest uncertainty
whether they are persons or not.
5. If these personal characters are not metaphorical, when
applied to men or angels, who are subjects capable of having
personality attributed to them, why should they be reckoned
metaphorical, when applied to the Son and Spirit, who, though
they are not distinct beings, yet they have a divine understanding
and will, and therefore are not rendered incapable of having
personality ascribed to them, as signified by these characters.
6. The asserting that personal characters attributed to the
Son and Spirit are always to be understood in a metaphorical
sense, would give equal ground to conclude that they are to be
so taken, when applied to the Father; and accordingly, while
we militate against the Personality of these, we should, at the
same time, overthrow his Personality: and while we deny that
there are three Persons in the Godhead, we should, in effect,
suppose that there are no Persons in the Godhead, any otherwise
than as the Godhead, which is common to be Father, Son,
and Spirit, is often described as though it were a Person; and
if ever Personality is used or applied in a metaphorical sense,
it must be when the Godhead is described as though it were a
Person.
7. Though some personal characters are occasionally applied,
// File: b258.png
.pn +1
in a metaphorical sense, to things that are not persons, yet it is
not usual for them to be described as performing personal
works, and these not occasionally hinted at, and joined with
other metaphorical ways of speaking, but a long series of action
referred to, and variety of works performed, which must
certainly be taken in a most proper sense. Thus, when the Son
and Spirit are set forth in scripture as performing those works,
which are expressive of their personal glory; the one in what
respects the purchase of redemption; and the other in the application
thereof: and when each of them is described as standing
in those relations to men, which are founded in the performance
of these works for them; certainly this must be taken
in a most proper sense; and we must take heed, lest, while we
attempt to prove that the Persons in the Godhead are to be taken
in a figurative sense, we do not give occasion to any to think
that the great benefits, which we receive from them, are to be
understood in the same sense.
We shall now take notice of some other personal properties,
whereby the Son and Spirit are distinguished from one another,
and from the Father; particularly, as they are expressed in one
of the answers under our present consideration; it is proper to
the Father to beget the Son, or, as it is sometimes expressed,
to be unbegotten; and to the Son, to be begotten of the Father;
and to the Holy Ghost, to proceed from the Father and the
Son, from all eternity. This is certainly one of the most difficult
heads of divinity that can be insisted on; and some have
made it more so, by their attempting to explain it. I have sometimes
thought that it would be the safest and most eligible
way, to pass it over, as a doctrine less necessary to be understood;
but since there are several scripture-expressions, on
which it is founded, which we ought to pay the greatest deference
to, much more than to those explications which are merely
human; and inasmuch as these properties plainly prove the
Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, to be distinct Persons, therefore
we must humbly enquire into the meaning of those scriptures,
wherein they are contained; and so to speak something as to
what is generally called the eternal generation of the Son, and
the procession of the Holy Ghost; and I hope, through divine
assistance, we shall advance no doctrine that is either subversive
of our faith in the doctrine of the Trinity, which we are endeavouring
to maintain, derogatory to the essential or personal
glory of the Father, Son, and Spirit, or altogether contrary to
the sense, in which many Christians, who are unacquainted
with those modes of speaking, used by the fathers and schoolmen,
understand those scriptures upon which this doctrine is
founded.
And here we shall give a brief account of what we apprehend
// File: b259.png
.pn +1
to be the commonly received sentiments of divines, who,
in their writings, have strenuously maintained, and judiciously
defended, the doctrine of the Trinity, concerning the eternal
generation of the Son, and the procession of the Holy Ghost;
which I shall endeavour to do with the greatest deference to
those who have treated of these subjects, as well as with the
greatest impartiality; and shall take occasion to shew how far
the Arians conclude that we give up the cause to them, and yet
how little reason they have to insult us upon this head.
(1.) As to the eternal generation of the Son, it is generally
explained in this manner; the Father is called, by some, the
fountain of the Godhead, an expression taken from some of the
fathers, who defended the Nicene faith: but others of late,
have rather chose to call the Father the fountain of the Trinity;
and he is said to be of himself; or unbegotten; which they
lay down as his distinct Personal character, from that of the
Son.
On the other hand, the Son, as to his Personality, is generally
described as being from the Father, and many chuse to
express themselves about this mystery in these terms; that the
Father communicated the divine essence to the Son, which is
the most common mode of speaking, though others think it
safer to say, that he communicated the divine Personality to
him; though I cannot tell which is least exceptionable.
But when I find others calling it the Father’s giving the divine
essence to the Son, their mode of speaking being founded,
as they apprehend, on that scripture, John v. 26. As the Father
hath life in himself so hath he given to the Son to have life in
himself, I cannot but think it an unguarded expression, and foreign
to the design of the Holy Ghost in that scripture, as will
be hereafter considered. The Arians are ready to insult us upon
such modes of speaking, and suppose that we conclude that the
Son receives his divine perfections, and therefore cannot be
God equal with the Father: but, however, none of them, who
use this expression, suppose that the Son’s Deity is founded on
the arbitrary will of the Father; for they all assert that the divine
nature is communicated necessarily, and from all eternity,
as the sun communicates its rays necessarily, which are of equal
duration with it; so that while they make use of a word, which,
according to its most known acceptation, seems subversive of
the truth, they happily, for truth’s sake, explain away the proper
sense thereof; so that all they can be blamed for herein, by
the adversary, is impropriety of expression.
Again, others speak a little more exceptionally, when, explaining
the eternal generation of the Son, they say that the
Father produced him: but this idea they also happily explain
away; and therefore say it is not such a production, where the
// File: b260.png
.pn +1
cause produces the effect, though some of the fathers, who have
been in the Trinitarian scheme, have unwarily called the Father
the cause of the Son; yet our modern divines seldom, or never,
use that expression, or if they speak of an eternal production,
they suppose it vastly differs from the production of all creatures,
or from that sense in which the Arians suppose the Son
to be produced by him; but certainly this expression had better
be laid aside, lest it should be thought that we conclude the
Son not equally necessary, and, from all eternity, co-existent
with the Father, which our divines, how unwarily soever in
other respects they may express themselves, are very far from
denying.
(2.) We shall now proceed to consider how some divines
express themselves, concerning the procession of the Holy
Ghost, which they generally do in this manner, as though the
divine essence were communicated by the Father and the Son
to the Holy Ghost; and so they suppose that the Holy Ghost,
at least as he is a divine Person, or has the divine nature communicated
to him, cannot be said to be, any more than the Son,
of himself, but from the Father and the Son, from whom he
proceeds, or receives, as some express it, the divine nature, and
others the divine personality.
Others speak of the Spiration of the Holy Ghost, which they
suppose to be the same with his procession; but the world is
much at a loss to understand what they mean by the word Spiration:
it seems to be a mere metaphorical expression, as when
they call him the breath of the Father and the Son, and, if so,
then it will not prove his proper personality: but since we are
pretty much in the dark about the reason of this mode of speaking,
it would be much better to lay it aside, as many modern
writers have done.
As to the manner of the procession of the Holy Ghost, there
was, about the eighth and ninth centuries, a very warm dispute
between the Greek and Latin church; whether the Spirit proceeded
from the Father only, or from the Father and the Son;
and the controversy arose to such a height, that they charged
one another with heresy and schism, when neither side well understood
what they contended about; and if they had agreed
to the healing expedient, afterwards proposed, that they should
mutually acknowledge that the Holy Ghost was from the Father
by the Son, the matter would have been left as much in the dark
as it was before.
Some speak of the procession of the Holy Ghost, as though
he was produced by the Father and the Son, as the Son, as was
before observed, is said, in his eternal generation, to have been
produced by the Father; yet they suppose that neither of them
were so produced, as that they may be called effects; and they
// File: b261.png
.pn +1
term it the production of a person in, and not out of, the divine
essence, for that would be to give away the cause we contend
for: but which way soever we take it, it contains such an impropriety
of expression, as can hardly be defended; and it is
much better to explain away the proper and grammatical sense
of words, than to corrupt the truth; however, I would not copy
after them in this mode of speaking.
Moreover, some have pretended to determine the difference
between the eternal generation of the Son and the Spirit’s procession;
to which they have, with modesty, premised, that it is
not to be explained; but, as far as they enter into this matter,
they suppose that they differ in this; that in the eternal generation
of the Son, the Father communicated the divine essence,
or, at least, personality to him, which is his act alone, and herewith
he communicated a property, or power, to him, to communicate
the same divine essence to the Holy Ghost; whereas,
when the Holy Ghost is said to proceed from the Father and
the Son, there is no power therewith conveyed to him to communicate
the divine essence to any other, as a fourth person in
the Godhead. These things may be observed in the writings
of those who treat of this subject; but it is to be feared, they
enter too far into the explication of this unsearchable mystery;
and some will be ready to conclude that they attempt to be
wise above what is written. And,
If I may be allowed to give my sense of the communication
of the divine essence, though it will probably be thought that I
do not say enough concerning it, yet I hope that, in other respects,
none will conclude that I advance any thing subversive
of the doctrine of the Trinity, when I assert that the divine essence
is communicated, not by the Father to the Son and Holy
Ghost, as imparting or conveying it to them; but take the word
communicate in another sense, namely, that all the perfections
of the divine nature are communicated, that is, equally attributed
to, or predicated of, the Father, Son, and Spirit; this
sense of the word is what some intend when they say the human
nature is communicated to every individual, upon which
account they are denominated men; and, as the word is used
in this sense, sometimes, by logicians and schoolmen, so it seems
to be taken in the same sense, in Heb. ii. 14. where the Greek
words, τα παιδια κεκοινωνηκε σαρκος και αιματος, which we render, the children
were partakers of flesh and blood, might be rendered, as
in the vulgar Latin version, Communicaverunt carni & sanguini,
i. e. they have the human nature communicated to, and predicated
of, them, or they are truly and properly men. And it is
in this sense that we use the word, when we say that the different
properties of the divine and human nature are communicated
to, that is, predicated of, the Person of Christ, which divines
// File: b262.png
.pn +1
generally call a communication of properties. In this
sense I would be understood, when I say that the divine perfections
are communicated to, or predicated of, the Father, Son,
and Spirit; and this all who maintain the doctrine of the Trinity
will allow of. The other sense of communication, viz. imparting,
conveying, or giving the divine essence, I shall be very
ready to fall in with, when the apparent difficulties, which, to
me, seem to lie in the way thereof, some of which have been
already considered, are removed.
As to what concerns the farther explication of this mystery,
we may observe, that the more nice some have been in their
speculations about it, the more they have seemed bewildered:
thus, when some have enquired whether the eternal generation
is one single act, or an act continued; or whether, when it is said,
This day have I begotten thee, the meaning is, that the divine
nature was communicated at once, or whether it is perpetually
communicating.[97] And the difficulties that attend their asserting
either the one or the other of them, which they, who enquire
into these matters, take notice of, I shall entirely pass
over, as apprehending that this doctrine receives no advantage
by such disquisitions.
Neither do I think it tends much to our edification to enquire,
as some have done, whether, in the eternal generation, the Father
is considered as acting, and the Son as him on whom the action
terminates, as the subject thereof; which, when they suppose
it does, they farther enquire, whether, in this respect, he is said
to be passive, which they are not willing to assert.
And I cannot but take notice of another nicety of inquiry,
viz. whether, in the eternal generation, the Son is considered as
co-existent with the Father, or as having the divine essence,
and hereby only deriving his Sonship from him, from all eternity;
or whether he derives both his Sonship and his essence;
the former of which is the most generally received opinion.
But I am not desirous to enter into this enquiry, especially
without first determining what we mean by Sonship.
There is indeed one thing that must be enquired into, and
that is, whatever be the explication given of the eternal generation
of the Son, and procession of the Holy Ghost, whether
they are each of them self-existent, or, as some call it, αυτοθεος; and
it is generally determined, that the Son and Holy Ghost have
the same self-existent divine nature: but with respect to their
manner of having it, some say the Son has his divine nature
from the Father, and the Holy Ghost from the Father and Son;
or that the Father only is self-existent, as some speak; or, as
most others say, that he is self-subsistent; and that this is his
// File: b263.png
.pn +1
personal property, as he is distinguished from the Son and Holy
Ghost, whom they conclude not to be self-subsistent, but the
one to subsist from the Father, and the other from the Father
and the Son. This is a generally received opinion; notwithstanding
I must confess myself to be at a loss to account for it: so
that the principal thing, in which I am obliged, till I receive
farther conviction, to differ from many others, is, whether the
Son and Spirit have a communicated or derived Personality:
this many assert, but, I think, without sufficient proof; for I
cannot but conclude that the divine Personality, not only of the
Father, but of the Son and Spirit, is as much independent, and
underived, as the divine essence.
Thus we have considered how some have embarrassed this
doctrine, by being too nice in their enquiries about it: we shall
proceed to consider how others have done prejudice to it, by
pretending to explain it; and when they make use of similitudes
to that purpose, have rather prejudiced the enemies of
this doctrine against it, than given any conviction to them. I
shall only mention what I have found in some of their writings,
whom, in other respects, I cannot but exceedingly value, as having
deserved well of the church of God, in defending this truth
with good success, yet, when they take this method to explain
this doctrine, to say the best of it, they have done but little service
to the cause which they have maintained: thus we find
them expressing themselves to this purpose; as the soul of man
sometimes reflects on itself, and considers its own nature, powers,
and faculties, or when it is conversant about itself, as its
object, this produces an idea, which contains the moral image
of itself, and is like as when he sees his face in a glass, and beholds
the image of himself; this, say they, illustrates the eternal
generation of the Son, as God beholding himself, or his divine
perfections, begets an image of himself, or has an eternal
idea of his own perfections in his mind, which is called his internal
word, as opposed to the word spoken, which is external;
by this they express the generation of the Son, for which reason
he is called, in Heb. i. 3. The brightness of the Father’s
glory, and the express image of his person, as the wax expresses
the character or mark of the seal that is impressed on it.
Again, they farther add, that there is a mutual love between
the Father and the Son, which brings forth a third Person, or
subsistence in the Godhead, to wit, the Holy Ghost; so that as
there is in the divine essence an infinite understanding reflecting
on itself, whereby it begets, a Son, as was before observed, and
an infinite will, which leads him to reflect on himself, with love
and delight, as the chief good, whereby he brings forth a third
Person in the Godhead, to wit, the Holy Ghost, accordingly
they describe this divine Person as being the result of the mutual
// File: b264.png
.pn +1
joy and delight that there is between the Father and the
Son: these explications many are at a loss to understand; and
we humbly conceive it would be much better to let them alone,
and confess this doctrine to be an inexplicable mystery, or else
some other way may be found out, which is less liable to these
exceptions, while we explain those scriptures, which speak of
the generation of the Son, and the procession of the Holy
Ghost.
The scriptures generally brought in defence of this doctrine
are such as these.
1. To prove the eternal generation of the Son, there are several
scriptures referred to, particularly that in which the Father
is represented as speaking to him, in Psal. ii. 7. Thou art
my Son; this day have I begotten thee; that is, say they, I have,
in my eternal, unsuccessive duration, communicated, or imparted,
the divine essence, or, at least, personality, to thee.
Another scripture brought to this purpose is that in Prov.
viii. 22, 23, 25. The Lord possessed me, speaking of his eternal
Word, or Son, in the beginning of his way, before his works of
old. I was set up from everlasting, from the beginning, or ever
the earth was; before the mountains were settled; before the
hills was I brought forth. Where they suppose that God’s possessing
him, which is certainly to be taken in a different sense
from his being the possessor of all creatures, is to be understood
of his being God’s proper Son by nature; and his being
said to be brought forth, they suppose, proves his eternal generation.
Another scripture brought to the same purpose is that in
Micah v. 2. speaking of the Son, it is said, His goings forth
have been of old, from everlasting; by which they attempt to
prove his being begotten in the divine essence: but how that
can be called his going forth, I do not well understand.
Moreover, that scripture before mentioned, in Heb. i. 3.
Who being the brightness of his glory, and the express image of
his person. And another parallel scripture, in Col. i. 15. Who
is the image of the invisible God, the first-born of every creature;
where, by first-born, they understand, that he was begotten before
all worlds: the divine essence, or, at least, personality, being
communicated to him from eternity.
Another scripture, which we before referred to, brought to
prove this doctrine, is John v. 26. As the Father hath life in
himself, so he hath given to the Son to have life in himself; that
is, say some, as the Father hath all divine perfections in himself
originally, so the Son hath these perfections, by communication
from him; which they suppose not to be an arbitrary,
but a necessary, donation.
Again, this is farther proved, from John i. 17. where he is
// File: b265.png
.pn +1
said to be the only begotten Son of the Father. And ver. 18.
The only begotten Son, who is in the bosom of the Father. From
the former of which scriptures they prove the eternal generation
of the Son; and from the latter, his being begotten in the
divine essence, which distinguishes it from all finite productions,
which are out of himself.
Moreover, there are many other scriptures that speak of our
Saviour as the Son of God; and particularly in Matth. xvi.
16. he is called, The Son of the living God; and in Rom. viii.
32. his own Son, ἱδιος υιος, which some render, his proper Son,
that is, not only his Son, who has the same divine nature with
himself, but as implying also the manner of its communication;
and in Mat. iii. 17. he is called his beloved Son.
2. We shall now consider the scriptures that are generally
brought to prove the procession of the Holy Ghost, in the sense
before explained. Thus he is said, in John xv. 26. to be sent
by the Son from the Father; and to proceed from the Father;
where they suppose that this proceeding from the Father signifies
the communication of the divine essence, or, at least, his
personality; and his being sent by the Son, implies, that this
communication is from him, as well as the Father. So in Gal.
iv. 6. it is said, God hath sent forth the Spirit of his Son; and,
in John xvi. 7. our Saviour says, I will send him unto you, and
ver. 14. He shall receive of mine, and shall shew it unto you;
these scriptures, if not brought directly to prove this doctrine,
are, notwithstanding, supposed sufficient to evince the truth
thereof, inasmuch as the Son could not send him, if he had not
proceeded from him; nor could he have received that which he
shews to his people, if he had not, from all eternity, received
his divine essence, or personality, from him.
There is another scripture, brought by some very valuable
divines, to prove the Spiration of the Holy Ghost, which is so
termed, either as supposed to be expressive of the manner of
his having his personality as a Spirit, or else it is taken from
those words of scripture, brought to prove this Spiration, John
xx. 22. in which our Saviour is said to have breathed on his
disciples, saying, Receive ye the Holy Ghost; which external
sign, or symbol, used in the act of conferring him on them in
time, proves his procession from him from eternity; as a temporal
procession supposes an eternal one.
These are the scriptures which are generally brought to prove
this doctrine. But we shall take occasion to enquire, whether
there may not be another sense given thereof, which is less liable
to exception, as well as more intelligible. It is to be owned,
that they contain some of the deep things of God; and therefore
it is no wonder, if they are reckoned among those scriptures
that are hard to be understood: but so far as I have any light,
// File: b266.png
.pn +1
either from the context of the respective scriptures, or the analogy
of faith, I cannot but conclude that these, and all others of
the like nature, that are brought to prove the eternal generation,
or Sonship of Christ, respect him as God-man, Mediator;[98]
and those other scriptures, that speak of the procession of the
// File: b267.png
.pn +1
Holy Ghost, respect the subserviency of his acting as a divine
Person to the Mediator’s glory, in applying the work of redemption.
And here we shall consider these scriptures in particular;
and then answer some objections that may be brought against
this sense thereof, whereby, I hope, it will appear, that we assert
nothing but what tends to the glory of the Son and Spirit,
establisheth the doctrine of the ever-blessed Trinity, and agrees
with the commonly received faith, so far as it is founded on
scripture, without being tenacious of those modes of speaking,
which have the sanction of venerable antiquity, and are supported
by the reputation of those who have used them; though it
may be, those scriptures will be otherwise understood by them,
who regard explications that are merely human, no farther than
they are defensible.
The first scripture before mentioned, which was brought to
prove the eternal generation of the Son, was Psal. ii. 7. Thou
art my Son, this day have I begotten thee. This cannot, I humbly
conceive, respect the communication of the divine nature,
or personality to the Son, as appears from the words immediately
foregoing, in which it is said, I will declare the decree, or
what I had before decreed, or determined. Far be it from us to
suppose that the divine nature, or personality, of the Son was
the result of an act of the divine will: and, indeed, the whole
Psalm plainly speaks of Christ as Mediator; as such he is said,
ver. 6. To be set as God’s king, on his holy hill of Sion, and, as
such, he is said to intercede with, or ask of God; and, as the
result hereof, the Father is said, ver. 8. to give him the heathen
for his inheritance, and the uttermost parts of the earth for his
possession; and all this is spoken of him, as a farther explication
of those words, Thou art my Son, this day have I begotten
thee. And the apostle, in Heb. i. 5. refers to this scripture,
when speaking of him as Mediator, and as having, by inheritance,
obtained a more excellent name than the angels; which he
has done, as he is constituted heir of all things: and he subjoins
that promise, I will be to him a Father, and he shall be to me a
Son, that is, he shall perform that obedience that is due from
him as a Son; and I will give unto him those rewards, which
are due from a Father, who has committed this work to him,
with a promise of the conferring those revenues of Mediatorial
glory on him, that should ensue on his fulfilling it. Moreover,
this scripture is referred to, by the apostle, in Acts xiii. 32, 33.
when he says, That the promise, which was made to the fathers,
God hath fulfilled the same unto their children, in that he hath
raised up Jesus again, as it is written in the second Psalm,
Thou art my Son, this day have I begotten thee. So that it is
plain the Psalmist speaks of him as having finished his work
// File: b268.png
.pn +1
of redemption, at which time he was raised from the dead; and
then, in the fullest sense, he had the heathen for his inheritance.
And, upon this account, he is also called, in Rev. i. 5. The first
begotten of the dead; and, in Col. i. 18. The first-born from the
dead.
The next scripture brought to prove the eternal generation of
the Son, in Prov. viii. 22, 23, 25. refers to Christ, as Mediator;
when God is said to possess him in the beginning of his
way, the meaning is, that in his eternal design oi grace relating
to the redemption of man, the Father possessed, or laid claim
to him as his Son, or servant, appointed in the human nature,
to bring about that great work; and accordingly it follows, I
was set up from everlasting, that is, fore-ordained of God, to
be the Mediator and head of his elect: and this agrees very
well with what follows, ver. 30, 31. I was daily his delight,
that is, God the Father was well pleased with him, when foreseeing
from all eternity what he would do in time, to secure
the glory of his perfections in the redemption of man, as God
publicly testified his well-pleasedness in him, when he was actually
engaged in this work. And it is farther added, That he
was always rejoicing before him; rejoicing in the habitable part
of his earth, and his delights were with the sons of men; which
signifies the great pleasure Christ had, in his eternal fore-sight
of what he would do for the sons of men, whom he is elsewhere
said to have loved with an everlasting love.
The next scripture is in Micah v. 2. where speaking of the
Son, it is said, Whose goings forth have been of old, from everlasting.
For the understanding of which scripture, let us consider,
that God’s goings are sometimes taken in scripture for
what he does, whereby he renders himself the object of his people’s
astonishment and praise; these are his visible goings.
Thus, Psal. lxvi. 24. They have seen thy goings, O God, even
the goings of my God, my King, in the sanctuary; that is, they
shall see the great things which thou wilt do for man, in the
work of redemption: so in this scripture, the sense whereof we
are considering, we read of Christ’s goings forth, his invisible
goings, as we may call them, or his secret purposes, or designs
of grace, relating to the redemption of his people: His goings
forth were from everlasting; that is, he did, from eternity, design
to save them; the outgoings of his heart were towards
them, and, as the result hereof, he came into the world according
to this prediction, and was born in Bethlehem, as in the
foregoing words.
The next scripture is in Heb. i. 3. where he is said to be the
brightness of his, that is, his Father’s glory, and the express
image of his person. By the former expression, I humbly conceive,
is meant, that the glory of the divine perfections shines
// File: b269.png
.pn +1
forth most illustriously in Christ, our great Mediator, as the apostle
expresses it elsewhere, 2 Cor. iv. 6. God hath shined in
our hearts, to give the knowledge of his glory, in the face of
Jesus Christ. By the latter expression, in which Christ is called
the express image of his Person, I humbly conceive, is meant,
that though his divine nature be the same with the Father’s,
yet his Personality is distinct; and therefore it is not said to be
the same, but the image of his Father’s; and it also proves his
proper divine Personality, as being, in all respects, like that of
the Father, though not the same.
The next scripture is in John v. 26. As the Father hath life
in himself; so hath he given to the Son to have life in himself.
We cannot think that the Father’s having given to the Son to
have life in himself implies his giving him the divine perfections,
for the propriety of that mode of speaking cannot be defended
consistently with his proper underived Deity. But I
humbly conceive that the meaning of it is this; that as the Father
hath life in himself, that is, as he has eternal life, or that
fulness of grace and glory, which his people are to be made
partakers of, at his own disposal, and has designed to give it,
in his eternal purpose; so hath he given to the Son, as Mediator,
to have life in himself, that is, that, as such, he should be
the treasury of all this grace, and that he should have life in
himself to dispense to them. This is very agreeable to his character
and office, as Mediator, and with what follows, ver. 24.
where it is said; Verily, verily, I say unto you, he that heareth
my word, and believeth on him that sent me, hath everlasting
life, and shall not come into condemnation, but is passed from
death unto life; and ver. 27. it is farther added, that He, to
wit, the Father, hath given him authority to execute judgment
also, because he is the Son of man; which plainly denotes, that
this life, which he has received from the Father, is that eternal
life, which he is impowered or commissioned to bestow on
his people, as Mediator; this he has in himself, and accordingly
he is said, John i. 14. to be full of grace and truth; and Col.
i. 19. It pleased the Father that in him should all fulness dwell.
The next thing to be considered, is the sense of those many
scriptures, in which our Saviour is described as the Son of God,
or the Son of the living God, or his only begotten Son, or his own
or proper Son, as distinguished from all others, which, I humbly
conceive, sets forth his glory, as Mediator, which we shall
endeavour to prove. But, to prepare our way for the prosecution
of this argument, as well as to prevent any misconstruction
that might give prejudice thereunto, we shall take leave to premise,
1. That when we read of the Son of God, as dependent on
the Father, inferior and obedient to him; and yet, as being
// File: b270.png
.pn +1
equal with him, and having the same divine nature, we cannot
conceive of any character which answers to all these ideas of
sonship, unless that of a Mediator. If we consider the properties
of sonship among men, every one who stands in this relation
to a Father is dependent on him. In this respect, the
father is the cause of his son, and it is not like other productions,
for no effect can, properly speaking, be called a son, but
that which hath the same kind of nature with his father; and
the relation of sonship always connotes inferiority, and an obligation
to yield obedience. I do not apply this, in every respect,
to the Sonship of Christ, which no similitude, taken from mere
creatures, can sufficiently illustrate; but his character, as Mediator,
seems to answer to it, more than any thing else that can
be said of him, since he has, as such, the same individual nature
with the Father, and also is inferior to, and dependent on
him. As a son, among men, is inferior to, and dependent on,
his father, and, as the prophet speaks, Mal. i. 6. Honoureth his
father; so whatever Christ is, as Mediator, he receives it from
the Father, and, in all that he does, he honoureth his Father,
as he says, John viii. 49. As the whole work of redemption is
referred to the Father’s glory, and the commission, by which
he acts as Mediator, is received from the Father, so, as a Son,
he refers all the glory thereof to him.
2. This account of Christ’s Sonship does not take away any
argument, by which we prove his Deity; for when we consider
him as Mediator, we always suppose him to be both God and
man, which is what we intend when we speak of the Person of
Christ in this respect; so that, as God, he is equal with the
Father, and has an equal right to divine adoration. This belongs
to him as much, when considered as Mediator, as it can
be supposed to do, if we consider his Sonship in any other respect.
3. It does not take away any argument to prove his distinct
Personality from the Father and Holy Ghost, or, at least, if it
sets aside that which is taken from the dependence of his Personality
on the Father, as received from him by communication,
it substitutes another in the room of it, inasmuch as to be a Mediator
is, without doubt, a personal character; and because
neither the Father, nor the Holy Ghost, can be said to be Mediators,
it implies, that his Personality is distinct from theirs;
likewise his acting as Mediator from the Father; and the Holy
Spirit’s securing the glory which arises to him from hence, and
applying the redemption purchased by him, is a farther proof
of this distinction of the Persons in the Godhead.
4. Since we consider the Mediator as both God and man, in
one Person, we do not suppose that this character respects either
of his two natures, considered separately.
// File: b271.png
.pn +1
(1.) Not his divine nature. It is true, that his having the
same nature with the Father might be reckoned, by some, a
character of Sonship, as it contains one ingredient in the common
idea that we have among men. They, as sons, are said to
have the same kind of nature with their fathers; so our Saviour’s
having the same individual nature with the Father might give
occasion to some to denominate him, for that reason, his Son;
but though this may be the foundation of his being called God’s
proper Son, ιδιος υιος, yet this is not his distinguishing character
as a Son: for it would follow from hence, that the Holy Ghost,
who has the same nature with the Father, would, for that reason,
be called his Son, which is contrary to the scripture-account
given of him, as proceeding from the Father and the Son.
(2.) This character of Christ, as God-man, Mediator, does
not respect his human nature, considered separately from his
divine, nor any of those peculiar honours conferred upon it,
beyond what any mere creatures are made partakers of.
This leads us to consider the difference between this notion
of his Sonship, and that which was generally assigned, as the
reason of his being so called, by the Socinians; these generally
speak of Christ, as being denominated the Son of God, because
of the extraordinary and miraculous conception, or formation,
of his human nature in the womb of the Virgin; and for this
they refer to that scripture in Luke i. 35.[101] The Holy Ghost
// File: b272.png
.pn +1
shall come upon thee, and the power of the highest shall overshadow
thee; therefore also that Holy Thing, which shall be born
of thee, shall be called the Son of God. The sense, in which
// File: b273.png
.pn +1
they understand this text, is, that Christ is called the Son of
God, because of this extraordinary event: But we cannot think
that a miraculous production is a sufficient foundation to support
// File: b274.png
.pn +1
this character, and therefore must conclude, that the glory
of Christ’s Sonship is infinitely greater than what arises from
thence: therefore, I humbly conceive that this scripture is to
be understood, with a small variation of the translation, in this
sense, The Holy Ghost shall come upon thee, &c. because that
Holy Thing, which shall be born of thee, shall be called, as he
really is, the Son of God; that is, he is as Mediator, an extraordinary
Person appointed to execute a glorious office, the Godhead
and the manhood being to be united together, upon which
account he is called the Son of God: and therefore it is expedient
that the formation of his human nature should be in an
extraordinary way, to wit, by the power of the Holy Ghost.
Again, there is a very wide difference between our account
of Christ’s Sonship, as Mediator, and theirs, as taken from this
scripture, in that they suppose that his being called the Son of
God, refers only to some dignities conferred upon him, whom
they suppose to be no more than a man. This is infinitely below
the glory, which we ascribe to him, as Mediator, since their
idea of him, as such, how extraordinary soever his conception
was, argues him to be no more than a creature; but ours, as
has been before observed, proves him a divine Person, since
we never speak of him, as Mediator, without including both
natures.
Having premised these things, to explain our sense of Christ’s
being called the Son of God, as Mediator, we proceed to prove
this from scripture. And here we are not under a necessity of
straining the sense of a few scriptures, to make them speak
agreeably to this notion of Christ’s Sonship; but, I think, we
have the whole scripture, whenever it speaks of Christ, as the
Son of God, as giving countenance to this plain sense thereof;
so that I cannot find one place, in the whole New Testament,
in which Christ is called the Son of God, but it is, with sufficient
evidence, proved, from the context, that it is applied to
him, as Mediator. Here we shall refer to several scriptures,
in which he is so considered: thus that scripture before-mentioned,
in Matth. xvi. 16. where Peter confesses, Thou art
Christ, the Son of the living God; in which, speaking of him as
// File: b275.png
.pn +1
Christ, or the Mediator, that is, the Person who was invested
in the office, and came to perform the work of a Mediator, he
is, in this respect, the Son of the living God; so when the high
priest asked our Saviour, Matth. xxvi. 63. Art thou the Christ,
the Son of God? that is, art thou the Messiah, as thou art supposed
to be by thy followers? Our Saviour, in ver. 64. replied
to him, Thou hast said, that is, it is as thou hast said; and then
he describes himself in another character, by which he is often
represented, as Mediator, and speaks of the highest degree of
his Mediatorial glory to which he shall be advanced at his second
coming, ver. 64. Nevertheless, I say unto you, Hereafter
shall ye see the Son of man sitting on the right hand of power,
and coming in the clouds of heaven. And, doubtless, the centurion,
and they who were with him, when they confessed that
he was the Son of God, in Matth. xxvii. 54. understood by it,
that he was the Messiah, or the Christ, which is a character by
which he was most known, and which had been supported by so
many miracles, and was now confirmed by this miracle of the
earthquake, which gave him this conviction; also in Luke iv. 41.
when the devils are represented as crying out, Thou art Christ,
the Son of God, it follows, that they knew that he was Christ;
so that the commonly received notion of our Saviour’s Sonship
was, that he was the Christ. And in John xi. 3. when
Jesus says concerning Lazarus, that his sickness was not unto
death, that is, not such as that he should continue in the state of
the dead, but for the glory of God, that the Son of God might be
glorified thereby, the meaning is, that he might give a proof of
his being the Christ, by raising him from the dead; therefore,
when he speaks to Martha, with a design to try whether she
believed he could raise her brother from the dead, and represents
himself to her as the object of faith, she replies, ver. 27.
I believe that thou art the Christ the Son of God, which should
come into the world. Again, it is said, in Acts ix. 20. that Saul,
when converted, preached Christ in the synagogues, that he is
the Son of God, that is, he proved him to be the Messiah; and
accordingly, ver. 22. when he was establishing the same doctrine,
it is said, that he proved that he was the very Christ.
Moreover, our Saviour is farther described, in scripture, as
executing some of his mediatorial offices, or as having received
a commission to execute them from the Father, or as having
some branches of mediatorial glory conferred upon him, at the
same time that he is called the Son of God, which gives us
ground to conclude, that this is the import of his Sonship. Thus
we read, Heb. iv. 14. that we have a great High Priest that is
passed into the heavens, Jesus, the Son of God; and in John i.
29. John the Baptist gives a public testimony to him, as sustaining
// File: b276.png
.pn +1
such a character, which belongs to him, as Mediator,
when he says, Behold the Lamb of God which taketh away the
sins of the world; and afterwards, referring to the same character,
he says, ver. 34. I saw, and bare record, that this is the
Son of God; and at another time he gives a noble testimony to
him, as God-man, Mediator, John iii. 29, &c. when he calls
him, The Bridegroom which hath the bride, that is, who is related
to, and has a propriety, in his church, and that he testifies
what he has seen and heard, and that it is he whom God hath sent,
who speaks the words of God, for God giveth not the Spirit by
measure unto him; and then, as a farther explication hereof, he
says, ver. 35. The Father loveth the Son, and hath given all
things into his hand. This is, in effect, the same, as when he is
called elsewhere, his beloved Son; and, in Heb. iii. 6. Christ is
said to be a Son over his own house, whose house are we; which
denotes not only his propriety in his church, but his being the
Head thereof, as Mediator; and the apostle, 1 Thess. i. 10.
speaks of him, as the Son of God, whom we are to wait for from
heaven; whom he has raised from the dead, even Jesus, which
delivered us from the wrath to come; and, Gal. ii. 20. he speaks
of the Son of God, as one who loved him, and gave himself for
him; and Col. i. 13. he is spoken of as God’s dear Son, and, at
the same time, as having a kingdom, into which his people are
translated; and in the following verse, as the person in whom
we have redemption, through his blood, who is the image of the
invisible God, the first-born of every creature; which seems to
be taken in the same sense as when he said, Heb. i. 2. to have
been appointed Heir of all things, and so referring to him as
God-man, Mediator.
Moreover, when he is considered as a Son related to his Father;
this appears, from the context, to be a description of him
as Mediator. Thus, John xx. 17. he says, I ascend unto my
Father, and your Father; to my God, and your God; that is, my
Father by whom I am constituted Mediator, and your Father,
namely, the God who loves you for my sake: he is first my
God, as he has honoured, loved and glorified me; and then
your God, as he is reconciled to you for my sake; so the apostle
says, 2 Cor. i. 3. Blessed be God, even the Father of our Lord
Jesus Christ; the Father of mercies, and the God of all comfort.
Object. 1. In these scriptures, and others of the like nature,
there are two ideas contained; namely, one of our Saviour, as
the Son of God, by eternal generation; the other of him, as
Mediator; whereas we suppose that one contains only an explication
of the other.
Answ. If Christ’s Sonship, in the sense in which it is generally
explained, were sufficiently proved from other scriptures,
// File: b277.png
.pn +1
which take no notice of his mediatorial character, or works, or
could be accounted for, without being liable to the difficulties
before-mentioned, and if his character, as Mediator, did not
contain in it an idea of Personality, the objection would have
more weight than otherwise it seems to have.
Object. 2. It is said, Gal. iv. 4. God sent forth his Son, made
of a woman, made under the law; therefore he was the Son of
God before he was sent into the world, when made of a woman,
and under the law, that is, his Son by eternal generation.
Answ. The answer I would give to this objection is,
1. It is not necessary to suppose that Christ had the character
of a Son before he was sent, though he had that of a divine
Person; since the words may, without any strain, or force,
upon the sense thereof, be understood thus; when the fulness
of time was come, in which the Messiah was expected, God
sent him forth, or sent him into the world, with the character
of a Son, at which time he was made of a woman, made under
the law; the end whereof was, that he might redeem them that
were under the law.
2. If we suppose Christ had the character of a Son before he
was sent into the world, it will not overthrow our argument:
since he was, by the Father’s designation, an eternal Mediator,
and, in this respect, God’s eternal Son; and therefore, he who
before was so by virtue of the eternal decree, is now actually
sent, that he might be, and do, what he was from all eternity
designed to be, and do: he was set up from everlasting, or
appointed to be the Son of God; and now he is sent to perform
the work which this character implies in it.
Object. 3. It is farther objected, that his Sonship is distinct
from his being Mediator, inasmuch as it is said, Heb. v. 8.
Though he were a Son, yet learned he obedience by the things
which he suffered. Now it cannot, in propriety of speech, be
said, though he were Mediator, yet he learned obedience,
since he was under an obligation to obey, and suffer as Mediator;
therefore the meaning must be, though he were a Son
by eternal generation, yet he condescended to put himself into
such a capacity, as that he was obliged to obey, and suffer, as
Mediator.
Answ. The stress of the objection lies in the word which we
render though, Και περ ων υιος &c. which may be rendered, with a
small variation, though being a Son, he learned obedience by
the things he suffered; but being made perfect, viz. after his
sufferings, he became the author of eternal salvation, unto all
them that obey him; and then it takes away the force of the
objection. However, I see no absurdity if it be rendered, as
it is in the vulgar Latin version, And, indeed, being a Son, he
// File: b278.png
.pn +1
learned obedience[102], and then it proves the argument we are
endeavouring to defend, q. d. it is agreeable to the character
of a son to learn obedience; it was with this view that it was
conferred upon him, and in performing obedience, and suffering
as Mediator, and thereby securing the glory of the divine
perfections in bringing about the work of our redemption,
he acted in pursuance of that character.
Object. 1. It will be farther objected, that what we have said
concerning the Sonship of Christ, as referred to his being
Mediator, has some consequences attending it, which seem
derogatory to his Person; particularly, it will follow from
hence, that had not man fallen, and stood in need of a Mediator,
our Saviour would not have had that character, and therefore
never have been described as the Son of God, or worshipped
as such. And our first parents, while in the state of
innocency, knowing nothing of a Mediator, knew nothing of
the Sonship of Christ, and therefore could not give him the
glory, which is the result thereof. Moreover, as God might
have prevented the fall of man, or, when fallen, he might have
refused to have recovered him by a Mediator; so our Saviour
might not have been the Son of God, that is, according to the
foregoing explication thereof, a Mediator between God and
man.
Answ. This objection may be very easily answered, and the
charge, of Christ’s mediatorial Sonship being derogatory to his
glory, removed; which that we may do, let it be considered,
1. That we allow, that had not man fallen, our Saviour
would not have been a Mediator between God and man; and
the commonly received notion is true, that his being a Mediator
is, by divine ordination and appointment, according to the
tenor of several scriptures relating thereunto; and I see no absurdity
in asserting, that his character, as the Son of God, or
Mediator, is equally the result of the divine will, or decree.
But this I hope, if duly considered, will not contain the least
diminution of his glory, when we farther assert,
2. That though our Saviour had not sustained this character
if man had not fallen, or if God had not designed to bring
about the work of redemption by him, yet he would have been
no less a distinct Person in the Godhead, and, as such, would
have had a right to divine glory. This appears from what
hath been before said, concerning his personality being equally
// File: b279.png
.pn +1
necessary with his Deity, which, if it be not communicated to
him, certainly it has not the least appearance of being the result
of the divine will; and, indeed, his divine personality is
the only foundation of his right to be adored, and not his being
invested in an office, which only draws forth, or occasions our
adoration. When we speak of Christ’s being adored, as Mediator,
it is his divine personality, which is included in that
character, that renders him the object of adoration, and not
his taking the human nature, or being, or doing, what he was,
or did, by divine appointment; and I question whether they,
who assert that he had the divine nature, or personality, communicated
to him, will lay the stress of his right to divine
adoration, on its being communicated, but on his having it,
abstracting from his manner of having it; so when we speak
of Christ as Mediator, it is his having the divine glory, or
personality, which is included in that character, that renders
him the object of adoration; therefore, if man had not fallen,
and Christ had not been Mediator, he would have had a right
to divine glory, as a Person in the Godhead. And I doubt
not but that our first parents, before they fell, had an intimation
hereof, and adored him as such; so that if Christ had not
been Mediator, it would only follow from thence, that he
would not have had the character of a Son, but he would, notwithstanding,
have had the glory of a divine Person; for
though his sonship be the result of the divine will, his personality is
not so.[103]
// File: b280.png
.pn +1
Having enquired into the sense of those scriptures which
treat of the Sonship of Christ, we shall next consider those
that are generally brought to prove the procession of the Holy
// File: b281.png
.pn +1
Ghost; the principal of which, as has been before observed,
are in John xiv. 26. and chap. xv. 26. and xvi. 7. in which he
is said to proceed from the Father, or to be sent by the Father
// File: b282.png
.pn +1
in Christ’s name, or to be sent by the Son. We have already
considered the most commonly received sense hereof, as including
in it an eternal procession, viz. the communication of
// File: b283.png
.pn +1
the divine essence, or personality to him, as distinguished from
the eternal generation of the Son; but now we shall enquire
whether there may not be another sense given of these scriptures,
// File: b284.png
.pn +1
agreeable to the analogy of faith, that may be acquiesced
in by those, who cannot so well understand, or account for,
the common sense given thereof, which, I humbly conceive, is
// File: b285.png
.pn +1
this: that the Spirit is considered not with respect to the manner
of his subsisting, but with respect to the subserviency of his
acting, to set forth the Mediator’s glory, and that of the Father
// File: b286.png
.pn +1
that sent him. I chuse to call it a subserviency of acting,
without connoting any inferiority in the agent; or if we suppose
that it argues any inferiority in the Holy Spirit, this is
// File: b287.png
.pn +1
only an inferiority in acting, as the works that he does are subservient
to the glory of the Mediator, and of the Father,
though his divine personality is, in all respects, equal with
// File: b288.png
.pn +1
theirs. This explication of these texts, is allowed of by many,
if not by most, of those who defend the doctrine of the Trinity,
notwithstanding their maintaining another notion of the Spirit’s
// File: b289.png
.pn +1
procession from the Father and the Son, from all eternity, in
the sense before considered. I need only refer to that explication
which a great and learned divine gives of these, and
// File: b290.png
.pn +1
such like texts, notwithstanding his adhering, in other respects,
to the common mode of speaking, relating to the eternal generation
of the Son, and procession of the Holy Ghost. His
// File: b291.png
.pn +1
words are these[106]: “All that discourse which we have of the
mission, and sending of the Holy Ghost, and his proceeding
and coming forth from the Father and Son, for the ends
specified, John xiv. 26. and xv. 26. and xvi. 7, 13. concerns
not at all the eternal procession of the Holy Ghost from the
Father and Son, as to his distinct personality and subsistance,
but belongs to that œconomy, or dispensation of the ministry,
that the whole Trinity proceedeth in, for the accomplishment
of the work of our salvation.”
Now if these scriptures, which are the chief in all the New
Testament, on which this doctrine is founded, are to be taken
in this sense, how shall we find a sufficient proof, from other
scriptures, of the procession of the Holy Ghost in any other
sense? Therefore, that we may farther explain this doctrine,
let us consider, that whatever the Son, as Mediator, has purchased,
as being sent by the Father for that end, is applied by
the Holy Ghost, who therefore acts in subserviency to them.
This is generally called, by divines, the œconomy of persons
in the Godhead, which, because it is a word that we often use,
when we consider the distinct works of the Father, Son, and
Spirit, in their respective subserviency to one another, we shall
take occasion briefly to explain, and shew how it may be applied
to them in that respect without inferring any inferiority
as to what concerns their Personal glory. We shall say nothing
concerning the derivation, or use, of the word œconomy,
though we cannot forbear to mention, with indignation, the
sense which some of the opposers of the blessed Trinity have
given of it, while laying aside all the rules of decency and reverence,
which this sacred mystery calls for, they represent
us, as speaking of the family-government of the divine Persons,
// File: b292.png
.pn +1
which is the most invidious sense they could put upon
the word, and most remote from our design in the use of it.
Now that we may explain and apply it to our present purpose,
let it be considered,
1. That all those works, which are the effects of the divine
power, or sovereign will, are performed by all the Persons in
the Godhead, and attributed to them in scripture; the reason
whereof is very evident, namely, because the power and will
of God, and all other divine perfections, belong equally, and
alike, to the Father, Son, and Spirit: if therefore that which
produces these effects belongs to them, then the effects produced
must be equally ascribed to them; so that the Father is
no more said to create and govern the world, or to be the author
of all grace, and the fountain of blessedness, than the Son
and Spirit.
2. Nevertheless, since the Father, Son, and Spirit, are distinct
Persons, and so have distinct personal considerations in
acting, it is necessary that their personal glory should be demonstrated,
or made known to us, that our faith and worship
may be fixed on, and directed to them, in a distinct manner,
as founded thereon.
3. This distinction of the Persons in the Godhead cannot be
known, as their eternal power or Deity is said to be, by the
works of creation and providence, it being a doctrine of pure
revelation; therefore,
4. We are given to understand, in scripture, when it treats
of the great work of our salvation, that it is attributed first to
the Father, then to the Son, as Mediator, receiving a commission
from him to redeem and save his people, and then to the
Holy Ghost, acting in subserviency thereunto; this is what
we are to understand when we speak of the distinct œconomy of
the Father, Son, and Spirit, which I cannot better express
than by considering of it as a divine determination, that the
personal glory of the Father, Son, and Spirit, should be demonstrated
in such a way. Now, to instance in some particular
acts, or works; when a divine Person is represented in
scripture as doing, or determining to do, any thing relating to
the work of our redemption, or salvation, by another divine
Person, who must, for that reason, be considered herein, as
Mediator, it is to be understood of the Father, in this œconomic
sense, inasmuch as, by this means, he demonstrates his
personal glory: thus it is said, Eph. i. 4, 5. He, i. e. the Father,
hath chosen us in him, namely, the Son; and he is said to
have predestinated us unto the adoption of children by Jesus
Christ. Though election and predestination are also applied
to the Son and Spirit, when they have another reference corresponding
with the demonstration of their personal glory, yet,
// File: b293.png
.pn +1
in this place, they are only applied to the Father. And there
are several other scriptures, in which things done are particularly
applied to the Father for the same reason. Thus, 2 Cor.
v. 18, 19. it is said, God hath reconciled us to himself by Jesus
Christ, and that he was in Christ, reconciling the world to himself;
and, in 1 Cor. i. 30. it is said, Of him, namely the Father,
are ye in Christ Jesus, who of God, that is, the Father,
is made unto us wisdom, &c. in which, and several other scriptures
to the same purpose, the Father is, in a peculiar manner,
intended, because considered, as no other divine person is, as
acting by the Mediator, or as glorifying the perfections of the
divine nature, which belong to him, by what this great Mediator
did by his appointment.
Moreover when a divine Person is considered as acting in
subserviency to the Father’s glory, or executing a commission
relating to the work of redemption, which he had received
from him, and accordingly performing any act of obedience in
an human nature assumed by him for that purpose, this is peculiarly
applied to, and designed to demonstrate the Son’s
Personal character, as belonging to no other Person in the Godhead
but him. Of this we have several instances in scripture;
thus though to judge the world be a branch of the divine glory,
which is common to all the Persons in the Godhead; yet there
are some circumstances in the character of a divine Person in
particular, who is denominated as Judge of quick and dead,
that are applicable to none but the Son; and so we are to understand
that scripture, John v. 22. The Father judgeth no man,
but hath committed all judgment unto the Son; that is, the Son
is the only Person in the Godhead who displays his Mediatorial
character and glory, as the Judge of the whole world;
yet when there is another personal character ascribed to God,
as the Judge of all; or when he is said to judge the world in
righteousness, by that Man, to wit, our Lord Jesus, whom he
hath ordained, as in Acts xvii. 31. then this personal character
determines it to belong to the Father.
Again, to give eternal life is a divine prerogative, and consequently
belongs to all the Persons in the Godhead; yet when
a divine Person is said to give eternal life to a people, that
were given to him for that purpose, and to have received power,
or authority, from another, to confer this privilege as Mediator,
then it is peculiarly applied to the Son: thus John xvii.
2. Thou hast given him power over all flesh, that he should
give eternal life to as many as thou hast given him.
Moreover, when a divine Person is said to do any thing in
subserviency to the Mediator; or, as it is said, in John xvi.
14. He shall glorify me; for he shall receive of mine, and shall
shew it unto you, this is peculiarly applied to the Spirit. So
// File: b294.png
.pn +1
when he is said to give his testimony to the mission, or work
of the Mediator, by any divine works performed by him, this
is peculiarly applied to him; or when he is said to sanctify
and comfort, or to seal and confirm believers unto the day of
redemption. Though these being divine works, are, for that
reason, applicable to all the Persons in the Godhead; yet when
he is said to perform them in a way of subserviency to Christ,
as having purchased them, then his distinct personal character,
taken from thence, is demonstrated, and so these works are especially
applied to him. This is what we understand by that
peculiar œconomy, or dispensation, which determines us to
give distinct personal glory to each of the Persons in the Godhead.
And now we are speaking of the Spirit, considered as acting,
whereby he sets forth his Personal glory, we may observe, that,
in compliance with this way of speaking, the gifts and graces
of the Spirit, are, by a metonymy, called the Spirit, as in Acts
xix. 2. when it is said, Have ye received the Holy Ghost? They
said unto him, We have not so much as heard whether there be
any Holy Ghost. We are not to understand it as though they
had not heard whether there were such a Person as the Holy
Ghost; but they had not heard that there was such an extraordinary
dispensation of the gifts of the Holy Ghost conferred on
men; so John vii. 39. it is said, The Holy Ghost was not yet
given, because Jesus was not yet glorified; the word given being
supplied in our translation, and not in the original; it ought
rather to be rendered, The Holy Ghost was not as yet; by which
we are to understand the gifts of the Holy Ghost, and not his
Personality, which was from all eternity.
And here we may farther observe, that when the Holy Ghost
is spoken of as a Person, that word which denotes his Personality,
ought not to be rendered It, but He, as expressive of
his Personal character; but when it is taken in a figurative
sense, for the gifts or graces of the Spirit, then it should be
translated It. This is sometimes observed in our translation of
scripture; as in John xvi. 13. it is said of the Spirit, He will
guide you into all truth, where the Personal character of the
Spirit is expressly mentioned, as it ought to be: but it is not
duly observed by our translators in every scripture; Rom. viii.
16. it is said, The Spirit itself beareth witness, which ought to
have been rendered Himself; as also in ver. 26. The Spirit itself
maketh intercession for us. The same ought to be observed
in all other scriptures, whereby we may be led to put a just
difference between the Spirit, considered as a divine Person;
or as acting, or producing those effects, which are said to be
wrought by him.
Thus concerning the Sonship of Christ, and the procession of
// File: b295.png
.pn +1
the Holy Ghost. What I have said, in attempting to explain
those scripture that treat of the Person of Christ, as God-man,
Mediator, and of his inferiority, in that respect, (or as he is
said to sustain that character) to the Father; as also those
which speak of the subserviency of the Spirit, in acting, to the
Father and the Son, does not, as I apprehend, run counter to the
common faith of those who have defended the doctrine of the
ever blessed Trinity. Therefore I hope that when I call one the
Sonship of Christ, and the other the procession of the Holy
Ghost, this will not be deemed a new and strange doctrine. And
I cannot but persuade myself, that what I have said concerning
the Mediator, as acting in obedience to the Father, and the Spirit,
in subserviency to him, will not be contested by those who
defend the doctrine of the Trinity. And, if I have a little varied
from the common way of speaking, I hope none will be offended
at the acceptation of a word, especially since I have endeavoured
to defend my sense thereof, by referring to many scriptures.
And, if I cannot give into the common explication of the eternal
generation of the Son, and the procession of the Holy Ghost,
I am well satisfied I do no more than what many Christians
do, who have received the doctrine of the Trinity from the
scripture, and are unacquainted with those modes of speaking
which are used in the schools: these appear as much to dislike
them, when used in public discourses about this doctrine, as
any other can do, what has been attempted to explain it in a
different way.
IV. We shall now proceed to consider the Godhead of the
Son, and Holy Ghost, as maintained in one of the answers we
are explaining, by four general heads of argument.
I. From those divine names which are given to them, that
are peculiar to God alone.
II. From their having the divine attributes ascribed to them,
and consequently the divine nature.
III. From their having manifested their divine glory, by
those works that none but God can perform.
IV. From their having a right to divine worship, which none
but God is worthy to receive.
If these things be made to appear, we have all that we need
contend for; and it will be evident from thence, that the Son
and Holy Ghost are God equal with the Father. These heads
of argument we shall apply to them distinctly; and,
First, To the Son, who appears to be God equal with the
Father,
I. From those divine names given to him, that are peculiar
to God alone. And here we shall premise something concerning
the use of names given to persons, together with the design
// File: b296.png
.pn +1
thereof. Names are given to persons, as well as things,
with a twofold design.
1. Sometimes nothing else is intended thereby, but to distinguish
one from another, in which sense the names given are
not in themselves significant, or expressive of any property, or
quality, in those that are so described. Thus most of those
names we read of in scripture, though not all of them, are designed
only to distinguish one man from another, which is the
most common use and design thereof; notwithstanding,
2. They are sometimes given to signify some property in
those to whom they are applied, viz. what they should be, or
do. Thus we have many instances, in scripture, of persons called
by names, which have had some special signification annexed
to them, assigned as a reason of their being so called. Thus
Adam had that name given him, because made of earth; and
Eve was so called, because she was the mother of all living.
The same may be said concerning Seth, Noah, Abraham, Isaac,
Jacob, Moses, Joshua, Samuel, and several others, whose respective
names have a signification annexed to them, agreeable
to the proper sense of the words, and the design of their being
so called.
And, to apply this to our present purpose, we may conclude,
that when names are given to any divine Person, they are designed
to express some excellency and perfection belonging to
him; and therefore we shall have sufficient reason to conclude
the Son to be a divine Person, if we can make it appear that he
has those names given to him in scripture, which are proper to
God alone. And,
1. The name Jehovah is given to him, which is peculiar to
God. Here we shall prove, First, that the name Jehovah is peculiar
to God. And, Secondly, that it is ascribed to Christ.
(1.) That the name Jehovah is peculiar to God, whereby he
is distinguished from all creatures: thus it is said, Isa. xlii. 8.
I am the Lord, or Jehovah, that is my name, and my glory will
I not give to another; or, as the text may be rendered, I am
Jehovah, that name of mine, and my glory, which is signified
thereby, will I not give to another: therefore it follows, that it
is an incommunicable name of God: and when he says, I will
not give it to another, it supposes that it necessarily belongs to
him; and therefore that he cannot give it to another, since that
would be unbecoming himself; therefore this name, which is
expressive of his glory in so peculiar a manner, is never given
to any creature.
There are other scriptures to this purpose, in which the name
Jehovah is represented, as peculiar to God. Thus when the
prophet Amos had been speaking of the glory of God, as displayed
in the works of creation and providence, he adds, that
// File: b297.png
.pn +1
the Lord, or Jehovah, is his name, chap. v. 8. So that those
works, which are peculiar to God, might as well be applied to
creatures, as that name Jehovah, which is agreeable thereunto.
And in chap. ix. 6. the prophet gives another magnificent description
of God, with respect to those works that are peculiar
to him, when he says, It is he that buildeth his stories in
the heaven, and hath founded his troop in the earth; he that
calleth for the waters of the sea, and poureth them out upon the
face of the earth; and then he adds, the Lord, or Jehovah, is
his name.
Again, it is said, in Psal. lxxxiii. 18. That men may know,
that thou, whose name alone is Jehovah, art the most high over
all the earth. This is never said of any other divine names,
which are, in a limited sense, sometimes given to creatures;
and, indeed, all creatures are expressly excluded from having a
right hereunto.
Again, there are other scriptures, in which this name Jehovah
is applied to God, and an explication thereof subjoined,
which argues that it is peculiar to him. Thus when Moses desired
of God, that he would let him know what his name was
for the encouragement of the faith of the Israelites, to whom
he sent him, Exod. iii. 13. q. d. he desires to know what are
those divine glories, that would render him the object of faith
and worship; or how he might describe him in such a way to
the children of Israel, whereby they might express that reverence
and regard to him, that was due to the great God, who
sent him about so important an errand. In answer to which
God says, ver. 14. I AM THAT I AM. Thus shalt thou say
unto the children of Israel, I AM hath sent me unto you; which
description of him doth not set forth one single perfection, but
all the perfections of the divine nature; as though he should
say, I am a God of infinite perfection; and then he adds, in the
following verse, Thou shalt say unto the children of Israel, The
Lord, or Jehovah, the God of your fathers hath sent me unto
you; where Jehovah signifies the same with I AM THAT I
AM. And he adds, This is my memorial unto all generations;
therefore this glorious name is certainly peculiar to God.
What has been already observed, under this head, is sufficient
to prove that the name Jehovah is proper to God alone.
But we might hereunto add another argument, of less weight,
which, though we do not lay that stress upon, as though it was
sufficient of itself to prove this matter; yet, being added to
what has been already suggested, it may not be improper to be
mentioned, viz. that the word Jehovah has no plural number,
as being never designed to signify any more than the one God;
neither has it any emphatical particle affixed to it, as other
words in the Hebrew language have; and particularly several
// File: b298.png
.pn +1
of the other names of God, which distinguishes him from others;
who have those names sometimes applied to them; and the
reason of this is, because the name Jehovah is never given to
any creature.
And to this we might add, that since the Jews best understood
their own language, they may, in some respects, be depended
on, as to the sense they give of the word Jehovah; and
it is certain they paid the greatest regard to this name, even to
superstition. Accordingly, they would never pronounce it; but,
instead thereof, use some other expressions, by which they describe
it. Sometimes they call it, that name, or that glorious
name, or that name that is not to be expressed;[107] by which they
mean, as Josephus says,[108] that it was not lawful for them to utter
it, or, indeed, to write it, which, if any one presumed to do,
they reckoned him not only guilty of profaneness, in an uncommon
degree, but even of blasphemy; and therefore it is never
found in any writings of human composure among them. The
modern Jews, indeed, are not much to be regarded, as retaining
the same veneration for this name; but Onkelos, the author
of the Chaldee paraphrase on some parts of scripture, who lived
about fifty years after our Saviour’s time, and Jonathan Ben-Uzziel,
who is supposed to have lived as many years before it,
never insert it in their writings; and, doubtless, they were not
the first that entertained these sentiments about it, but had other
writings then extant, which gave occasion thereunto. Some
critics conclude, from Jewish writers, that it was never pronounced,
even in the earliest ages of the church, except by the
High Priest; and when he was obliged, by the divine law, to
pronounce it, in the form of benediction, the people always expressed
an uncommon degree of reverence, either by bowing,
or prostration; but this is not supported by sufficient evidence.
Others think it took its rise soon after their return from captivity,
which is more probable; however, the reason they assign
for it is, because they reckoned it God’s incommunicable
name.
And here I cannot but observe, that the translators of the
Greek version of the Old Testament, commonly called the
LXX. which, if it be not altogether the same with that mentioned
by Aristæus, which was compiled almost three hundred
years before the Christian Æra, is, without doubt, of considerable
antiquity; these never translate the word Jehovah, but,
instead thereof, put Κυριος, Lord;[109] and, even when it seems absurd
not to do it, as in Exod. vi. 3. when it is said, by my
// File: b299.png
.pn +1
name, Jehovah, was I not known, they render it, by my name,
the Lord, was I not known.[110]
This we take occasion to observe, not as supposing it is a
sufficient proof of itself, of the argument we are maintaining,
but as it corresponds with the sense of those scriptures before
mentioned, by which it appears that this is the proper, or incommunicable,
name of God.
Object. It is objected, by the Anti-Trinitarians, that the name
Jehovah is sometimes given to creatures, and consequently that
it is not God’s proper name; nor does it evince our Saviour’s
Deity, when given to him. To prove that it is sometimes given
to creatures, they refer to several scriptures; as Exod. xvii. 15.
where the altar that Moses erected is called Jehovah Nissi, i. e.
the Lord is my banner; and, in Judges vi. 22. another altar
that Gideon built, is called Jehovah Shallom; and Gen. xxii.
14. it is said, that Abraham called the name of the place, in
which he was ready to offer Isaac, Jehovah Jireh; and, in
Ezek. xlviii. 35. it is said, that Jerusalem, from that day, should
be called Jehovah Shammah; they add also, that the Ark was
called Jehovah, upon the occasion of its being carried up into
the city of David, when it is said, Psal. xlvii. 5. The Lord, i. e.
Jehovah is gone up with a shout, even the Lord with the sound
of a trumpet, and also on other occasions. And the name Jehovah
is often, in the Old Testament, given to angels, and
therefore not proper to God alone.
Answ. 1. When they pretend that the name Jehovah was
given to inanimate things, and in particular to altars, as in the
instance mentioned in the objection, that one of the altars was
indeed called Jehovah Nissi, it is very unreasonable to suppose,
that the name and glory of God was put upon it; had it been
a symbol of God’s presence, it would not have been called by
this name, especially in the same sense in which our Saviour and
the Holy Spirit have it applied to them; and therefore the
meaning of this scripture, as I apprehend, is nothing but this,
that there was an inscription written on the altar, containing
these words, Jehovah Nissi, the design whereof was to signify,
to the faith of those who came to worship there, that the Lord
was their banner: therefore this name, strictly speaking, was
// File: b300.png
.pn +1
not given to the altar, but to God; upon which some, not without
good reason, render the word; he built an altar, and called
the name of it, the altar of Jehovah Nissi. The same may be
said with respect to the altar erected by Gideon, which was
called Jehovah Shalom, or the altar of Jehovah Shalom, to the
end that all who came to offer sacrifice upon it, might hereby be
put in mind that God was a God of peace, or would give peace
to them.
2. As for the place to which Abraham went to offer Isaac,
which is called Jehovah-Jireh, it was the mount Moriah; and
it is certain that this was not known by, or whenever spoken of,
mentioned, as having that name; neither had Abraham any
right to apply to it any branch of the divine glory, as signified
thereby; therefore when it is said, he called the name of the
place Jehovah-Jireh, it is as though he should have said, let all
that travel over this mountain know, that the Lord was seen, or
provided a ram instead of Isaac, who was ready to be offered
up; let this place be remarkable, in future ages, for this amazing
dispensation of providence, and let them glorify God for what
was done here, and let the memory hereof be an encouragement
to their faith. Or else we may farther consider him speaking as
a prophet, and so the meaning is, this place shall be very remarkable
in future ages, as it shall be the mount of vision;
here Jehovah will eminently appear in his temple, which shall
be built in this place. Or if you take the words in another
sense, viz. God will provide, it is as though he should say, as
God has provided a ram to be offered instead of Isaac, so he
will provide the Lamb of God, who is to take away the sin of
the world, which was typified by Isaac’s being offered. So that
the place was not really called Jehovah; but Abraham takes occasion,
from what was done here, to magnify him, who appeared
to him, and held his hand, whom alone he calls Jehovah.
And to this we may add, that when Jerusalem is called Jehovah
Shammah, the Lord is there, the meaning hereof is only
this, that it shall eminently be said in succeeding ages of the
new Jerusalem, that the Lord is there; the city, which was commonly
known by the name Jerusalem, is not called Jehovah, as
though it had any character of divine glory put upon it; but
it implies, that the gospel church, which is signified thereby,
should have the presence of God in an eminent degree; or, as
our Saviour promised to his disciples, Matth. xxviii. 20. that
he would be with them always, even unto the end of the world;
and, as the result thereof, that the gates of hell should not prevail
against it, Matth. xvi. 18.
3. As for the ark; it was not called Jehovah, though the
Psalmist takes occasion, from its being carried up into the city
of David, with a joyful solemnity, and an universal shout, with
// File: b301.png
.pn +1
the sound of a trumpet, to foretel the triumphant and magnificent
ascension of our Saviour into heaven, which was typified
hereby; concerning whom he says, Jehovah is gone up; or,
speaking in a prophetic style, the present, or time past, being
put for the time to come, it is as though he should say, the
Lord, when he has completed the work of redemption on earth,
will ascend into heaven, which shall be the foundation of universal
joy to the church; and then he shall, as the Psalmist
farther observes, reign over the heathen, and sit on the throne
of his holiness.
Again, it does not appear that the ark was called Jehovah,
in Exod. xvi. 33, 34. because, when Aaron is commanded to
lay the pot full of manna before the testimony, that is, the ark,
this is called, a laying it before Jehovah: but the reason of the
expression is this; viz. God hath ordained that the mercy-seat
over the ark should be the immediate seat of his residence,
from whence he would condescend to converse with men, and
accordingly he is said, elsewhere, to dwell between the cherubims;
and, upon this account, that which was laid up before the
ark, might be said to be laid up before the Lord.
But since none are so stupid to suppose that inanimate things
can have the divine perfections belonging to them, therefore
the principal thing contended for in this argument, is, that the
ark was called Jehovah, because it was a sign and symbol of
the divine presence; and from thence they conclude, that the
name of God may be applied to a person that has no right to
the divine glory, as the sign is called by the name of the thing
signified thereby.
To which it maybe answered, that the ark was not only a sacramental
sign of God’s presence, for that many other things
relating to ceremonial worship were; but it was also the seat
thereof: it was therefore the divine Majesty who was called
Jehovah, and not the place of his residence; and it was he alone
to whom the glory was ascribed that is due to his name.
4. When it is farther objected, that the name Jehovah is often
applied to angels, the answer that may be given to this is;
that it is never ascribed to any but him, who is called, by way
of eminence, the angel, or Messenger of the covenant, viz. our
Saviour, Mal. iii. 1. And whenever it is given to him, such
glorious things are spoken of him, or such acts of divine worship
demanded by and given to him, as argue him to be a divine
Person; as will plainly appear, if we consider what the angel
that appeared, in Exod. iii. says concerning himself, ver. 6.
I am the God of thy fathers, the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac,
and the God of Jacob; and it is said, Moses hid his face,
for he was afraid to look upon God; and in verses 7, 8. The
Lord, or Jehovah, said, I have surely seen the affliction of my
// File: b302.png
.pn +1
people that are in Egypt, and I am come down to deliver them;
and ver. 10. I will send thee unto Pharaoh; and then, in the
following verses, he makes mention of his name, as of the great
Jehovah, the I AM, who sent him. And Jacob gives divine
worship to him, when he says, Gen. xlviii. 16. The Angel, that
redeemed me from all evil, bless the lads. I might refer to many
other scriptures, where the Angel of the Lord is said to appear,
in which from the context, it is evident that it was a divine
Person, and not a created angel. The most ancient Jewish writers
generally call him the Word[111] of the Lord.
But this will not properly be deemed a sufficient answer to
the objection, inasmuch as it is not denied, that the Person, who
so frequently appeared in the form of an angel, made use of
such expressions, as can be applied to none but God; therefore
they say that he personated God, or spake after the manner of
his representative, not designing that the glory of the divine
perfections should be ascribed to him, but to Jehovah, whom he
represented.
To which it may be replied, that the angel appearing to Moses,
in the scripture before mentioned, and to several others,
doth not signify himself to personate God, as doubtless he
ought to have done, had he been only his representative, and
not a divine Person; as an embassador, when he speaks in the
name of the king, whom he represents, always uses such modes
of speaking, as that he may be understood to apply what he
says when personating him, not to himself, but to him that sent
him; and it would be reckoned an affront to him, whom he represents,
should he give occasion to any to ascribe the honour
that belongs to his master to himself. Now there is nothing, in
those texts, which speak of this angel’s appearing, that signifies
his disclaiming divine honour, as what did not belong to him,
but to God; therefore we must not suppose that he speaks in
such a way as God doth, only as representing him: we read, indeed,
in Rev. xxii. 8, 9. of a created angel appearing to John,
who was supposed by him, at the first, to be the same that appeared
to the church of old, and accordingly John gave him divine
honour; but he refused to receive it, as knowing that this
character, of being the divine representative, would not be a
sufficient warrant for him to assume it to himself; we must therefore
from hence conclude, that the angel that appeared to the
church of old, and is called Jehovah, was a divine Person.
2. Having considered that the name Jehovah is peculiarly
applied to God, we now proceed to prove that it is given to
the Son, whereby his Deity will appear; and the first scripture
// File: b303.png
.pn +1
that we shall refer to is Isa. xl. 3. The voice of him that crieth
in the wilderness, prepare ye the way of the Lord, or Jehovah,
make Straight in the desert a highway for our God. Now if we
can prove that this is a prophecy of John’s preparing the way of
our Saviour, then it will appear that our Saviour, in this scripture,
is called Jehovah. That it is a prediction of John’s being
Christ’s fore-runner, appointed to prepare the Jews for his reception,
and to give them an intimation, that he, whom they
had long looked for, would suddenly appear, is plain from those
scriptures in the New Testament, which expressly refer to this
prediction, and explain it in this sense: thus Matth. iii. 3. This
is he that was spoken of by the prophet Esaias, saying, The
voice of one crying in the wilderness, Prepare ye the way of
the Lord, make his paths straight; therefore he whose way
John was to prepare, whom the prophet Isaias calls Jehovah, is
our Saviour.
Again, it is said, in Isa. viii. 13. Sanctify the Lord, or Jehovah,
of hosts himself, and let him be your fear and your dread;
where he speaks of a person, whom he not only calls Jehovah,
the Lord of hosts, which alone would prove him to be a divine
Person; but he farther considers him as the object of divine
worship, Sanctify him, and let him be your fear and your dread.
Certainly, if we can prove this to be spoken of Christ, it will
be a strong and convincing argument to evince his proper Deity;
now that it is spoken of him, is very evident, if we compare
it with the verse immediately following, And he shall be for a
sanctuary, which I would chuse to render, For he shall be for
a sanctuary, as the Hebrew particle Vau, which we render And,
is often rendered elsewhere, and so it is assigned as a reason
why we should sanctify him; and then it follows, though we
are obliged so to do, yet the Jews will not give that glory to
him, for he will be to them for a stone of stumbling, and for a
rock of offence, as he shall be for a sanctuary to those that are
faithful. That this is spoken of Christ, not only appears from
the subject matter hereof, as it is only he that properly speaking,
is said to be a rock of offence, or in whom the world was offended,
by reason of his appearing in a low condition therein;
but, by comparing it with other scriptures, and particularly Isa.
xxviii. 16. Behold, I lay in Sion, for a foundation, a stone, a
tried stone, a precious corner stone, a sure foundation; he that
believeth shall not make haste, this will more evidently appear.
In the latter of these scriptures, he is styled, a foundation stone,
the rock on which his church is built; in the former a burthensome
stone; and both these scriptures are referred to, and applied
to him, 1 Pet. ii. 6, 8. Wherefore also it is contained in
the scripture, Behold, I lay in Sion a chief corner stone, elect,
precious; and a stone of stumbling, and a rock of offence to them
// File: b304.png
.pn +1
that are disobedient; where the apostle proves plainly, that our
Saviour is the Person who is spoken of, in both these texts, by
the prophet Isaiah, and consequently that he is Jehovah, whom
we are to sanctify, and to make our fear and our dread.
Again, there is another scripture, which plainly proves this,
viz. Numb. xxi. 5, 6, 7. And the people spake against God, and
against Moses; and the Lord sent fiery serpents among the people,
and they bit the people, and much people of Israel died;
therefore the people came to Moses, and said, We have sinned,
for we have spoken against the Lord, or Jehovah, and against
thee. He, who is called God, in ver. 5. whom they spake against,
is called Jehovah in ver. 7. who sent fiery serpents among them,
that destroyed them, for their speaking against him; now this
is expressly applied to our Saviour by the apostle, 1 Cor. x. 9.
Neither let us tempt Christ, as some of them also tempted, and
were destroyed of serpents.
Again, the prophet Isaiah, having had a vision of the angels,
adoring and ministering to that glorious Person, who is represented,
as sitting on a throne, in chap. vi. 1, 2. he reflects on
what he had seen in ver. 5. and expresses himself in these
words, Mine eyes have seen the King, the Lord, or Jehovah,
of hosts. Now this is expressly applied to our Saviour, in John
xii. 41. These things said Esaias, when he saw his glory, and
spake of him; where it is plain that he intends this vision; as
appears from the foregoing verse, which refers to a part thereof,
in which God foretels that he would blind the eyes, and harden
the hearts of the unbelieving Jews; from whence it is evident,
that the Person who appeared to him, sitting on a throne,
whom he calls Jehovah, was our Saviour.
Again, this may farther be argued, from what is said in Isa.
xlv. 21. to the end, There is no God else besides me, a just God,
and a Saviour, there is none besides me. Look unto me, and be ye
saved, all the ends of the earth; for I am God, and there is none
else, I have sworn by myself, the word is gone out of my mouth in
righteousness, and shall not return, that unto me every knee shall
bow, every tongue shall swear. Surely, shall one say, In the lord
have I righteousness and strength; even to him shall men come,
and all that are incensed against him shall be ashamed. In the
Lord shall all the seed of Israel be justified, and shall glory. This
is a glorious proof of our Saviour’s Deity, not only from his
being called Jehovah, but from several other divine characters
ascribed to him; thus the Person whom the prophet speaks of,
styles himself Jehovah, and adds, that there is no God besides
me; and he is represented as swearing by himself, which none
ought to do but a divine Person; and he encourages all the
ends of the earth to look to him for salvation; so that if it can
be made appear that this is spoken of our Saviour, it will be an
// File: b305.png
.pn +1
undeniable proof of his proper Deity, since nothing more can be
said to express the glory of the Father than this. Now that
these words are spoken of our Saviour, must be allowed by
every one, who reads them impartially, for there are several
things that agree with his character as Mediator; as when all
the ends of the earth are invited to look to him for salvation.
We have a parallel scripture, which is plainly applied to him,
in Isa. xi. 10. And in that day there shall be a root of Jesse,
that is, the Messiah, who should spring from the root or stock
of Jesse; which shall stand for an ensign to the people, to it,
or to him, shall the Gentiles seek, which is the same thing as for
the ends of the earth to look to him; and besides, the word looking
to him is a metaphor, taken from a very remarkable type of
this matter, to wit, Israel’s looking to the brazen serpent for
healing; thus he, who is here spoken of, is represented as a Saviour,
and as the object of faith.
Again, he is represented as swearing by himself; and the
subject matter of this oath is, That unto him every knee should
bow, and every tongue should swear; this is expressly applied
to our Saviour, in the New Testament, as containing a prophecy
of his being the judge of the world, Rom. xiv. 10, 11,
12. We shall all stand before the judgment seat of Christ; for
it is written, As I live, saith the Lord, every knee shall bow to
me, and every tongue shall confess to God; so then every one of
us shall give an account of himself to God. And the same
words are used, with a little variation, in Phil. ii. 10, 11.
That at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, of things in
heaven, and things in earth, and things under the earth; and
that every tongue should confess, that Jesus Christ is Lord, to
the Glory of God the Father.
Again, the person, of whom the prophet speaks, is one against
whom the world was incensed, which can be meant of
none but Christ, as signifying the opposition that he should
meet with, and the rage and fury that should be directed against
him, when appearing in our nature.
Again, he is said to be one in whom we have righteousness,
and in whom the seed of Israel shall be justified; which very
evidently agrees with the account we have of him in the New
Testament, as a person by whose righteousness we are justified,
or whose righteousness is imputed to us for that end.
And this leads us to consider another scripture, Jer. xxiii. 6.
in which it is said, This is his name, whereby he shall be called,
The Lord, or Jehovah, our righteousness. His being called our
righteousness, as was but now observed, implies, that the Messiah,
our great Mediator, is the person spoken of, who is called
Jehovah. But this is farther evinced from the context, inasmuch
as it is said, ver. 5. Behold the days come, viz. the Gospel
// File: b306.png
.pn +1
day, that I will raise unto David a righteous branch, and a
king shall reign and prosper; and shall execute judgment and
justice in the earth; which any one, who judges impartially of
the sense of Scripture, will conclude to be spoken concerning
our Saviour’s erecting the gospel-dispensation, and being the
sole lord and governor of his church. How the exercise of
his dominion over it proves his Deity, will be considered under
a following head. All that we need to observe at present
is, that this description is very agreeable to his character in
Scripture, as Mediator; therefore he is called Jehovah in
this verse.
Object. 1. It is objected, that the words may be otherwise
translated, viz. This is the name, whereby the Lord our righteousness,
namely, the Father, shall call him.
Answ. It may be replied, that the Father is never called in
Scripture, our righteousness as was but now observed; this
being a character peculiar to the Mediator, as it is fully explained
in several places in the New Testament. As to what
may be farther said, in answer to this objection, it is well
known that the Hebrew word יקראו signifies either actively
or passively, as it is differently pointed, the letters
being the same; and we shall not enter into a critical disquisition
concerning the origin, or authenticity of the Hebrew
points, to prove that our translation is just, rather than that
mentioned in the objection; but shall have recourse to the
context to prove it. Accordingly it appears from thence, that
if it were translated according to the sense of the objectors, it
would be little less than a tautology, q. d. I will raise
to David a righteous branch; and this is the name whereby
Jehovah, our righteousness, shall call him, viz. the
Branch; so that at least, the sense of our translation of the text,
seems more natural, as well as more agreeable to the grammatical
construction observed in the Hebrew language, in which
the words of a sentence are not so transposed as they are in the
Greek and Latin, which they are supposed to be, in the sense
of the text contained in this objection.
Object. 2. It is farther objected; that though our translation
of the text were just, and Christ were called Jehovah, yet it
will not prove his Deity, since it is said, in Jer. xxxiii. 16.
speaking concerning the church, This is the name whereby she
shall be called, The Lord, or Jehovah, our righteousness.
Answ. It is evident from the context, that this is a parallel
scripture with that before mentioned; the same person, to wit,
the Branch, is spoken of and the same things predicted concerning
the gospel church, that was to be governed by him. Therefore,
though it is plain that our translators understood this text,
as spoken of the church of the Jews or rather the Gospel-Church,
// File: b307.png
.pn +1
as many others do, yet, if we consider the sense of the Hebrew
words here used יקרא לה, it is very evident that they might, with
equal, if not, with greater propriety, have been rendered, shall
be called by her; and so the sense is the same with that of the
other but now mentioned; the Branch, to wit, our Saviour, is
to be called, The Lord our righteousness, and adored as such
by the church.
There is another scripture, in which our Saviour is called Jehovah,
in Joel ii. 27. And ye shall know that I am the Lord,
viz. Jehovah, your God, and none else; compared with ver. 32.
And it shall come to pass, that whosoever shall call on the name
of the Lord, viz. Jehovah, shall be delivered. In both these
verses, it is evident, that our Saviour is called Jehovah; for the
person, who is so called, in the former of them, is said, ver.
28. to Pour out his Spirit on all flesh; &c. which Scripture is
expressly referred to him, in Acts ii. 16, 17. and this pouring
out of his Spirit on all flesh here predicted is also applied, in
ver. 33. to him; Therefore being by the right hand of God exalted,
and having received of the Father, the promise of the
Holy Ghost, he hath shed forth this which ye now see and hear.
The argument is therefore this: he who was, according to this
prophecy, to pour out his Spirit on all flesh, is called Jehovah,
your God; but this our Saviour is said to have done, therefore
the name Jehovah is justly applied to him. As to the latter
of these verses, viz. 32. Whosoever shall call on the name of
the Lord shall be delivered; this also is referred to, and explained,
as spoken of Christ, in Rom. x. 13. And that the apostle
here speaks of calling on the name of Christ, is plain,
from the foregoing and following verses. In ver. 9. it is expressed,
by confessing the Lord Jesus, and it is there connected
with salvation. And the apostle proceeds to consider, that, in
order to our confessing, or calling on his name, it is necessary
that Christ should be preached, ver. 14, 15. and he farther
adds, in the following verses, that though Christ was preached,
and his glory proclaimed in the gospel, yet the Jews believed
not in him, and consequently called not on his name; which
was an accomplishment of what had been foretold by the prophet
Isaiah, chap. liii. 1. Who hath believed our report, &c.
intimating that it was predicted, that our Saviour should
be rejected, and not be believed in by the Jews: so that
it is very evident the apostle is speaking concerning him,
and applying to him what is mentioned in this scripture,
in the prophecy of Joel, in which he is called Jehovah;
therefore this glorious name belongs to him. Several other
scriptures might have been referred to, to prove that Christ is
called Jehovah, which are also applied to him in the New-Testament,
some of which may be occasionally mentioned under
// File: b308.png
.pn +1
some following arguments; but, I think, what hath been already
said is abundantly sufficient to prove his Deity, from his
having this glorious name given to him; which leads us to consider
some other names given to him for the proof thereof;
accordingly,
2. He is styled Lord and God, in such a sense, as plainly
proves his proper Deity. We will not, indeed, deny, that the
names Lord and God, are sometimes given to creatures; yet we
are not left without sufficient light, whereby we may plainly
discern when they are applied to the one living and true God,
and when not. To assert the contrary, would be to reflect on
the wisdom and goodness of God; and it would not only render
those scriptures, in which they are contained, like the trumpet,
that gives an uncertain sound, but we should be in the greatest
danger of being led aside into a most destructive mistake, in
a matter of the highest importance, and hereby be induced to
give that glory to the creature, which is due to God alone;
therefore we shall always find something, either in the text, or
context, that evidently determines the sense of these names,
whenever they are applied to God, or the creature.
And here let it be observed, that whenever the word God or
Lord is given to a creature, there is some diminutive character
annexed to it, which plainly distinguishes it from the true God:
thus when it is given to idols, it is intimated, that they are so
called, or falsely esteemed to be gods by their deceived worshippers;
and so they are called strange gods, Deut. xxxii. 16.
and molten gods, Exod. xxxiv. 17. and new gods, Judges v.
8. and their worshippers are reproved as brutish and foolish,
Jer. x. 8.
Again, when the word God, is applied to men, there is also
something in the context, which implies, that whatever characters
of honour are given to them, yet they are subject to the divine
controul; as it is said, Psal. lxxxii. 1, 6. God standeth in
the congregation of the mighty he judgeth among the gods; and
they are at best but mortal men; I have said ye are gods, and all
of you are children of the most high, but ye shall die like men;
they are, indeed, described, as being made partakers of the divine
image, consisting in some lesser branches of sovereignty
and dominion; but this is infinitely below the idea of sovereignty
and dominion, which is contained in the word when applied
to the great God.
It is true, God says to Moses, See, I have made thee a god
to Pharaoh, Exod. vii. 1. by which we are not to understand
that any of the divine perfections were communicated to, or
predicated of him; for God cannot give his glory to another:
but the sense is plainly this, that he was set in God’s stead:
thus he is said to be instead of God to Aaron, chap. iv. 16. and
// File: b309.png
.pn +1
the same expression is used by Elihu to Job, chap. xxxiii. 6.
I am according to thy wish in God’s stead; so that Moses’s being
made a god to Pharaoh, implies nothing else but this, that
he should, by being God’s minister, in inflicting the plagues
which he designed to bring on Pharaoh and his servants, be
rendered formidable to them; not that he should have a right
to receive divine honour from them.
Again, when the word God is put absolutely, without any
additional character of glory, or diminution annexed to it, it
must always be understood of the great God, this being that
name by which he is generally known in scripture, and never
otherwise applied, without an intimation given that he is not intended
thereby: thus the Father and the Son are described in
John i. 1. The Word was with God, and the Word was God, and
in many other places of scripture; therefore if we can prove that
our Saviour is called God in scripture, without any thing in
the context tending to detract from the most known sense of
the word, this will be sufficient to prove his proper Deity; but
we shall not only find that he is called God therein; but there
are some additional glories annexed to that name, whereby this
will more abundantly appear.
As to the word Lord, though that is often applied to creatures,
and is given to superiors by their subjects or servants,
yet this is also sufficiently distinguished, when applied to a divine
Person, from any other sense thereof, as applied to
creatures. Now, if we can prove that our Saviour is called
Lord and God in this sense, it will sufficiently evince his proper
Deity; and, in order hereto, we shall consider several scriptures,
wherein he is not only so called, but several characters
of glory are annexed, and divine honours given to him, which
are due to none but a divine Person, which abundantly determines
the sense of these words, when applied to him. And,
(1.) We shall consider some scriptures in which he is called
Lord, particularly, Psal. cx. 1. The Lord said unto my Lord,
Sit thou at my right hand, until I make thine enemies thy foot-stool;
that our Saviour the Messiah, is the person whom David
calls his Lord, is very evident, from its being quoted and
applied to him in the New Testament, in Mat. xxii. 44. &c.
and that by calling him Lord he ascribes divine honour to him,
appears from hence, that when the question was put to the Pharisees,
If Christ were David’s Lord, how could he be his Son?
They might easily have replied to it, had it been taken in a
lower sense; for it is not difficult to suppose that David might
have a son descending from him, who might be advanced to
the highest honours, short of what are divine; but they not
understanding how two infinitely distant natures could be
united in one person, so that at the same time he should be called
// File: b310.png
.pn +1
David’s son, and yet his Lord, in such a sense as proves his
Deity, they were confounded, and put to silence.
But whether they acknowledged him to be a divine Person
or no, it is evident that David considers him as such; or as the
Person who, pursuant to God’s covenant made with him, was
to sit and rule upon his throne, in whom alone it could be said
that it should be perpetual, or that of his kingdom there should
be no end; and inasmuch as he says, ver. 3. Thy people shall
be willing in the day of thy power, speaking of the Person
whom he calls his Lord, who was to be his Son, he plainly infers
that he should exert divine power, and consequently prove
himself to be a divine Person.
Again, if the word Lord be applied to him, as denoting his
sovereignty over the church, and his being the Governor of
the world, this will be considered under the next head, when
we speak concerning those glorious titles and attributes that are
given to him, which prove his Deity; and therefore we shall
waive it at present, and only consider two or three scriptures, in
which he is called Lord, in a more glorious sense than when it
is applied to any creature: thus in Rev. xvii. 14. speaking of
the Lamb, which is a character that can be applied to none but
him, and that as Mediator, he is called Lord of lords, and the
Prince of the kings of the earth, in Rev. i. 5. and the Lord of
glory, in 1 Cor. ii. 8. which will be more particularly considered,
when we speak concerning his glorious titles, as an argument
to prove it; therefore all that we shall observe at present
is, that this is the same character by which God is acknowledged
by those that deny our Saviour’s Deity to be described
in Deut. x. 17. The Lord your God, is God of gods, and Lord
of lords; a great God and terrible; so that we have as
much ground to conclude, when Christ is called Lord, with
such additional marks of glory, of which more in its proper
place, that this proves his Deity, as truly as the Deity of the
Father is proved from this scripture.
(2.) Christ is often in scripture called God, in such a sense,
in which it is never applied to a creature: thus he is called, in
Psal. xlv. 6. Thy throne O God, is for ever, and ever; and
there are many other glorious things spoken of him in that
Psalm, which is a farther confirmation that he, who is here called
God, is a divine Person, in the same sense as God the Father
is; particularly he is said, ver. 2. To be fairer than the
children of men, that is, infinitely above them; and, ver. 11.
speaking to the church, it is said, He is thy Lord, and worship
thou him; and, in the following verses, the church’s compleat
blessedness consists in its being brought into his palace, who is
the King thereof, and so denotes him to be the spring and fountain
of compleat blessedness, and his name, or glory, is to be remembered
// File: b311.png
.pn +1
in all generations, and the people shall praise him for
ever and ever. This glory is ascribed to him, who is called
God; and many other things are said concerning him, relating
to his works, his victories, his trumphs, which are very agreeable
to that character; so that it evidently appears that the
Person spoken of in this Psalm, is truly and properly God.
I am sensible that the Anti-trinitarians will object to this,
that several things are spoken concerning him in this Psalm,
that argue his inferiority to the Father; but this only proves
that the Person here spoken of is considered as God-man,
Mediator, in which respect he is, in one nature, equal, and,
in the other, inferior to him; were it otherwise, one expression
contained in this Psalm would be inconsistent with, and contradictory
to another.
To this we shall only add, as an undeniable proof, that it is
Christ that is here spoken of, as also that he is considered as
Mediator, as but now observed; that the apostle, speaking of
him as Mediator, and displaying his divine glory as such, refers
to these words of the Psalmist, Heb. i. 8. Unto the Son he
saith, Thy throne, O God, is for ever and ever; a sceptre of
righteousness is the sceptre of thy kingdom.
Again, another proof of our Saviour’s Deity may be taken
from Matth. i. 23. Behold a virgin shall be with child, and shall
call his name Emmanuel, which being interpreted, is, God with
us. His incarnation is what gives occasion, as is plain from
the words, for his being described by this name or character,
God with us, which imports the same thing as when it is elsewhere
said, John i. 14. The Word was made flesh, and dwelt
among us. This cannot be applied to any but Christ; to say
the Father is called Emmanuel, is such a strain upon the sense
of the text, as no impartial reader will allow of; for it is plain
that it is a name given to the Son upon this great occasion;
and this is as glorious a display of his Deity, as when God the
Father says, if we suppose that text to be spoken of him elsewhere,
in Exod. xxix. 45. I will dwell amongst the children of
Israel, and will be their God.
Again, Christ’s Deity is proved, in 1 Tim. iii. 16. from
his being styled God, manifest in the flesh, implying, that the
second Person in the Godhead was united to our nature; for
neither the Father nor the Holy Ghost were ever said to be
manifested in the flesh; and, besides, he is distinguished from
the Spirit, as justified by him. And he is not called God, because
of his incarnation, as some Socinian writers suppose;
for to be incarnate, supposes the pre-existence of that nature,
to which the human nature was united, since it is called elsewhere,
assuming, or taking flesh, as it is here, being manifested
therein, and consequently that he was God before this
// File: b312.png
.pn +1
act of incarnation; and there is certainly nothing in the text
which determines the word God to be taken in a less proper
sense, any more than when it is applied to the Father.
Object. It is objected that the word God is not found in all
the manuscripts of the Greek text, nor in some translations
thereof, particularly the Syriac, Arabic, and vulgar Latin,
which render it, the mystery which was manifest in the flesh,
&c.
Answ. It is not pretended to be left out in above two Greek
copies, and it is very unreasonable to oppose these to all the
rest. As for the Syriac and Arabic translations; some suppose
that it is not true in fact that the word God is left out in
the Arabic, and though it be left out in the Syriac, yet it is
contained in the sense there, which is, great is the mystery of
godliness that he was manifested in the flesh; and as for the
vulgar Latin version, that has not credit enough, especially
among Protestants, to support it, when standing in competition
with so many copies of scripture in which the word is
found; therefore we can by no means give up the argument
which is taken from this text to prove our Saviour’s Deity.
Besides as a farther confirmation hereof, we might appeal to
the very words of the text itself, whereby it will plainly appear,
that if the word God be left out of it, the following part
of the verse will not be so consistent with a mystery as it is
with our Saviour; particularly it is a very great impropriety
of expression to say that a mystery, or as some Socinian writers
explain it, the will of God[112], was manifest in the flesh,
and received in a glorious manner; for this is not agreeable to
the sense of the Greek words, since it is plain that εν σαρκι εφανερωθη,
which we render was manifest in the flesh, is justly translated,
being never used in scripture to signify the preaching the gospel
by weak mortal men, as they understand it: but on the
other hand it is often applied to the manifestation of our Saviour
in his incarnation, and is explained when it is said, John
i. 14. that he was made flesh, and we beheld his glory[113]; and as
for the gospel, though it met with reception when preached to
the Gentiles, and there were many circumstances of glory that
attended this dispensation, yet it could not be said for that
reason to be received up into glory. Now since what is said
// File: b313.png
.pn +1
in this verse agrees to our Saviour, and not to the mystery of
godliness, we are bound to conclude that he is God manifest
in the flesh, and therefore that this objection is of no force.
The next scripture which we shall consider, is Acts xx. 28.
Feed the church of God, which he hath purchased with his own
blood, where we observe, that he who is here spoken of is said
to have a propriety in the church; this no mere creature can
be said to have, but our Saviour is not only here but elsewhere
described as having a right to it; thus it is said in Hebrews
iii. 3, 4, 6. He was counted worthy of more glory than Moses,
inasmuch as he who hath builded the house, hath more honour
than the house; and he that hath built all things is God, which
is as though he should say, our Lord Jesus Christ hath not
only built his church but all things, and therefore must be
God; and ver. 6. he is called a Son over his own house; so
that he is the purchaser, the builder, and the proprietor of his
church, and therefore must be a divine person; and then it is
observed, that he that hath purchased this church is God, and
that God hath done this with his own blood; this cannot be
applied to any but the Mediator, the Son of God, whose Deity
it plainly proves.
Object. 1. Some object against this sense of the text, that the
word God here is referred to the Father, and so the sense is,
feed the church of God, that is, of the Father, which He, that
is, Christ, hath purchased with his own blood.
Answ. To this it may be answered, that this seems a very
great strain and force upon the grammatical sense of the words,
for certainly He must refer to the immediate antecedent, and
that is God, to wit, the Son. If such a method of expounding
scripture were to be allowed, it would be an easy matter
to make the word of God speak what we please to have it;
therefore we must take it in the most plain and obvious sense,
as that is which we have given of this text, whereby it appears
that God the Son has purchased the church with his own
blood, and that he has a right to it.
Object. 2. God the Father is said to have purchased the
church by the blood of Christ, which is called his blood, as he
is the Proprietor of all things.
Answ. Though God be the Proprietor of all things, yet no
one, that does not labour very hard to maintain the cause he
is defending, would understand his blood in this sense. According
to this method of speaking, God the Father might be said
to have done every thing that the Mediator did, and so to
have shed his blood upon the cross, as well as to have purchased
the church thereby, as having a propriety in it.
The next scripture, which proves our Saviour’s Deity, is
Rom. ix. 5. Of whom, as concerning the flesh, Christ came, who
// File: b314.png
.pn +1
is over all, God blessed for ever; where he is not only called
God, but God blessed for ever; which is a character too high
for any creature, and is the very same that is given to the Father,
in 2 Cor. xi. 31. who is styled, The God and Father of
our Lord Jesus Christ, which is blessed for evermore, that is,
not only the Object of worship, but the Fountain of blessedness.
Now if Christ be so called, as it seems evident that he
is, then the word God is, in this text, applied to him in the
highest sense, so as to argue him a divine Person. Now that
this is spoken of our Saviour, is plain, because he is the subject
of the proposition therein contained, and is considered, as
being of the fathers, concerning the flesh, i. e. with respect to
his human nature; so that if we can prove that he is here called
God, blessed for ever, we shall have the argument we contend
for, this being the only thing contested by the Anti-trinitarians.
Object. It is objected, that the words maybe otherwise rendered,
namely, Let God, viz. the Father, who is over all, be
blessed for ever, to wit, for this great privilege, that Christ
should come in the flesh; therefore it does not prove that which
we bring it for.
Answ. In defence of our translation of these words, it may
be replied, that it is very agreeable to the grammatical construction
thereof. It is true, Erasmus defends the other sense of
the text, and thereby gives an handle to many after him, to
make use of it, as an objection against this doctrine, which,
he says, may be plainly proved from many other scriptures;
it is very strange, that, with one hand, he should build up,
and, with the other, overthrow Christ’s proper Deity, unless
we attribute it to that affectation which he had in his temper
to appear singular, and, in many things, run counter to the
common sense of mankind; or else to the favourable thoughts
which he appears to have had, in some instances, of the Arian
scheme. It may be observed, that the most ancient versions
render this text in the sense of our translation; as do most of
the ancient fathers in their defence of the doctrine of the Trinity,
as a late writer observes.[114] And it is certain, this sense
given thereof by the Anti-trinitarians, is so apparently forced
and strained, that some of the Socinians themselves, whose
interest it was to have taken it therein, have not thought fit to
insist on it. And a learned writer[115], who has appeared in the
Anti-trinitarian cause, seems to argue below himself, when he
attempts to give a turn to this text, agreeable to his own
scheme; for certainly he would have defended his sense of the
text better than he does, had it been defensible; since we can
receive very little conviction from his alleging, that “It is
// File: b315.png
.pn +1
uncertain whether the word God was originally in the text;
and if it was, whether it be not spoken of the Father.” To
say no more than this to it, is not to defend this sense of the
text; for if there were any doubt whether the word God was
left out of any ancient manuscripts, he would have obliged the
world, had he referred to them, which, I think, no one else
has done: and, since he supposes it uncertain whether it be
not there spoken of the Father, that ought to have been proved,
or not suggested. We might observe, in defence of our translation,
that whenever the words are so used in the New Testament,
that they may be translated, Blessed be God[116], they are
disposed in a different form, or order, and not exactly so as
we read them therein: but, though this be a probable argument,
we will not insist on it, but shall rather prove our translation
to be just, from the connexion of the words, with what
goes immediately before, where the apostle had been speaking
of our Saviour, as descending from the fathers, according to
the flesh, or considering him as to his human nature; therefore
it is very reasonable to suppose he would speak of him as
to his divine nature, especially since both these natures are
spoken of together, in John i. 14. and elsewhere; and why
they should not be intended here, cannot well be accounted
for; so that if our translation be only supposed to be equally
just with theirs, which, I think, none pretend to deny, the connexion
of the parts of the proposition laid down therein, determines
the sense thereof in our favour.
Here I cannot pass over that proof which we have of our
Saviour’s divinity, in 1 John v. 20. This is the true God, and
eternal life; where the true God is opposed, not only to those
idols, which, in the following verse, he advises them to keep
themselves from; in which sense the Anti-trinitarians themselves
sometimes call him the true God, that is as much as to
say, he is not an idol; upon which occasion a learned writer[117]
observes, that they deal with him as Judas did with our Saviour,
cry, Hail Master, and then betray him: they would be
thought to ascribe every thing to him but proper Deity; but
that this belongs to him, will evidently appear, if we can prove
that these words are spoken of him. It is true, the learned
author of the scripture-doctrine of the Trinity[118], takes a great
deal of pains to prove that it is the Father who is here spoken
of; and his exposition of the former part of the text, which
does not immediately support his cause, seems very just, when
he says, The Son of God is come, and hath given us an understanding,
that we may know him that is true, viz. the Father,
// File: b316.png
.pn +1
and we are in him that is true, speaking still of the Father,
by or through his Son Jesus Christ; but, I humbly conceive,
he does not acquit himself so well in the sense he gives of the
following words, upon which the whole stress of the argument
depends, not only in that he takes it for granted, that the word
ουτος, This, refers back, as is most natural and usual, not to the
last word in order, but to the last and principal in sense, namely,
the Father, which is, at least, doubtful, since any unprejudiced
reader, who hath not a cause to maintain, which obliges
him to understand it so, would refer it to the immediate
antecedent, viz. the Son, by whom we have an interest in the
Father; for when he had been speaking of him as Mediator,
and, as such, as the author of this great privilege, namely, our
knowing the Father, and being in him, it seems very agreeable
to describe him as a Person every way qualified for this work,
and consequently as being the true God; and besides, the
apostle had spoken of the Father in the beginning of the verse,
as him that is true, or, as some manuscripts have it, him that
is the true God, as the same author observes; therefore what
reason can be assigned why this should be again repeated, and
the apostle supposed to say we know the Father, who is the
true God, which certainly doth not run so smooth, to say the
best of it, as when we apply it to our Saviour: that author, indeed,
attempts to remove the impropriety of the expression,
by giving an uncommon sense of these words, namely, This
knowledge of God is the true religion, and the way to eternal
life; or, this is the true worship of God by his Son unto eternal
life, which, though it be a truth, yet can hardly be supposed
to comport with the grammatical sense of the words; for
why should the true God be taken in a proper sense in one part
of the verse, and a figurative in the other? And if we take this
liberty of supposing ellipses in texts, and supplying them with
words that make to our own purpose, it would be no difficult
matter to prove almost any doctrine from scripture; therefore
the plain sense of the text is, that our Saviour is the true God
intended in these words; and it is as evident a proof of his
Deity, as when the Father is called, the true God; or the only
true God, as he is in John xvii. 3. where, though he be so called,
nevertheless he is not to be considered as the only Person
who is God, in the most proper sense, but as having the
one divine nature; in which sense the word God is always taken,
when God is said to be one.
Moreover, let it be observed, that he who is here called the
true God, is styled, life eternal, which, I humbly conceive, the
Father never is, though he be said to give us eternal life, in one
of the foregoing verses; whereas it is not only said concerning
our Saviour, that in him was life, John i. 4. but he says, John
// File: b317.png
.pn +1
xiv. 6. I am the life; and it is said in 1 John i. 2. The life was
manifested, and we have seen it, or him, and shew unto you that
eternal life, which was with the Father, προς τον Πατερα which is
an explication of his own words, John i. 1. προς τον Θεον with
God; and then he explains what he had said in ver. 14. of the
same chapter, when he says, the word of life, or the Person who
calls himself the life was manifested unto us; which seems to be
a peculiar phrase, used by this apostle, whereby he sets forth
our Saviour’s glory under this character, whom he calls life, or
eternal life; and he that is so, is the same Person, who is called
the true God; which character of being true, is often used
and applied to Christ, by the same inspired writer, more than
by any other, as appears from several scriptures, Rev. iii. 17,
14, and chap. xix. 11. and though, indeed, it refers to him, as
Mediator, as does also his being called eternal life, yet this
agrees very well with his proper Deity, which we cannot but
think to be plainly evinced by this text.
There is another scripture, which not only speaks of Christ
as God, but with some other divine characters of glory added
to his name, which prove his proper Deity: thus in Isa. ix. 6.
he is styled, the mighty God, and several other glorious titles
are given to him; as, the wonderful Counsellor, the everlasting
Father, the Prince of peace; these are all applied to him, as
one whose incarnation was foretold, to us a Child is born, &c.
And he is farther described as a Person who was to be the
Governor of his church, as it is said, the government shall be
upon his shoulders; all which expressions so exactly agree with
his character as God-man, Mediator, that they contain an evident
proof of his proper Deity.
Object. They who deny our Saviour’s Deity, object, that the
words ought to be otherwise translated, viz. the wonderful
Counsellor, the mighty God, the everlasting Father, shall call
him, the Prince of peace.
Answ. We have before observed, in defence of our translation
of another text,[119] that the Hebrew word, that we translate,
he shall be called, (which is the same with that which is used in
this text) does not fully appear to signify actively; and also
that such transpositions, as are, both there and here, made use
of, are not agreeable to that language; and therefore our sense
of the text is so plain and natural, that any one, who reads it
impartially, without forcing it to speak what they would have
it, would take it in the sense in which we translate it, which
contains a very evident proof of our Saviour’s divinity.
There is another scripture which speaks of Christ, not only as
God, but as the great God, in Tit. ii. 13. Looking for that blessed
// File: b318.png
.pn +1
hope, and the glorious appearing of the great God, and our
Saviour Jesus Christ; none ever denied that he, who is said to
appear, is true and proper God, and therefore the principal
thing we have to prove is, that the text refers only to our Saviour,
or that the apostle does not speak therein of two Persons,
to wit, the Father and the Son, but of the Son; and accordingly,
though we oftentimes take occasion to vindicate our translation,
here we cannot but think it ought to be corrected; and
that the word and should be rendered even:[120] But, because I
would not lay too great a stress on a grammatical criticism,
how probable soever it may be; we may consider some other
things in the text, whereby it appears that our Saviour is the
only Person spoken of therein, from what is said of him, agreeable
to his character as Mediator: thus the apostle here speaks
of his appearing; as he also does elsewhere, in Heb. ix. 28.
He shall appear the second time without sin unto salvation; and
in 1 John iii. 2. When he shall appear, we shall be like him, &c.
and then he who, in this text, is said to appear, is called the
blessed hope, that is, the object of his people’s expectation, who
shall be blessed by him when he appears: thus he is called, in
1 Tim. i. 1. our hope, and in Coloss. i. 27. The hope of glory;
now we do not find that the Father is described in scripture as
appearing, or as the hope of his people. It is true, a late writer[121]
gives that turn to the text, and supposes, that as the Father is
said to judge the world by Jesus Christ, and as when the Son
shall come at last, it will be in the glory of his Father; so, in
that sense, the Father may be said to appear by him, as the
brightness of his glory shines forth in his appearance. But
since this is no where applied to the sense of those other scriptures,
which speak of every eye’s seeing him in his human nature,
// File: b319.png
.pn +1
and plainly refer to some glories that shall be put upon
that nature, which shall be the object of sense; why should we
say that the text imports nothing else but that the Father shall
appear in his appearing, which is such a strain upon the sense of
the words, that they who make use of it would not allow of, in
other cases? I might have added, as a farther confirmation of
the sense we have given of this text, its agreeableness with what
the apostle says, in Tit. ii. 10. when he calls the gospel, The
doctrine of God our Saviour, and with what immediately follows
in ver. 14. where, having before described him as our Saviour,
he proceeds to shew wherein he was so, namely, by giving
himself for us, that he might redeem us from all iniquity;
and he is not only called God our Saviour by this apostle, but
he is so called in 2 Pet. i. 1. where the church is said to have
obtained like precious faith, through the righteousness of God,
and our Saviour Jesus Christ; or as the marginal reading has
it, of our God and Saviour; this seems to be so just a reading
of the text we are considering, that some, on the other side of
the question, allow that the words will very well bear it; but they
think their sense agreeable, as the author but now mentioned
says, to the whole tenor of Scripture, which is little other than a
boast, as though the scripture favoured their scheme of doctrine,
which, whether it does or no, they, who consider the arguments
on both sides, may judge; and we think, we have as
much reason to conclude that our sense of the words, which establishes
the doctrine of our Saviour’s being the great God, is
agreeable to the whole tenor of scripture; but, passing that
over, we proceed to another argument.
There is one scripture in which our Saviour is called both
Lord and God, viz. John xx. 28. And Thomas answered and
said unto him, My Lord, and my God. The manner of address
to our Saviour, in these words, implies an act of adoration, given
to him by this disciple, upon his having received a conviction
of his resurrection from the dead; and there is nothing in
the text, but what imports his right to the same glory which belongs
to the Father, when He is called his people’s God. Herein
they lay claim to him, as their covenant God, their chief
good and happiness; thus David expresses himself, Psal. xxxi.
14. I trusted in thee, O Lord, I said thou art my God; and
God promises, in Hos. ii. 23. that he would say to them which
were not his people, Thou art my God; and chap. viii. 2. Israel
shall cry unto me, My God we know thee; and the apostle Paul
speaking of the Father, says, Phil. iv. 19. My God shall supply
all your need, &c. that is, the God from whom I have all
supplies of grace; the God whom I worship, to whom I owe
all I have, or hope for, who is the Fountain of all blessedness.
Now if there be nothing in this text we are considering, that
// File: b320.png
.pn +1
determines the words to be taken in a lower sense than this, as
there does not appear to be, then we are bound to conclude,
that Christ’s Deity is fully proved from it.
Object. Some of the Socinians suppose, that the words, my
Lord, and my God, contain a form of exclamation, or admiration;
and that Thomas was surprized when he was convinced
that our Saviour was risen from the dead, and so cries out, as
one in a rapture, O my Lord! O my God! intending hereby the
Father, to whose power alone this event was owing.
Answ. Such exclamations as these, though often used in common
conversation, and sometimes without that due regard to
the divine Majesty, that ought to attend them, are not agreeable
to the scripture way of speaking. But, if any scriptures
might be produced to justify it, it is sufficiently evident, that
no such thing is intended in these words, not only because the
grammatical construction will not admit of it,[122] but because the
words are brought in as a reply to what Christ had spoken to
him in the foregoing verse; Thomas answered and said unto
him, My Lord, &c. whereas it is very absurd to suppose, that
an exclamation contains the form of a reply, therefore it must
be taken for an explicit acknowledgment of him, as his Lord, and
his God; so that this objection represents the words so contrary
to the known acceptation thereof, that many of the Socinians
themselves, and other late writers, who oppose our Saviour’s
proper Deity, do not think fit to insist on it, but have recourse
to some other methods, to account for those difficulties, that
lie in their way, taken from this, and other texts, where Christ
is plainly called God, as in John i. 1. and many other places in
the New Testament.
Here we may take occasion to consider the method which
the Anti-trinitarians use to account for the sense of those scriptures,
in which Christ is called God. And,
1. Some have had recourse to a critical remark, which they
make on the word Θεος God, namely, that when it has the article
ὁ before it, it adds an emphasis to the sense thereof, and
determines it to be applied to the Father. And inasmuch as
the word is sometimes applied to him, when there is no article,
(which, to some, would appear an objection, sufficient to invalidate
this remark) they add, that it is always to be applied to
him, if there be nothing in the text that determines it otherwise.
This remark was first made by Origen, and afterwards
largely insisted on by Eusebius, as Dr. Clarke observes;[123] and
he so far gives into it, as that he apprehends it is never applied,
// File: b321.png
.pn +1
when put absolutely in scripture, to any other Person; we shall
therefore enquire into the justice thereof.
By the word God absolutely taken, (whether Θεος have an article
before it or no) we understand nothing else but its being
used without any thing to determine its application, either to
the Father, Son, or Holy Ghost; whereas, on the other hand,
when it is not absolutely used, there are several things, by which
we may certainly know to which of the divine persons it belongs:
thus it is particularly applied to the Father, when there
is something in the text that distinguishes him from the Son or
Spirit: so John xiv. 1. Ye believe in God, viz. the Father, believe
also in me; and in all those scriptures, in which Christ is
called the Son of God, there the word God is determined to be
applied to the Father; and when God is said to act in relation to
Christ as Mediator, as in Heb. ii. 13. Behold, I and the children
which God hath given me, it is so applied.
And the word God is determined to be applied to the Son,
when he is particularly mentioned, and so called, or described,
by any of his Mediatorial works or characters; as in Matt. i.
23. God, viz. the Son, with us; and 1 Tim. iii. 16. God manifest
in the flesh; or when there is any thing in the context,
which discovers that the word God is to be applied to him.
Also, with respect to the Holy Ghost, when any of his Personal
works, or characters, are mentioned in the text or context,
and the word God applied to him, to whom they are ascribed,
that determines it to belong to the Holy Ghost; as in Acts
v. 3, 4. speaking concerning lying to the Holy Ghost, it is explained,
Thou hast not lyed unto men, but unto God; and 1 Cor.
iii. 16. Know ye not that ye are the temple of God, and that the
Spirit of God dwelleth in you; but more of this when we speak
of the Deity of the Holy Ghost. In these, and such like cases,
the word God is not put absolutely; but, on the other hand, it
is put absolutely when there is nothing of this nature to determine
its application; as in those scriptures that speak of the
divine Unity, viz. in Matt. xix. 17. There is none good but
one, that is God; and in 1 Cor. viii. 4. There is none other God
but one; and in James ii. 19. Thou believest that there is one
God, &c. and John x. 33. Thou, being a man, makest thyself
God; and in many other places of the like nature, in which there
is an idea contained of the divine perfections; but it is not particularly
determined which of the Persons in the Godhead is
intended thereby.
This is what we are to understand by the word Θεος, God, being
put absolutely without any regard to its having an article
before it, or not; from whence nothing certain can be determined
concerning the particular application thereof, since many
scriptures might easily be referred to, in which it is put without
// File: b322.png
.pn +1
an article, though applied to the Father; and, on the other hand,
it has very often an article put before it when applied to idols,
or false gods;[124] and the devil is called, ὁ Θεος του αιωνος τουτου, the god
of this world; and it may be observed, that in two evangelists,[125]
referring to the same thing, and using the same words, one has
the word with an article, and the other without.
Therefore, setting aside this critical remark about the application
of the word God, when there is an article before Θεος, the
main thing in controversy is how we are to apply it, when neither
the context, nor any of the rules above-mentioned, give us any
direction, therein, namely, whether it is in that case only to be
applied to the Father, or indifferently to any of the Persons in
the Godhead. The author above-mentioned, in his scripture-doctrine
of the Trinity, always applies it to the Father; and it
may easily be perceived, that he has no other reason than this
to apply many scriptures to the Father, which others, who have
defended the doctrine of the Trinity, in another way, apply to
the Son, as being directed herein by something spoken of him
in the context, as in Rev. xix. 4, 5, 6, 17.[126]
And this is, indeed, the method used by all the Anti-trinitarians,
in applying the word God, especially when found absolutely
in scripture. That which principally induces them hereunto,
is because they take it for granted, that as there is but one
divine Being, so there is but one Person who is truly and properly
divine,[127] and that is the Father, to whom they take it for
granted that the word God is to be applied in scripture to signify
any finite being, as the Son, or any creature below him.
But this supposition is not sufficiently proved, viz. that the one
divine Being is a person, and that this is only the Father, whom
they often call the supreme, or most high God, that is, superior,
when compared with the Son and Spirit, as well as all creatures;
but this we cannot allow of, and therefore cannot see
sufficient reason to conclude, that the word God, when put absolutely,
is to be applied to no other than the Father.
That which I would humbly offer, as the sense of the word,
when thus found in scripture, is, that when the Holy Ghost has
left it undetermined, it is our safest way to consider it as such,
and so to apply it indifferently to the Father, Son, or Spirit,
and not to one person, exclusive of the others: thus when it is
said, Mark xii. 29, 32. The Lord our God is one Lord; and there
is one God, and there is none other but him; the meaning is,
// File: b323.png
.pn +1
that there is but one divine Being, who is called God, as opposed
to the creature, or to all who are not God by nature: thus
when the unity of the Godhead is asserted in that scripture here
referred to, Deut. vi. 4. and Israel was exhorted to serve him,
they are, at the same time, forbidden to go after other gods,
ver. 13, 14. And when it is said, that to love the Lord with all
our heart, soul, mind, and strength, is more than all burnt-offering
and sacrifices, Mark xii. 33. it implies, that religious worship
was performed to God; but it is certain that this was performed
to all the Persons in the Godhead; therefore none of
them are excluded in this scripture, in which the unity of God
is asserted. And however Dr. Clarke concludes Athanasius,
from his unguarded way of speaking, in some other instances,
to be of his side; yet, in that very place, which he refers to,[128]
he expressly says, that when the scripture saith the Father is
the only God, and that there is one God, and I am the First,
and the Last; yet this does not destroy the divinity of the Son,
for he is that one God, and first and only God, &c. And the
same thing may be said of the Holy Ghost.
Again, when it is said, Mat. xix. 17. There is none good but
one, that is God; it implies, that the divine nature, which is predicated
of all the persons in the God-head, hath those perfections
that are essential to it, and particularly that goodness by
which God is denominated All-sufficient: so in Acts xv. 18.
when it is said, Known unto God are all his works; where the
word God is absolute, and not in a determinate sense, applied
either to Father, Son, or Spirit, the meaning is, that all the Persons
in the Godhead created all things, which they are expressly
said to do in several scriptures, and, as the consequence thereof,
that they have a right to all things, which are known unto them.
Object. It will probably be objected to this, that we assert
that there are four divine Persons, namely, the Father, Son, and
Holy Ghost, and the Godhead which is common to them all,
since we call it God, which word in other instances, connotes a
personal character; and, if so, then it will follow, that we are
chargeable with a contradiction in terms, when we say that
there are three Persons in the Godhead, viz. in one Person.
Answ. To this it may be replied, that though the divine nature,
which is common to the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, is
represented, in scripture, as though it were a Person, when it
is called God, yet it is to be taken in a metaphorical sense;
whereas the Father, Son, and Spirit, as has been before considered,
are called Divine Persons properly, or without a metaphor.[129]
Moreover, the divine nature, though it be called God,
is never considered as co-ordinate with, or as distinguished
from the divine Persons, as though it were a Person in the
// File: b324.png
.pn +1
same sense as they are; and therefore, whenever it is so called,
it must be considered as opposed to the creature; as we before
observed, the one God is opposed to those who are not God by
nature. It may also be considered, that those divine perfections,
which are implied in the word God, taken in this sense,
are known by the light of nature; (whereas the divine Personality,
as applied either to the Father, Son, or Spirit, is a matter
of pure revelation) and it is such an idea of God, or the
Godhead, that is intended thereby; so that all the force of this
objection consists only in the sense of a word, and the principal
thing in debate is, whether the word God thus absolutely and
indeterminately considered, is a proper mode of speaking, to
set forth the divine nature: now if the scripture uses the word
in this sense, it is not for us to enquire about the propriety, or
impropriety, thereof; but we must take heed that we do not
pervert, or misunderstand, the sense hereof which they do, who
either speak, on the one hand, of the Godhead, when called
God, as though it were distinct from the Father, Son, and Spirit;
or, on the other hand, understand it only of the Father, as
opposed to the Son and Spirit, as the Anti-trinitarians do, who
deny their proper Deity, and when they assert that there is but
one God, do in effect, maintain that there is but one Person in
the Godhead. Thus concerning the sense in which the Anti-trinitarians
take the word God, when (as it is generally expressed)
it is taken absolutely in scripture, as applying it only
to the Father; we proceed to consider,
2. That they farther suppose that our Saviour is called God,
in the New Testament, by a divine warrant, as a peculiar honour
put upon him; and here they think it not difficult to prove,
that a creature may have a right conferred on him to receive
divine honour; which if they were able to do, it would tend
more to weaken our cause, and establish their own, than any
thing they have hitherto advanced. But this we shall have occasion
to militate against under the fourth head of argument,
to prove the Deity of the Son, viz. his having a right to divine
worship, and therefore shall pass it over at present, and consider
them as intending nothing more by the word God, when applied
to our Saviour, but what imports an honour infinitely below
that which belongs to the Father; and this they suppose
to have been conferred upon him, on some occasions, relating
to the work for which he came into the world. The Socinians,
in particular, speak of his being called God, or the Son of God.
(1.) Because of his having been sanctified and sent into the
world, John x. 36. viz. to redeem it, in that peculiar and low
sense in which they understand the word redemption, of which
more hereafter.
(2.) Also from his extraordinary conception and birth, by
// File: b325.png
.pn +1
the power of the Holy Ghost, as it is said, in Luke i. 35. The
Holy Ghost shall come upon thee, and the power of the Highest
shall over-shadow thee; therefore also that Holy Thing, which
shall be born of thee, shall be called the Son of God.
(3.) Another reason of his having this honour conferred
upon him, they take from his resurrection, and so refer to Rom.
i. 4. in which it is said, that he was declared to be the Son of
God with power, by the resurrection from the dead.
(4.) Another reason hereof they take from his ascension into
heaven, or being glorified, at which time they suppose that
he was made an High Priest, and had, in an eminent degree,
the name and character of God put upon him, for which they
refer to Heb. v. 3. in which it is said, Christ glorified not himself
to be made an High Priest; but he that said unto him,
Thou art my Son, this day have I begotten thee.
But they plainly pervert the sense of these respective texts
but now mentioned, inasmuch as they suppose that his mission,
incarnation, resurrection, and ascension, are the principal reasons
of his being called God; and that his deity is founded not
in the excellency of his nature, but in these relative circumstances,
in which, as an act of grace, this honour was conferred
upon him, which God, had he pleased, might have conferred
on any other creature, capable of yielding obedience to him, or
receiving such a commission from him: whereas, in reality,
these scriptures refer to that glory which he had as Mediator,
as a demonstration of his Deity, and these honours were agreeable
to his character, as a divine Person, but did not constitute
him God, as they suppose.
But these things are not so particularly insisted on by some
late Anti-trinitarians, though they all agree in this, that his right
to divine honour is the result of that authority which he has received
from God, to perform the works which are ascribed to
him, relating to the good of mankind; whereas we cannot but
conclude, from the scriptures before brought to prove his proper
Deity, in which he is called Lord and God, in as strong a
sense, as when those words are applied to the Father, that he is
therefore God equal with the Father.
Thus having considered our Saviour’s proper Deity, as evinced
from his being called Lord and God; and also, that these
names are given to him in such a sense, as that hereby the Godhead
is intended, as much as when it is applied to the Father;
we shall close this head, by considering two scriptures, in which
the divine nature is ascribed to him; and the first of them is in
Coloss. ii. 9. In him dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead bodily;
in which we may observe, that it is not barely said, that
God dwelleth in him, which would not so evidently have proved
his deity, because God is elsewhere said to dwell in others:
// File: b326.png
.pn +1
thus, in 1 John iv. 12. it is said, God dwelleth in us; but here
it is said, the Godhead dwelleth in him, which is never applied
to any creature; and the expression is very emphatical, the fulness,
yea, all the fulness of the Godhead dwelleth in him; what
can we understand thereby, but that all the perfections of the
divine nature belong to him? The apostle had been speaking,
in ver. 2. of the mystery of Christ, as what the church was to
know, and acknowledge, as well as that of the Father; and he
also considers him as the Fountain of wisdom, ver. 3. In whom
are hid all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge; and what is
here spoken concerning him, very well corresponds therewith,
as being expressive of his divine glory; the fulness of the Godhead
is said, indeed, to dwell in him bodily, by which we are
to understand his human nature, as the body is, in some other
scriptures taken for the man; thus, in Rom. xii. 1. we are exhorted
to present our bodies, i. e. ourselves, a living sacrifice
to God; so here the divine nature, as subsisting in him, is said
to dwell in, that is, to have the human nature united to it, which
is meant by its dwelling in him bodily.
The account which some give of the sense of this text, to
evade the force of the argument, taken from thence, to prove
our Saviour’s Deity, does little more than shew how hard the
Anti-trinitarians are put to it to maintain their ground, when
they say that the word Θεοτης, which we render Godhead, signifies
some extraordinary gifts conferred upon him, especially such
as tended to qualify him to discover the mind and will of God;
or, at least, that nothing else is intended thereby, but that authority
which he had from God, to perform the work which
he came into the world about; since it is certain, that this falls
infinitely short of what is intended by the word Godhead, which
must signify the divine nature, subsisting in him, who assumed,
or was made flesh, and so dwelt therein, as in a temple.
There is another scripture, which seems to attribute to him
the divine nature, viz. Phil. ii. 6. where it is said, that he was
in the form of God, and thought it not robbery to be equal with
God; by the form of God, I humbly conceive, we are to understand
the divine nature which he had, and therefore it was no
instance of robbery in him to assert, that he was equal with
God. If this sense of the text can be defended, it will evidently
prove his proper Deity, since it is never said, concerning any
creature, that he is in the form of God, or, as the words may
be rendered, that he subsisted in the form of God; now it is
well known, that the word which we render form, is not only
used by the schoolmen, but by others, before their time, to
signify the nature, or essential properties, of that to which it is
applied; so that this sense thereof was well known in the apostle’s
days. Therefore, why may we not suppose, that the Holy
// File: b327.png
.pn +1
Ghost, in scripture, may once, at least, use a word which would
be so understood by them? And it will farther appear, that
Christ’s Deity is signified thereby, if the following words are
to be understood in the sense contained in our translation, that
he thought it not robbery to be equal with God; now this seems
very plain, for the same word ἡγησατο, he thought, is taken in the
same sense in the third verse of this chapter; Let every man
esteem, or think, others better than themselves; and it is used
about twenty times in the New Testament, five times in this
epistle, besides in this text, and never understood otherwise
than as signifying to think, esteem, or account; and it would destroy
the sense of the respective texts, where it is used, to
take it otherwise. This the Anti-trinitarians themselves will
not deny, inasmuch as it does not affect their cause; notwithstanding
they determine that it must be otherwise translated in
this text; and so they render the words, ουχ ἁρπαγμον ἡγησατο το ειναι
ισα Θεω, he did not covet to be honoured, or was not greedy, or in
haste of being honoured as God[130], that is, he did not affect
to appear like a divine Person, or catch at those divine honours
that did not belong to him. Could this sense of the text be
made out to be just, it would effectually overthrow our argument,
taken from thence, to prove Christ’s proper Deity: but
this is as foreign from the sense of the words, as any sense that
could be put upon them; and all that is pretended to justify it,
is a reference which they make to a phrase, or two, used in a
Greek writer, which is not at all to their purpose[131]. Moreover
// File: b328.png
.pn +1
the sense of this text, as agreeable to the words of our
translation, will farther appear to be just, if we consider, that
our Saviour’s being in the form of God, is there opposed to his
having afterwards been in the form of a servant, or the fashion
of a man; now if the latter be to be understood of his being
truly and properly man, and not to be taken barely for something
in him which resembled the human nature; or if his taking
on him the form of a servant, imports, his being in a capacity
to perform that obedience which was due from him, as
man to God, in a proper, and not a theatrical sense; then it
will follow, that his being in the form of God, as opposed
hereunto, must be taken for his being truly and properly God,
or for his having the divine nature, as before mentioned; which
was the thing to be proved.
I might here consider the sense which Dr. Whitby, in his
annotations, gives of our Saviour’s being in the form of God,
as opposed to that of a servant, (after he had given up the
sense of the words, as in our translation, to the adversary)
which is, that his being in the form of God, implies, his appearing,
before his incarnation, in a bright shining cloud, or
light, or in a flame of fire, or with the attendance of an host
of angels, as he is sometimes said to have done, which the Jews
call Shechinah, or the divine Majesty, as being a visible emblem
of his presence; this he calls the form of God, and his
not appearing so, when incarnate in this lower world, the form
of a servant, as opposed to it; and adds, that when he ascended
into heaven, he assumed the form of God; and therefore
whenever he has occasionally appeared, as to the martyr Stephen
at his death, or to the apostle Paul at his first conversion,
it has been in that form, or with like emblems of majesty
and divinity, as before his incarnation,
Here I would observe concerning this, that what he says of
Christ’s appearing with emblems of majesty and glory before
his incarnation, and the glory that was put upon his human nature
after his ascension into heaven, is a great truth; but as
this is never styled, in scripture, the form of God, nor was
the symbol of the divine glory ever called therein the divine
majesty, however it might be called by Jewish writers; therefore
this has no reference to the sense of this text, nor does it,
in the least, enervate the force of the argument, taken from it,
to prove our Saviour’s proper Deity, any more than this critical
remark on the words thereof does, the sense of our translation,
whereby it evidently appears.
I might also observe the sense which another learned[132] writer
gives of the form of God in this text, which is the same that
// File: b329.png
.pn +1
is given by several of the Socinians; namely, that it has a relation
to his working miracles while here upon earth, which is
certainly very disagreeable to the scope and design of the text,
since he is said to be in the form of God, before he took upon
him the form of a servant, that is, before his incarnation: and
besides, the working miracles, never was deemed sufficient to
denominate a person to be in the form of God, for if it had,
many others, both before and after him, might have had this
applied to them; whereas it is a glory appropriate to him, who
thought it not robbery to be equal with God.
I would not wholly pass over that which some call a controverted
text of scripture, in 1 John v. 7. For there are three
that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy
Ghost; and these three are one, lest it should be thought that I
conclude the arguments, brought by the Anti-trinitarians, sufficiently
conclusive to prove it spurious,[133] but I shall say the
// File: b330.png
.pn +1
less on this subject, because it is a very hard matter to advance
any thing that has not been very largely insisted on, by various
writers; among whom I cannot but mention, with great
// File: b331.png
.pn +1
esteem; one who has defended the scripture-doctrine of the
Trinity with a great deal of learning and judgment, who has
given a particular account of several that have written on either
side of the question[134]. No one pretends to deny, that this
text is not to be found in a great number of manuscripts,
among which some are generally allowed to be of great antiquity;
therefore it is less to be wondered at, that it is left out
in some ancient versions thereof, which were taken from copies
that were destitute of it; all which only proves, that the text
has been corrupted: but the main question is, which of those
copies are to be reckoned genuine, those which have it, or others
which have it not? It must be allowed, that there are a
considerable number, in which the text is inserted, as Beza
and others observe; and it will be a hard matter to prove that
these are all spurious, which must be done, before we shall
be obliged to expunge it out of scripture.
If it be objected, that the manuscripts, which have the text,
are not so ancient as those that are without it, it will be a difficult
matter for them to determine the antiquity thereof, with
such exactness, as, by comparing one with the other, it may
be certainly known, with respect to all of them, which has the
// File: b332.png
.pn +1
preference, and by what a number of years: besides, since it
is certain, that more manuscripts of scripture are lost by far,
than are now known to be in the world; unless we suppose
that religion, in ancient times, was contracted into a very narrow
compass, or that very few, in the first ages of the church,
had copies of scripture by them, which is not to be supposed;
and, if so, then it will be hard to prove that those manuscripts,
which have the text inserted, did not take it from some others,
that were in being before them; so that the genuineness, or
spuriousness of the text, is not to be determined only or principally
by inspection into ancient manuscripts.
Nor can I think it very material to offer conjectures concerning
the manner how the text came first to be corrupted. Dr.
Hammond, and others, suppose, that some one, who transcribed
this epistle, might commit a blunder, in leaving out this
text, because of the repetition of the words in the following
verse, There are three that bare record. It is, indeed, a hard
thing to trace every mistake made by an amanuensis to its first
original; however, this must be concluded, that it is possible
for it to be left out through inadvertency, but it could not be
put in without a notorious fraud; and no one would attempt to
do this, unless some end, which he thought valuable, were answered
thereby. Indeed, if the doctrine of the Trinity could
not have been maintained without such an insertion, I will not
say, that every one, who ever defended it, had honesty enough to
abhor such a vile practice; but this I am bound to say, that if
any one did so, he was guilty not only of fraud, but folly, at
the same time; since the divinity of the Son and Spirit, as well
as of the Father, is maintained throughout the whole scripture;
and the principal thing asserted concerning the Son, in
this text, viz. that he is One with the Father, is expressly laid
down in his own words, John x. 30. I and my Father are one.
I know the Arians take occasion to censure the defenders of
the doctrine of the Trinity, as being guilty of this fraud, though
Father Simon[135] is a little more sparing of his reflections on
them; but he is no less injurious to the truth, when he maintains,
that some person or other, in the margin of a copy,
which he had by him, which he supposes to have been about
five hundred years old, had affixed to ver. 8. these words, as
an explication thereof, as though the Father, Son, and Holy
Ghost were intended thereby, to wit, by the Spirit, water, and
blood; and from hence concludes, that the next person, who
transcribed from this manuscript, mistook this note for a part
of the text; and so the 7th verse came to be inserted. This
Le Clerc calls a setting the matter in a clear light; for some
// File: b333.png
.pn +1
persons are ready to believe that which supports their own
cause, how weakly soever it be maintained.
It might easily be replied to this, that this text was known
in the world long enough before that manuscript was wrote,
and consequently this insertion could not first take its rise from
thence; and therefore to produce a single instance of this nature,
is, I humbly conceive, nothing to the purpose[136].
But, passing by what respects scripture-manuscripts, there
is more stress to be laid on the writings of those who have referred
to this text; and accordingly it is certain, that it was
often quoted in defence of the doctrine of the Trinity, by ancient
writers, in the fifth and following centuries, therefore it
was found in the manuscripts that they used. It is true, it is
not quoted by the Fathers, who wrote in the fourth century, to
wit, Athanasius, Cyril, Gregory, Nazianzen, Chrysostom, nor
by Augustin, and some others; but nothing can be inferred
from hence, but that it was not in the copies they made use of:
but it does not follow that it was in no copy at that time; for,
if we look farther back to the third century, we find it expressly
referred to by Cyprian, which I cannot but lay a very great
stress on; he has it in two places[137], in the former of which, he
occasionly mentions these words, These three are one; and, in
the latter, he expressly quotes this scripture; and says, it is
written of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, that these three
are one; which evidently proves, that he found it in some
manuscript extant in his time, which was before any manuscript,
now in being, is pretended to have been written; for even the
Alexandrian manuscript is, I think, supposed by none to be of
greater antiquity than the fourth century, which seems to me
to be of greater force than any thing that is suggested, concerning
its being not found in manuscripts of later date; and we
may observe, that that Father does not speak of it as a certain
manuscript, which was reserved, as a treasure, in some private
library, which might be adulterated; nor doth he pretend
to prove the authority thereof, nor make use of it, to prove the
genuineness of the text; but quotes the text, as we do any
other place of scripture, as supposing it was generally acknowledged
to be contained therein; and he also was reckoned
a man of the greatest integrity, as well as piety, and so would
not refer to any text, as a part of the sacred writings, which
was not so.
Object. It is objected against this, by the Anti-trinitarians,
that though he quotes scriptures, yet it is not this, but ver. 8.
and that not in the words thereof, but in a mystical sense,
which he puts upon it, by the Spirit, water, and blood, agreeing
// File: b334.png
.pn +1
in one, intending the Father, Son, and Spirit, being one:
and this is the sense Facundus, an African bishop, who lived
about the middle of the sixth century, puts upon it, and supposes
him thus to quote it.
Answ. But to this it may be answered, that his judgment is
no more to be valued, who lived three hundred years after him,
than if he had lived in this present age; nor had he any farther
light to understand Cyprian’s meaning, than we have; and
we know very well, that Cyprian was not so unreasonably fond
of mystical interpretations of scriptures, as Origen, and some
others of the Fathers were: and even they never presumed to
quote any mystical sense, which they put on scripture, as the
words thereof, or say, as this Father does, it is so written;
much less are we to suppose that his words are to be taken in
this sense. And whatever Facundus’s sense was of his words,
another who lived in the same century, together with, or a little
before him, viz. Fulgentius, refers (as the learned author
above mentioned[138] observes) to this passage of Cyprian; not
as a mystical explication of ver. 8. but as distinctly contained
in ver 7. and, as such, makes use of it against the Arians.
As for that known passage in Tertullian[139], in which he
speaks of the union, or connexion, as he calls it, of the Father
in the Son, and of the Son in the Comforter, making three
joined together, and that these three are one, that is, one divine
Being, not one Person, and so referring to our Saviour’s
word’s, I and the Father are one, it is a very good explication
of the sense of this text, and discovers that, in that early age
of the church, he had a right notion of the doctrine of the Trinity:
but whether it is sufficiently evident from hence, that he
refers to this scripture under our present consideration, though
defending the doctrine contained in it, I will not determine. I
shall add no more in the defence of the genuineness of this text,
but rather refer the reader to others, who have wrote professedly
on this subject.[140]
And whereas some of the anti-trinitarians have supposed,
that if this scripture were genuine, it doth not prove the doctrine
of the Trinity, because the words ought to be taken as implying,
that the Father, Son, and Spirit, are one only in testimony;
to this it may be answered, that though it be an undoubted
truth that they agree in testimony, yet it doth not amount
to the sense of the words, They are one; for if that had
been the principal idea designed to be conveyed thereby, no reason
can be assigned why the phrase should be different from
// File: b335.png
.pn +1
what it is in the following verse; but it would, doubtless, have
been expressed, εις το ἑν εισιν, They agree in one.
Thus we have endeavoured to prove our Saviour’s proper
Deity from those scriptures that speak of him, not only as a being
called Lord and God, but from others, that assert him to
have the divine nature, or to be equal with God the Father;
we shall now proceed to consider some scriptures, by which it
appears, that he asserts this concerning himself; or what proofs
we have of his Deity from his own words, in several conferences
which he held with the Jews, by which he gave them reason
to conclude that he was God equal with the Father; and the
opposition which he met with from them, who, for this reason,
charged him with blasphemy, plainly intimates, that they understood
his words in this sense. And if it be replied to this, as
it often is, that nothing can be inferred to prove his Deity from
their misunderstanding his words, and so charging him, without
ground to be guilty thereof; to this it may be answered,
though we do not lay much stress on what they understood to
be the meaning of his words, yet it plainly appears, that he intended
them in this sense, inasmuch as if they misunderstood
him, he did not undeceive them, which certainly he ought to
have done, had he not been a divine Person. If any one seems
to assume to himself any branch of the glory of God, that does
not belong to him, though the ambiguity of words, provided
they may be taken in two contrary senses, may in some measure,
excuse him from having had such a design, however unadviseable
it be to speak in such a way, yet if he apprehends that
they, to whom he directs his discourse, are in the least inclined
to misunderstand him, he is obliged, from the regard which he
has to the divine glory, and the duty which he owes to those
with whom he converses, as well as in defence of his own character,
to undeceive them; therefore, if our Saviour had not
been equal with God, he would, doubtless, upon the least suspicion
which the Jews might entertain, that he asserted himself
to be so, immediately have undeceived them, and would
have told them, that they took his words in a wrong sense, and
that he was far from usurping that glory, which belonged to
God; that had he intended them in that sense, they might justly
have called him a blasphemer; this he would, doubtless
have done, had he by his words, given them occasion to think
him a divine Person if he were not so.
Thus the apostles Paul and Barnabas, when the people at Lystra,
upon their having wrought a miracle, concluded that they
were gods, with what zeal and earnestness did they undeceive
them! In Acts xiv. 14, 15. it is said, when they perceived they
were going to offer sacrifice to them, they rent their clothes,
and ran in among the people, crying out, and saying, Sirs, why
// File: b336.png
.pn +1
do ye these things? we also are men of like passions with you.
And, at another time, we read, that Peter and John, in Acts
iii. 11-13. when they had cured the lame man, though the
people did not conclude them to be divine persons, yet, perceiving
that they were amazed, and being jealous that some
thoughts might arise in their minds, as though they had a right
to that glory, which belongs to God alone, or that this miracle
was to be ascribed to themselves, rather than to him, we read,
that when Peter saw that they marvelled, and that the people
ran together, he answered, ye men of Israel, why marvel ye at
this? or why look ye so earnestly on us, as though, by our own
power, or holiness, we had made this man to walk? and accordingly
takes occasion to shew, that the glory hereof was due to
none but God.
But our Saviour takes no such method to exculpate himself
from this charge of blasphemy; therefore we must suppose they
did not mistake his words but that he intended thereby, that
they should understand him to be a divine Person; yea, he is
so far from undeceiving them, if they were deceived, that he
rather confirms, than denies, the sense, which they put upon
them. This appears from Matt. ix. 2-5. when they brought
to him a man sick of the palsey, to whom, when he healed him,
he said, Son be of good cheer, thy sins be forgiven thee, he perceived,
that certain of the scribes said within themselves, This
man blasphemeth, supposing that none had power to forgive sins
but God. It is true, the words might have been understood, as
though he had said, thy sins are forgiven thee, only in a declarative
way, as signifying, that the man had obtained forgiveness
from God, without insinuating thereby, that he had a power,
as a divine Person, to forgive sins. But it is plain, that the
Jews took his words in this latter sense, from their charging
him with blasphemy; but, instead of rectifying the mistake, if
it was one, he asserts, that notwithstanding the meanness of his
appearance, while in his humble state on earth, yet he had a
power to forgive sins; and he not only asserts, but proves this,
when he says, ver. 5. Whether it is easier to say, thy sins be
forgiven thee? or to say Arise, and walk? Many suppose, that
Our Saviour hereby intends to establish his Deity, by asserting
his infinite power, which was exerted in working a miracle, and
so it is as though he should say: he that can produce any effect,
which is above the laws of nature, as miracles are, at least
if he does it by his own power, must be God: but this he had
done, and so proved his deity thereby, and consequently his
right to forgive sins.
But I am sensible it will be objected to this, that since creatures
have wrought miracles, which were as truly and properly
so as this that Christ wrought; therefore the working a miracle
// File: b337.png
.pn +1
will not prove the divinity of the person that wrought it,
unless we could prove that he did it by his own power, that we
cannot do without supposing his deity, and therefore that ought
not to be made use of, as a medium to prove it.
Some, indeed, attempt to prove it from that scripture, Luke
xi. 20. in which he says, he cast out devils by the finger of God,
supposing he means hereby his own divine power. Others take
notice of something peculiar to himself as they suppose, in the
way of his working miracles, that herein he spake, and acted
like a God. But, since neither of these arguments will be reckoned
conclusive, therefore I would take a method somewhat
different, which is not liable to the aforesaid objection, to account
for this matter; and that is that our Saviour first tells
the man, that his sins were forgiven him, knowing, before-hand,
how this would be resented by the scribes, who would, upon
this occasion, charge him with blasphemy, which accordingly
they did; and then, to convince them that he was a divine
Person, and had a power to forgive sin, he wrought a miracle,
and so bade the man, sick of the palsey, to arise and walk;
whereby he proved his deity, of which he designed to give an
extraordinary conviction, and consequently of his having a power
to forgive sin, by an appeal to this miracle. Now though
miracles do not argue the divinity of the person that works
them, from any visible circumstance contained therein as but
now mentioned, yet they effectually prove it, provided this be
the thing contested, and an explicit appeal be made to the divine
power to confirm it by miracles, then they are an undoubted
proof thereof, as much as they prove any thing relating to the
Christian religion: and, in this sense, I humbly conceive,
Christ proved his deity by miracles, which he is expressly said
elsewhere to have done; as in John ii. 11. speaking concerning
his first miracle in Cana of Galilee, it is said, that thereby
he manifested forth his glory, and his disciples believed on him;
where, by his glory is doubtless, meant his divine glory; for
the faith of his disciples, which was consequent hereupon, was a
divine faith: and we never read of the glory of Christ, in his
humbled state more especially, but it must import the glory of
his deity, which his disciples are said, in some measure to behold,
when they believed in him. This Christ confirmed by
his miracles, in the same way, as his mission was confirmed
thereby. By this means, therefore, he proved his deity and
consequently his right to forgive sin: and therefore was so far
from endeavouring to convince the Jews, that they were mistaken
in thinking him a divine person, he farther insists on, and
proves, that he was so.
There is another conference which our Saviour held with
the Jews, mentioned, John vi. in which we read, that after he
// File: b338.png
.pn +1
had healed a lame man on the sabbath-day, for which, ver. 16.
the Jews sought to slay him, as a sabbath-breaker, he replies,
ver. 17. My Father worketh hitherto, and I work; upon which
they were more enraged, and as it is said, ver. 18. sought the
more to kill him, because he had not only broken the sabbath, but
said also, that God was his Father, making himself equal with
God. It is plain they understood his words, as importing that
he was equal with God; and, indeed they could do no otherwise,
for he compares his works with God’s, and speaks of
himself as working co-ordinately with him. Certainly our works
ought not to be mentioned at the same time with God’s; therefore
they suppose that he asserted himself to be a divine Person,
and farther proved it by calling God his Father; which,
according to the sense in which they understood it, denoted an
equality with him. Hereupon they charge him with blasphemy,
and go round about to kill him for it. Now it is certain, that,
if he had not been equal with God, he ought to have undeceived
them, which he might easily have done, by telling them that
though I call God my Father, I intend nothing hereby, but that
I worship, reverence, and yield obedience to him; or that I am
his Son, by a special instance of favour, in such a sense as a
creature may be; but far be it from me to give you the least
occasion to think that I am equal with God, for that would be
to rob him of his glory: but we find that our Saviour is far
from denying his equality with the Father, but rather establishes
and proves it in the following verses.
It is true, indeed, in some passages thereof, he ascribes to
himself the weakness of a man, as having therein respect to
his human nature, which is included in his being the Messiah
and Mediator, as well as his divine: thus he says, ver. 19. The
Son, viz. as man, can do nothing of himself; and ver. 20. The
Father sheweth him all things; but, in other passages, he proves
that he had a divine nature, and farther confirms what he had
before asserted, namely, that he was equal with God; in ver.
21. For as the Father raiseth up the dead, and quickeneth them,
even so the Son quickeneth whom he will. Observe, he not only
speaks of himself, as having divine power, but sovereignty;
the former in that he quickeneth; the latter, in that he does it
according to his own will or pleasure; and, in ver. 23. he signifies
his expectation from men, that all men should honour the
Son, even as they honour the Father. Thus he lays claim to divine
glory, as well as ascribes to himself the prerogative of
raising the whole world, at the general resurrection, and determining
their state, either of happiness or misery, ver. 28, 29.
Marvel not at this; for the hour is coming, in which all that are
in the graves shall hear his voice, and shall come forth; they
that have done good, unto the resurrection of life; and they that
// File: b339.png
.pn +1
have done evil to the resurrection of damnation. From hence,
therefore, we may conclude, that our Saviour was so far from
disclaiming the charge of being equal with God, which they
called blasphemy, that he proves it by arguments yet more convincing.
Another conference, which he held with the Jews about this
matter, we read of in John viii. wherein, taking occasion to
speak concerning Abraham, who rejoiced to see his day, he tells
them plainly, ver. 58. Before Abraham was, I am; not intending
hereby, as the Arians suppose, that he was the first creature,
but that he was equal with God; and, indeed, there seems
to be something in his mode of speaking that argues his asserting
his eternal and unchangeable Deity. The phrase here used
is the same, with a little variation, with that which is used to
set forth the eternity and immutability of God, in Isa. xliii. 13.
Before the day was, I am he. If the prophet is to be understood,
as asserting that God the Father existed before time,
before the day was, or the course of nature began, why may we
not suppose our Saviour to intend as much, when he says, Before
Abraham was, I am.
However, since it will be objected, that this, at best, is but a
probable argument, though it is such as many of the Fathers
have made use of in defending his Deity, yet we will not lay the
whole stress of our cause upon it, but may observe, that whatever
critical remark others may make on the sense of the words,
it is certain the Jews understood them no otherwise, than as implying,
that he thought himself equal with God; therefore it is
said, ver. 59. that they took up stones to stone him; which was
a punishment inflicted, under the law, on blasphemers; and
ought he not, had they misunderstood his words, to have cleared
himself from this imputation, if he had not been equal with
God? But he is far from doing this; for it is said, in the following
words, that he hid himself, and went out of the temple,
going through the midst of them, and so passed by.
Again, there is another conference, which he held with the
Jews, mentioned in John x. in which he speaks like a divine
Person in several verses; as ver. 14. I am the good Shepherd,
and know my sheep, and am known of mine; which is the same
that is ascribed to God, in Psal. xxiii. 1. The Lord is my
Shepherd; and he lays claim to his church, whom he calls his
sheep, as his own; and ver. 18. he speaks of himself, as having
a power over his own life; I have power to lay it down,
and I have power to take it again; which is a greater instance
of dominion than belongs to a creature, who has not a power
to dispose of his own life at pleasure; and, in ver. 28. he ascends
yet higher in his expression, when he speaks of himself,
as having a power to give eternal life to his people, which is certainly
// File: b340.png
.pn +1
the gift of none but God; and when, in ver. 29. he owns
himself to be inferior to his Father, as man; notwithstanding,
in ver. 30. he plainly asserts his Deity, when he says, I and my
Father are one.
Object. 1. The Anti-trinitarians object to this, that Christ
did not speak of himself as one with the Father, any otherwise
than in consent, or, at least, as having power and authority derived
from him.
Answ. To say that those words, I and my Father are one,
imply nothing more than that they are One in consent, does not
well agree with the sense of the foregoing words, in which he
speaks of the greatness, and the power of his Father, and in this
of his being One with him. Besides, had he only meant his
being One with him in consent, as implying the subjection of
all the powers and faculties of his soul to him, that is a sense
in which every good man may be said to be one with God; therefore
the Jews would not have charged him with blasphemy for
it, which, it is plain, they did, and took up stones to stone him,
if his own words had not given them ground to conclude that
he intended more than this, namely, that he was one in nature
with God. It is therefore farther objected,
Object. 2. That the Jews, indeed, misunderstood him, and
nothing can be inferred from their stupidity, to prove his Deity:
but he seems, in the following verses, to do more to the undeceiving
them, than he had done in some of the foregoing instances;
for he tells them plainly the reason why he spake of himself
as a God, namely, because he was a prophet; and these were
called gods, to whom the word of God came, or, at least, that he
had a right to be so called, from his being sanctified, and sent
into the world.
Answ. By these expressions, he does not intend to set himself
upon a level with the prophets of old, but they contain an
argument from the less to the greater; and so it is, as though
he should say, If some persons, who made a considerable figure
in the church of old, and were sent about important services
to them, are called gods, I have much more reason to claim
that character, as having been sanctified, and sent into the
world about the great work of redemption, consecrated, or set
apart to glorify the divine perfections therein; which work, as
will be observed under a following head, proves his Deity; and
therefore we are not to suppose that he disclaims it, when he
speaks of himself, as engaged therein. Then he proceeds yet
farther, in asserting his Deity, when he speaks of his being in
the Father, and the Father in him, which, it is certain, the Jews
took in a very different sense from what those words are taken
in, when applied to creatures, for they concluded, that he spake
of himself as a divine Person; for it follows, ver. 39. that they
// File: b341.png
.pn +1
sought again to take him, but he escaped out of their hand; so
that he still gives them occasion to conclude, that he was God
equal with the Father.
Thus he asserted his Deity in all these various conferrences
with the Jews; in which, if he had not been what they apprehended
him to insinuate that he was, many charges must have
been brought against him; not only as to what concerns matters
of common prudence, as incensing the people by ambiguous
expressions, and thereby hazarding his own life; but his
holiness would have been called in question, had he given occasion
to them, to think that he assumed to himself divine glory,
had he not had a right to it.[141]
And this leads us to consider that last public testimony,
which he gave to his Deity, in the presence of the Sanhedrim,
which, in some respects, may be said to have cost him his life,
when he stood before Pontius Pilate; upon which occasion, the
apostle says, 1 Tim. vi. 13. that he witnessed a good confession:
this we have recorded, Matth. xxvi. 61. where we observe, that
when false witnesses were suborned to testify against him, who
contradicted one another, in their evidence, upon which the
high priest desired that he would make a reply to what they
said, in his own defence, he did not think that worthy of an answer,
and therefore held his peace: but when he was asked, in
the most solemn manner, and adjured by the living God, to tell
them, Whether he were the Christ, the Son of God? that is, the
Messiah, whom the Jews expected, who governed his church
of old, and whom they acknowledged to be a divine Person,
or the Son of God; here the whole matter is left to his own
determination. Had he denied this, he would have saved his
life; and if he confessed it, he was like to die for it. On this
occasion, he does not hold his peace, or refuse to answer; therefore,
says he, ver. 64. Thou hast said; which is as though he
had said, It is as thou hast said, I am the Christ, the Son
of God; and then in the following words, Nevertheless, I say
unto you, Hereafter shall ye see the Son of man, sitting on the
right hand of power, and coming in the clouds of heaven; whereupon
the high priest rent his clothes, and appealed to the people
that they had heard his blasphemy, and accordingly they judged
him worthy of death. Here we observe, that he not only asserts
himself to be the Son of God, and to have a right to the glory
of a divine Person, but, as a farther confirmation thereof, applies
to himself a text, which the Jews, supposed to belong to
the messiah, Dan. vii. 13. I saw in the night-visions, and behold,
one, like the Son of man, came with the clouds of heaven,
&c. So that, from all this, it follows, that if Christ, when he
conversed occasionally with the Jews, or when he was called
// File: b342.png
.pn +1
before the Sanhedrim, asserts himself to be the Son of God,
which includes in it his Deity, and so does not shun to speak
of himself, as equal with God, we have the doctrine, which we
are defending, maintained by himself; therefore we must conclude,
that he really is what he declared himself to be, namely,
God equal with the Father.
II. We proceed to consider how our Saviour’s Deity appears,
from those divine attributes, which are ascribed to him, which
are proper to God alone; to which we shall add, those high and
glorious titles, by which he is described in scripture. The attributes
of God, as has been before observed[142], are all essential
to him, and therefore cannot, in a proper sense, be any of them,
applied to a creature, as they are to Christ, which will be particularly
considered in some following heads.
1. He is said to be eternal, and that not only without end,
as the angels and saints in heaven shall be, but from everlasting:
this appears from Micah v. 2. Whose goings forth have
been from of old, from everlasting. If his goings forth have
been from everlasting, then he existed from everlasting, for action
supposes existence. Nothing more than this can be said,
to prove that the Father was from everlasting: and that this is
spoken of our Saviour is very plain, from the reference to this
text, in Matth. ii. 6. where the former part of this verse is quoted
and explained, as signifying our Saviour’s being born in
Bethlehem; therefore the latter part of it, whose goings forth,
&c. must belong to him. Again, he is said, in John i. 1. to
have been in the beginning; observe, it is not said he was from
but in, the beginning; therefore it is plain, that he existed when
all things began to be, and consequently was from eternity.
When we consider this divine perfection as belonging to our
Saviour, we militate against both the Socinians and the Arians;
as for the former, they deny, that he had any existence, properly
speaking, before his conception in the womb of the virgin Mary,
and interpret all those scriptures that speak of his pre-existence
to it, such as that in John viii. 58. Before Abraham was, I
am, or that the Word was in the beginning, as importing either,
that he was from eternity, in the decree and purpose of God,
relating to his incarnation, in which sense every thing that comes
to pass was eternal, as fore-ordained by God, which is therefore
a very absurd exposition of such-like texts; or else they
suppose, that his being in the beginning signifies nothing else
but his being the Founder of the gospel-state, which cannot
be the sense of the evangelist’s words, because he is said to
be with God; and it immediately follows, and all things were
made by him, which every unprejudiced reader would suppose
to intend the creation of the world, and not the erecting the gospel-dispensation;
// File: b343.png
.pn +1
this therefore evidently appears to be a perversion
of the sense of the text.
As for the Arians, they distinguish between Christ’s being
in the beginning of time, and his being from eternity; and so
they suppose the meaning of the text to be, that the Word was
from the beginning; and whatever disguise they seem to put
upon their mode of speaking, when they say there was not a
point of time in which Christ was not, or that he was before the
world, they are far from asserting that he was without beginning,
or properly from eternity. And, in answer hereunto, let
it be considered, that we cannot conceive of any medium between
time and eternity; therefore whatever was before time,
must be from eternity, in the same sense in which God is eternal.
That this may appear, let us consider that time is the measure
of finite beings, therefore it is very absurd, and little less
than a contradiction, to say that there was any finite being produced
before time; for that is, in effect, to assert that a limited
duration is antecedent to that measure, whereby it is determined,
or limited. If we should allow that there might have been
some things created before God began to create the heavens
and the earth, though these things might be said to have had a
being longer than time has had, yet they could not have existed
before time, for time would have begun with them; therefore
if Christ had been created a thousand millions of ages before
the world, it could not be said that he existed before time; but
it would be inferred from hence, that time, which would have
taken its beginning from his existence, had continued so many
ages; therefore that which existed before time, must have existed
before all finite beings, and consequently was not produced
out of nothing, or did not begin to be, and is properly from
eternity. Therefore I cannot but think the objection evasive, or
a fruitless attempt to take off the force of this argument, to
prove our Saviour’s Deity, since the expressions of scripture, by
which his eternity is set forth, are as strong and emphatical,
as those whereby the Father’s is expressed, and consequently
his Deity is equally evident.
2. Our Saviour is said to be unchangeable, which perfection
not only belongs to God, but is that whereby he is considered
as opposed to all created beings, which are dependent upon him,
and therefore changed by him, at his pleasure. Now that
Christ is immutable, is evident, if we compare the words of the
Psalmist, Psal. cii. 25-27. Of old hast thou laid the foundation
of the earth; and the heavens are the work of thy hands. They
shall perish, but thou shalt endure; yea, all of them shall wax
old like a garment; as a vesture shalt thou change them, and they
shall be changed; but thou art the same, and thy years shall have
no end, with Heb. i. 10. where the apostle uses the same words
// File: b344.png
.pn +1
and considers them as applied to Christ; so that it will be a very
hard matter for any to evade the force of this argument. I
am persuaded, that if the apostle had not applied these words
to Christ, the Anti-trinitarians would have allowed, that the
Psalmist gives as plain an account of the immutability of God,
as can be found in scripture, or, indeed, as words can express.
Some of the writers on that side of the question, have passed
over this scripture, as thinking, I suppose, that it is better not
to attempt to account for it consistently with their scheme,
than to do it in such a way, as will not, in the least, support it:
others do not care to own that they are applied to Christ; but
that is to break the chain of the apostle’s reasoning, and thereby
to fasten an absurdity upon him. Now, that we may briefly
consider the connexion between this and the foregoing verses,
whereby it will evidently appear that our Saviour is the Person
here described, as unchangeable, let us consider, that the design
of this chapter is to set forth the Mediatorial glory of Christ,
to establish his superiority to angels; and after he had referred
to that scripture, which speaks of the eternity of his kingdom,
to wit, the 45th Psalm, ver. 6. he then speaks of him as unchangeable,
and so applies the words of the Psalmist, but now
mentioned, to him. We may also observe, in the text, that he
is not only unchangeable, as to his existence, but his duration
is unchangeable, which farther confirms what was observed under
the last head, that he is eternal, as God is, viz. without
succession, as well as from everlasting: this seems to be contained
in that expression, Thou art the same, thy years shall
not fail, as though he should say, thy duration does not slide,
or pass away by successive moments, as the duration of time
and created beings do.
To this we might add what the apostle says, Heb. xiii. 8.
that he is the same yesterday, to-day, and for ever, that is,
throughout all the changes of time, he remains unchangeably
the same in his divine nature. A late writer[143] supposes the
meaning of this scripture to be nothing but this, that the doctrine
of Christ, once taught by the apostles, ought to be preserved
unchanged: it is true, he says elsewhere,[144] that it is certainly
true that the Person of Christ is the same yesterday, to-day,
and for ever; whether, by yesterday, he means any thing
more than a limited duration of time past, which he must do,
or else give up the doctrine that he every where contends for,
I cannot tell; but he does not think that this text respects the
Person of Christ, but his doctrine as above mentioned; the
principal argument by which he proves it is, its supposed connexion
with the foregoing verse; and so it is as though he
// File: b345.png
.pn +1
should say; Have regard to what has been delivered to you by
those who have preached the word of God, who, though they
are no more among you, yet the doctrine they have delivered
is the same yesterday, to-day, and for ever. But it seems to be
too great a strain on the sense of the words, to suppose Christ
to import the same with his doctrine; and, with submission, I
cannot think that this is to be inferred from what goes before,
or follows after it; but the sense seems to be this; Adhere
to the doctrine you have formerly received from those who
have preached the word of God to you, and be not carried
about with divers and strange doctrines, so as to change your
sentiments with your teachers, for that would not be to act in
conformity to Jesus Christ, who is the same yesterday, to-day,
and for ever; so that he designs to establish their faith from
the consideration of Christ’s immutability, whatever changes
they are liable to from the death of their teachers, or the innovations
of those who succeed them, and endeavour to carry
them away by divers and strange doctrines; so the text seems
to be as plain a proof of our Saviour’s immutability as that
scripture, Rev. i. 4. is of the immutability of God, in which it
is said, He is, was, and is to come. If, by his being yesterday,
we are to understand, as some do, his managing the affairs of
his church under the legal dispensation; and to-day, his governing
them under this present dispensation; and for ever, the eternity
of his kingdom, it plainly proves, that whatever changes
he has made in the affairs of the government of the church and
of the world, yet he is the same, and consequently a divine
Person.
3. Another divine attribute ascribed to our Saviour, is omnipresence,
as in Matt, xviii. 20. Where two or three are gathered
together in my name, there am I in the midst of them; which
expression imports the same thing, with that whereby the divine
omnipresence (as is allowed by all) is set forth in Exod.
xx. 24. In all places where I record my name, I will come unto
thee, and I will bless thee. Now that Christ’s presence in the
midst of his people, in all places, argues his omnipresence, is
very evident, since he designs, by this promise, to encourage
them in all places, and at all times, to perform religious duties,
with an eye to this privilege; so that wherever there is a worshipping
assembly, they have hereby ground to expect that
he will be present with them. Now it is certain, that no creature
can be in two places at the same time, much less in all
places, which is the same as to fill heaven and earth, and is applicable
to God alone, as the prophet expresses it, in Jer. xxiii.
24. Moreover, when Christ says, that he will be with his
people in all places, it must be meant at the same time, and
not successively, otherwise he could not be where-ever two or
// File: b346.png
.pn +1
three are met in his name; this therefore is a plain proof of his
omnipresence, which is an incommunicable perfection of the
divine nature, and consequently argues him to be true and proper
God.
Object. 1. It is objected to the sense we have given of this
scripture, (to weaken the force of the argument taken from it)
that our Saviour is here said to be present, only by his authority,
where two or three are met together in his name; and accordingly
the words are to be taken in a metaphorical sense,
as when a king is said to be present in all parts of his dominions,
where persons, who are deputed to represent him, act by
his authority.
Answ. Though we allow, that whatever is done in Christ’s
name, must be said to be done by his authority; yet we cannot
allow that his being in the midst of them is to be taken only
for his being so by his authority; for we must not suppose that
our Saviour, in these words, makes use of a tautology; and,
indeed, it would be a very jejune and empty way of speaking
to say, that where two or three are met together in my name,
that is, by my authority, there am I in the midst of them, by
my authority. Certainly, Christ’s being in the midst of them,
must be taken in the same sense with that parallel scripture before
referred to, in Exod. xx. 24. where God’s coming to his
people, in those places where he records his name, is explained,
as having a very great privilege attending it, namely, his
blessing them, which he is said to do, when he confers blessedness
upon them, and gives them a full and rich supply of all
their wants; this therefore must be the sense of our Saviour’s
being in the midst of his people.
Moreover, as God is said to be present where he acts, so
Christ’s powerful influence, granted to his people in all places,
which supposes his omnipresence, contains a great deal more
than his being present by his authority; and if that were the
only sense in which this scripture is to be taken, it might as
well be alleged, that all the scriptures, which speak of the
divine omnipresence might be taken in that sense, which would
be to set aside all the proofs we have from thence of this perfection
of the divine nature; therefore this objection seems to
be rather an evasion, than an argument, to overthrow Christ’s
divinity, taken from his omnipresence.
Object. 2. Others suppose that Christ being in the midst of
his people, when met together in his name, implies nothing
more than his knowing what they do when engaged in acts of
religious worship.
Answ. We observe, that they who make use of this objection,
that they may militate against that argument, which is
brought to prove his Deity from his omnipresence, will, for argument’s
// File: b347.png
.pn +1
sake, allow him to be omniscient, not considering
that that equally proves him to be a divine Person, as will be
considered under our next head. Now, to prove that Christ’s
being present with his people, is to be understood of his knowing
what they do, they refer to that scripture, 2 Kings v. 26.
in which Elisha says to Gehazi, as knowing what he had done,
when he followed Naaman, the Syrian, for a reward; Went
not mine heart with thee, when the man turned again from his
chariot with thee? But since this scripture signifies nothing
else but that this secret was revealed to him, which is, in a
figurative way of speaking, as though he had been present with
him, it will not follow from hence that the prophet pretended
to know what was done in all places, and that at all times,
which is more (as will be farther observed under the next
head) than what seems communicable to any creature: but
this is intended by Christ’s knowing all things, and more than
this, doubtless, is meant by his being in the midst of his people,
whereby he encourages them to expect those blessings,
which they stand in need of, from him, in which respect he
promises to be with them in a way of grace; and certainly he
that is so present with his people, must be concluded to be, in
the most proper sense, a divine Person.
There is another scripture, which is generally brought to
prove Christ’s omnipresence, and consequently his proper Deity,
to wit, John iii. 13. And no man hath ascended up to heaven but
he that came down from heaven, even the Son of man which is
in heaven. For the understanding of which words, we must
consider their connexion with what goes immediately before;
thus by, No man hath ascended up into heaven, but he that came
down from heaven, It is plain our Saviour means, that no man
has a full and comprehensive knowledge of heavenly things,
of which he had been speaking in the foregoing verse, but he
that came down from heaven; in which he asserts his divine
omniscience[145], as the person in whom all treasures of wisdom
and knowledge are hid, as it is expressed elsewhere; or none
knows the mysteries which are hid in God, but he that is in
the bosom of the Father, who came down from heaven; or,
as the apostle expresses it, 1 Cor. xv. 47. who is the Lord from
heaven; and then, as a farther proof of his Deity, he adds, that
he is in heaven; that is, while he was on earth, in one nature,
as being omnipresent, he was in heaven in the other nature;
and, agreeably to this sense of the scripture, he is said to come
down from heaven, as his divine nature manifested its glory
here on earth, when the nature was united to it, which is the
only sense in which God is said to come down into this lower
world; as we have the same mode of speaking, in Gen. xi. 7.
// File: b348.png
.pn +1
Exod. iii. 8. and other places; so that if he is thus omnipresent,
we must conclude that he is a divine Person.
The Arians give a very different sense of this text, especially
those words, The Son of man, who is in heaven;[146] for, they
suppose, the words ought to be rendered, was in heaven; and
that it does not argue his omnipresence, but that nature, which
they call divine, first resided in heaven from the beginning,
when it was produced by the Father; and afterwards in his
incarnation, by a removal from heaven to earth it was said to
come down from thence. But, before we allow of this sense
of the text, they must prove that Christ was the first creature,
and that, in this finite nature, he resided in heaven till his incarnation,
and that he afterwards, by a change of place, descended
into this lower world; and, if they could make this
appear, there is yet a difficulty in the expression, as they understand
the words; for it is not usual to say, I came from a
place, and was in that place before I came from it; therefore
whether their exposition of the words, or ours, be most proper,
I leave any one to judge.
As for the Socinians, who deny that Christ had any existence
before his incarnation, these are very much at a loss to
account for the sense of this scripture; though Socinus himself,
and many of his followers, have concluded from thence,
that Christ was taken up into heaven some time after his incarnation,
which they suppose to have been in some part of
those forty days in which the scripture says he was in the
wilderness tempted of the devil; but how he could ascend into
heaven, and yet be in the wilderness, where one of the evangelists
says he was all the forty days, as Mark i. 13. cannot
be easily understood, or accounted for; and, indeed, the scripture
is altogether silent as to this matter: and it is very strange,
if it had been so, that when we have an account of other circumstances
in his life, which are of less importance, no mention
should be made of this, which, had it been discovered,
would have been a great inducement to his followers to have
paid the highest regard to his doctrine; for they suppose he
was taken up into heaven, that he might be instructed in those
things which he was to impart to the world. And, instead of
a proof hereof, they only say that this is a parallel instance
with that of Moses, who was called up to the top of mount
Sinai, which was then the immediate seat of the divine presence,
and there received the law, which he was to impart to
Israel; so, they suppose, it was necessary, that our Saviour
should ascend into heaven, that he might there be instructed
in that doctrine, which he was to communicate to his church.
But we cannot but conclude, that being omniscient, as will
// File: b349.png
.pn +1
be proved under our next head, he had no need to receive instructions,
and having, in his human nature, had an unction
from the Holy Ghost; or, as it is expressed, John iii. 34. that
God gave not the Spirit by measure unto him, therefore it was
necessary that he should ascend into heaven, to receive the
doctrines from thence, which he was to deliver. Moreover,
according to this conjecture, his coming from heaven, in the
end of time, to judge the world, should have been called his
third coming, (as his first coming from thence was in his incarnation,
and his second coming is supposed to be his return
to this world, after he ascended into heaven, during this interval
of time) which is contrary to that text of scripture, in Heb.
ix. 28. which calls it, his coming the second time, without sin,
unto salvation. And, indeed, it is so ungrounded a supposition,
that some of the Socinians themselves reckon it, at most,
but a probable conjecture, but do not pretend to say that it is
sufficiently founded in scripture; and therefore we cannot
think that this will have any tendency to enervate the force of
our argument, to prove Christ’s Deity, taken from the above-mentioned
sense of that text; The Son of man, which is in
heaven.
4. Our Saviour’s Deity may farther be proved, from his
being omniscient: thus the apostle Peter says, in John xxi. 17.
Lord thou knowest all things, thou knowest that I love thee.
This is too great a glory to be ascribed to any creature; and
had it been spoken of the Father, the Anti-trinitarians themselves
would have owned, that it is as great a proof of his
Deity, as any contained in scripture, as importing the same
thing with what the Psalmist says, Psal. cxlvii. 5. His understanding
is infinite. But, besides this there is another expression
that abundantly proves this matter, wherein he is denominated
the Searcher of hearts, which is a glory that God
appropriates to himself, in Jer. xvii. 10. I the Lord search the
hearts, I try the reins, even to give every man according to
his ways; and elsewhere, 1 Chron. xxviii. 9. The Lord searcheth
all hearts, and understandeth all the imaginations of the
thoughts; and all creatures are excluded from having any
branch of this glory, when it is said, in 1 Kings viii. 39. Thou
only knowest the hearts of all the children of men: now such a
knowledge as this is ascribed to Christ; sometimes he is said
to know the inward thoughts and secret reasonings of men
within themselves, Mark ii. 8. And, if it be said, that this is
only a particular instance of knowledge, such as he might have
had by immediate divine inspiration, and therefore that it does
not prove his Godhead; there is another scripture, that speaks
of his knowledge, as more extensive, viz. that he knows the
thoughts of all men, John ii. 25. He needed not that any one
should testify of man, for he knew what was in man; and this
// File: b350.png
.pn +1
his knowledge does not only respect men’s present, but their future
thoughts, which are not known to themselves: thus it is
said, in John vi. 64. that he knew from the beginning who they
were that believed not, and who should betray him. And if all
this be not reckoned sufficient to prove him to be the heart-searching
God, nothing can be expressed in plainer terms than
this is, concerning him, in Rev. ii. 23. All the churches shall
know that I am he which searcheth the reins and hearts; and I
will give unto every one of you, according to your works.
Object. 1. It is objected to this argument for Christ’s omniscience,
taken from Peter’s confession above-mentioned, Lord,
thou knowest all things, &c. that nothing else is intended hereby,
but that he had a very great degree of knowledge; not
that he was strictly and properly omniscient, as supposing that
it is an hyperbolical expression, not altogether unlike that of
the woman of Tekoa to David, in 2 Sam. xiv. 20. when she
says, My lord is wise, according to the wisdom of an angel
of God, to know all things that are in the earth.
Answ. It is true, this expression of her’s is either an unwarrantable
strain of compliment, or flattery, occasioned by
David’s suspecting that Joab had employed her to plead the
cause of Absalom; or else it is a sincere acknowledgment of
his great wisdom, without supposing him to be absolutely omniscient,
as though she should say, thou knowest all things
that are done in the land: there is no plot or contrivance, how
secret soever it may be managed, but thou wilt, some way or
other, find it out, as thou hast done this that I am sent about.
But what reference has this to Peter’s confession? Does it follow,
that because there are hyperbolical expressions in scripture,
as well as in other writings, that this must be one? or
because a wise governor may have a conjectural knowledge of
what is done by his subjects, when considering the various
circumstances that attend their actions, that therefore the apostle
intends nothing more than this? It is plain he appeals to
Christ, as the heart-searching God, concerning the inward
sincerity of his love to him, as well as of his repentance, after
a public and shameful denial of him, which might have given
just occasion for its being called in question; and it is as evident
a proof of his omniscience, as that is of the Father’s, in
Psal. cxxxix. 23, 24. Search me, O God, and know my heart;
try me and know my thoughts, and see if there be any wicked
way in me, &c.
Object. 2. Others, especially some of the Arians, do not so
much deny Christ’s omniscience, as the consequence deduced
from it, to wit, his proper Deity; and these make use of a
more abstruse and metaphysical way of reasoning, and accordingly
they suppose that a creature may know all things, that
// File: b351.png
.pn +1
is, all finite objects, and consequently all things that are done
in the world, namely, all creatures, and all their actions, since
the object of this knowledge is, at most, but finite; therefore
it is possible for a finite mind to be so enlarged, as to take in
all finite things, or to have the knowledge of all things communicated
to it, since the object and the recipient are commensurate
with each other. Therefore our Saviour may know all
things; and yet it will not follow from hence, that his understanding
is infinite, or that his knowledge is so properly divine
as the Father’s is; and consequently this is no sufficient argument
to prove his Deity in the sense in which we understand it.
Answ. This method of reasoning might as well be used to
evade the force of every argument, brought from scripture, to
prove the Father’s omniscience, or, indeed, to evince his infinite
power, since all effects produced, which are the objects
thereof, are but finite; and therefore it may as well be said,
that it does not require infinite power to produce them, nor
prove his eternal power and Godhead.
Moreover, as this would tend to destroy the infinite disproportion
between God and the creature in acting, so it supposes
that God can communicate a branch of his own glory to a creature,
by enlarging it to such a degree, as to take in all finite
objects. There are some things not so properly too great for
God to do, as for a creature to be the subject of: we do not
pretend to set limits to the divine power; yet we may infer,
from the nature of things, and the powers of finite beings, that
it is impossible for any one, below God, to know all things past,
present, and to come, at one view; which our Saviour must be
supposed to do, or else this attribute of omniscience is not justly
applied to him; nor would he be fit to govern the world, as
will be observed under a following head; therefore we must
conclude, from hence, that he is truly and properly a divine
Person.
To what has been said, concerning Christ’s omniscience, we
may subjoin those scriptures that speak of him, as the wisdom
of God, the Fountain of all communicated wisdom, the light
which lighteth every man that cometh into the world, as he is
called, in John i. 9. And it is supposed, by many, that wisdom
spoken of in Prov. viii. is to be understood of our Saviour, as
the personal wisdom of God, inasmuch as there are several
personal characters ascribed to him: thus it is said, ver. 23. I
was set up from everlasting, &c. and ver. 30, 31. Then, to wit,
before the creation of all things, I was by him, as one brought
up with him; and I was daily his delight, rejoicing always before
him, rejoicing in the habitable part of his earth, and my
delights were with the sons of men. This cannot properly speaking,
be applied to God’s essential wisdom; it must therefore be
// File: b352.png
.pn +1
a description of an eternal divine Person, distinct from the
Father.
But since many suppose, that whatever is spoken of wisdom,
in this and some other chapters of this book, is only metaphorical,
or a beautiful description of divine wisdom, as the instructor
of mankind; though we cannot see how this, if nothing else be
intended by it, can agree with some of the personal characters
before mentioned, which seem applicable to our Saviour; yet
we find that he is elsewhere called the wisdom of God, in a sense,
that can by no means be supposed to be figurative: thus when
we read in Luke xi. 49. Therefore also said the wisdom of God,
I will send them prophets and apostles, &c. it is certainly understood
of our Saviour.[147] To which, if it be objected, that, by
the wisdom of God, is meant there the wise God, to wit, the
Father; it may be answered, that another evangelist, referring
to the very same thing, explains what is meant by the wisdom
of God, and represents our Saviour as speaking in his own Person,
Matt. xxiii. 34. Therefore, behold, I send unto you prophets,
and wise men, and scribes, &c.
5. The next divine perfection that is ascribed to Christ, is
almighty power. This attribute is appropriated, by the Arians
to the Father;[148] and accordingly they suppose, that it implies
not only his supremacy over all creatures, but over the Son
and Holy Ghost; and therefore they peremptorily conclude it
is never applied to them, and consequently that the Deity of
our Saviour cannot be proved by it; and that they may turn
our own weapons upon us, or improve some unwary concessions,
made by some very considerable writers, who have, in
other respects, very well defended the doctrine of the Trinity,
they seem to insinuate, as though this were a matter to be taken,
as it were, for granted, though it might easily be made
appear, that they strain the sense of those expressions, from
whence they conclude them to have given up the cause to them,
beyond what they ever intended; and there are many others,
who are far from making such concessions.
As for the word παντοκρατωρ, Almighty, there is nothing in the
derivation thereof, from whence it may justly be inferred, that
it is a perfection, that contains a greater display of the divine
glory, than the other perfections, that are attributed to all the
Persons in the Godhead, though indeed it contains in it an idea
of the universal extent of divine power, with respect to the objects
thereof; yet this is not to be separated from the sense of
the word, when power is ascribed to God in those scriptures,
// File: b353.png
.pn +1
where he is called the Almighty; therefore, if we can prove
that Christ has power ascribed to him, that is properly divine,
this will evince his Deity, as much as though we could produce
several scriptures, in which he is indisputably called the Almighty;
and this we shall first endeavour to do, and then enquire
whether we have not as much, or more reason to conclude,
that he is called Almighty, than they have to deny it.
That power, such as is properly divine, is attributed to Christ,
may be proved from that scripture before-mentioned, which is
evidently applied to him, Isa. ix. 6. where he is called, the
mighty God; and, in Psal. xlv. 3. which, as has been before
observed, is spoken concerning him, in which he is called most
mighty; and, in Phil. iii. 21. we read of his changing our vile
body, that it may be fashioned like unto his glorious body; which
is such an effect of power, as plainly argues it divine, as much
as the production of all things out of nothing could do; and
this is said to be done, according to the working, whereby he
is able to subdue all things to himself. We might observe many
other things, which he has done, and will do, that require infinite
power, which we shall have occasion to consider, when we
prove his deity from his works under a following head.
But since all this is to no purpose, with respect to those who
deny his proper Deity, unless we can prove that he is called
Almighty; and the whole stress of this argument is laid upon
it, for no other reason, as I presume, but because they think it
impossible for us to do it: I shall attempt it; and I hope to
make it appear that we have greater probability, on our side,
that he is so called, than they have ground to deny it. Here I
shall take notice of this perfection of the divine nature, as we
find it in the book of the Revelations, in which this attribute is
mentioned nine times, and, in some places, seems to be applied
to the Father, but in others to the Son.
The first we shall mention is in chap. i. 8. I am Alpha and
Omega, the beginning and the ending, saith the Lord, which is,
and which was, and which is to come, the Almighty; which
seems to be spoken of our Saviour,
1. Because he is described at large in the three foregoing
verses; and there is nothing which gives the least ground to
question its application to him, unless that character s being
given to the Person here spoken of, which is given to the Father,
in ver. 4. which is, and which was, and which is to come; but
since we find in other scriptures, the same divine glories ascribed
to the Son that had before been ascribed to the Father;
as in John v. 21. As the Father raiseth the dead, and quickeneth
them, even so the Son quickeneth whom he will; and in Tit. iii.
4. the Father is called God our Saviour, as appears by comparing
it with the 5th and 6th verses; and so is Christ called,
// File: b354.png
.pn +1
chap. ii. 10, 13. therefore, why may not the Father and the Son
be each of them described with this character, Which was, is,
and is to come? and that more especially, if we consider, that
the ascribing this to Christ, is, in effect, the same with what is
said of him elsewhere, Heb. xiii. 8. where he is said to be the
same yesterday, to-day, and for ever.[149]
2. It farther appears, that this text, in which the Person spoken
of is called Almighty, is applied to Christ, because that
character, Alpha and Omega, seems to be applied to none but
him in other places, where it is used. We find it four times in
this book, viz. not only in this verse, but in ver. 11. in which
it is indisputably applied to him, as will appear, by comparing
it with the followings verses. And, in chap. xxi. 6. he is again
called Alpha and Omega, which, that it is applied to him, appears
from the context; it is he that makes all things new, or
puts a new face upon the affairs of his church; and it is he who
commands John to write what he saw and heard; He said unto
me, Write these words, ver. 5. We may observe, that whereever
John is commanded, in this book, to write, it is Christ
that gives forth the command: thus he said to him before, chap.
i. 19. Write the things which thou hast seen, and the things
which are, and the things which shall be hereafter; and he is
again commanded to write, Blessed are the dead which die in the
Lord, by him who is called the Son of man, chap. xiv. 13, 14.
Again, in chap. xxii. 13. he is called Alpha and Omega, who
is described in the foregoing verse, as coming quickly, whose
reward is with him; which is undoubtedly meant of our Saviour;
for it is said concerning him, ver. 20. Surely I come
quickly, Amen: even so come, Lord Jesus.
That which I infer from hence, is, that if Christ be styled
Alpha and Omega, in all other placed in this book, it is more
than probable he is so in this 8th verse of the 1st chapter, in
which he is said to be the Almighty. And as he is called Alpha
and Omega, so the explication of these words, wherever we
meet with it in this book without the words themselves, is applied
to Christ: thus he is called, chap. i. 17. and ii. 8. the first
and the last; and, chap. iii. 14. the beginning of the creation of
God: from hence, I humbly conceive, we have more ground to
conclude, that Christ is called the Almighty in this verse, than
the Arians have to deny it.
Again, there is another place in this book where he seems to
be styled the Almighty, chap. xv. 3. And they sing the song of
Moses, the servant of God, and the song of the Lamb, saying,
Great and marvellous are thy works, Lord God Almighty; just
and true are thy ways, thou King of saints. This triumphant
song is occasioned by one of the greatest victories which the
// File: b355.png
.pn +1
church expects to obtain in this world: by the song of Moses,
I humbly conceive, is meant the church’s celebrating the glory
of God, for the greatest victory that ever was obtained under
the legal dispensation; and the song of the Lamb, is an acknowledgment
of the greatest that is, or shall be obtained under the
gospel-dispensation; and, in celebrating the Lamb’s victories,
they set forth the praises of the mighty Conqueror in the following
words, Great and marvellous are thy works, Lord God
Almighty: it is the Lamb that is every where described in this
book, as fighting the church’s battles, and obtaining victory for
it; therefore it is his glory which is here set forth.
And as he is always described, in this book, as thus fighting
the church’s battles; so it is he who is described as taking vengeance
on its enemies, which is the just consequence thereof.
Therefore I cannot but conclude, that he is spoken of, in chap.
xvi. 6, 7. as having given their persecutors blood to drink, for
they were worthy; and, in ver. 7. Even so Lord God Almighty,
true and righteous are thy judgments.
Again, in chap. xvi. 14. we read of the battle of that great
day of God Almighty; and then it immediately follows, Behold,
I come as a thief in the night, &c. which expression is known to
be elsewhere applied to our Saviour, and to none but him; and
that it is he who fights the church’s battles, is evident from chap.
xvii. 14. These shall make war with the Lamb, and the Lamb
shall overthrow them; and from chap. xix. 12, &c. where it is
said, his eyes were as a flame of fire; as he is elsewhere described,
chap. i. 14. to denote that the great day of his wrath
was come; and his name is called, in the 13th verse of this
19th chapter, the Word of God; and we read of the armies
which followed him, and that out of his mouth goeth a sharp
sword, that he might smite the nations. From whence we may
conclude, that since Christ is represented, in so many places in
this book, as fighting with, and triumphing and reigning over
his enemies, inflicting his plagues upon them, and delivering his
church from their persecution, which is a work of divine power,
he is fitly styled in several places, Lord God Almighty.
We might consider several other divine attributes ascribed
to Christ, which prove his Deity, viz. holiness, truth, and faithfulness:
thus, in Rev. iii. 7. These things saith he that is holy,
he that is true; and he is farther described in the following
words, as having uncontroulable power; who openeth, and no
man shutteth; and shutteth, and no man openeth. That this is
spoken of him, is beyond dispute; and in chap. vi. 10. They
cried with a loud voice, How long, O Lord, holy and true, dost
thou not judge and avenge our blood on them that dwell upon the
earth? to whom did they cry but to the Lamb, who is said to
have opened the seals, or to have discovered the mysteries that
// File: b356.png
.pn +1
were thereby revealed, as in ver. 1.? And when he had opened
the sixth seal, he is described, as hearing his church’s prayer,
and avenging their blood, and so is represented as coming to
judgment, in a very terrible manner; upon which occasion it is
said, the great day of his wrath is come; and therefore it is he
who is described as holy and true.
But if it be replied to this, that creatures are sometimes called
holy and true, we may farther add, that it is Christ to whom it
is said, chap. xv. 4. Who shall not fear thee, O Lord, and glorify
thy name, for thou only art holy; for all nations shall come and
worship before thee, for thy judgments are made manifest. This
I infer from what has been before considered, that it is he who
obtains victory over, and pours forth his judgments on his
church’s enemies; and it is he whose praises are celebrated in
the song of the Lamb, mentioned in the verse immediately
foregoing.
Having considered several divine perfections, as ascribed to
our Saviour, and these so glorious, that nothing greater can be
mentioned to set forth the glory of a divine Person; yet we
may add hereunto, those glorious titles that are given him with
a design to excite in us adoring and admiring thoughts of him:
amongst which we shall only mention some which are either the
same with, or are equivalent to those which are given to the
Father, which they who deny Christ’s Deity, cannot but own
to be distinguishing characters of a divine Person, when so applied.
Thus, is the Father styled, in Heb. xiii. 20. The God of
peace? our Saviour is styled, in Isa. ix. 6. The Prince of peace;
and he is said, Eph. ii. 14. to be our peace; and as peace includes
in it all the blessings that accompany salvation, Christ’s
being styled the Author thereof, denotes him to be the Fountain
of blessedness, which he could not be, were he not a divine
Person.
Again, as God is called a Sun, and a Shield, Psal. lxxxiv. 9.
so Christ is called, in Mal. iv. 2. The Sun of Righteousness;
and, in Isa. xxxii. 2. An hiding place from the wind, a covert
from the tempest, and the shadow of a great rock in a weary
land.
Again, it is said of God the Father, Deut. xxx. 20. He is
thy life, and the length of thy days; our Saviour says, concerning
himself, in John xi. 25. compared with chap. xiv. 6. that
he is the life; and, Acts iii. 15. he is called the Prince of life;
and, in Colos. iii. 4. our life. Again, is the Father called, in
Psal. lxxx. 1. The Shepherd of Israel? Christ is called, in Heb.
xiii. 20. That great Shepherd of the sheep.
Moreover, is God often described in scripture as a glorious
King; as in Zeph. iii. 15. The King of Israel, even the Lord
in the midst of thee? our Saviour is styled, in Isa. vi. 5. The
// File: b357.png
.pn +1
King, the Lord of hosts; and, in John i. 49. The King of Israel;
and, in Rev. xix. 16. King of kings, and Lord of lords.
Again, is God styled the Hope of Israel, Jer. xiv. 8? our
Saviour seems to be so called by the apostle, when he says, in
Acts xxviii. 20. for the Hope of Israel, I am bound with this
chain, that is, for Christ’s sake, who is the object of his people’s
hope. However, whether he is intended thereby, or no,
in that scripture, he is called elsewhere our hope, 1 Tim. i. 1.
compared with Coloss. i. 27.
Moreover, is God the object of desire, so that there is nothing
in heaven or earth, or within the whole compass of finite
beings, that is to be desired besides, or in comparison with him,
as the Psalmist says, Psal. lxxiii. 25? our Saviour is called, in
Hag. ii. 7. The desire of all nations. I might refer to many
other glorious titles that are given to him in the 2nd and 3rd
chapters of the Revelations, in the epistles to the seven churches;
every one of which is prefaced with such a character given of
him, as is designed to strike them with an holy reverence, and
esteem of him, as a divine Person. Thus concerning those proofs
of Christ’s Deity, which are taken from the names, attributes,
and titles which are given to him; which leads us to consider,
III. The next head of argument taken from those works,
which have been done by our Saviour, that are proper to God
alone. Divine works argue a divine efficient, or that he has infinite
power, and consequently that he is an infinite Person, or
truly and properly God, who performs them. Now these works
are of two sorts; either of nature and common providence, or
of grace, to wit, such as immediately respect our salvation; in
all which, he acts beyond the power of a creature, and therefore
appears to be a divine Person.
1. He appears to be so, from his having created all things.
He that made the world, must be before it; and therefore since
time began with the first creature, as has been before observed,
it follows that he must be before time, that is, from eternity.
Again, he that created all things, must have a sovereign will,
for whose pleasure they are, and were created, Rev. iv. 11.
And it follows from hence, that he has an undoubted right to
all things, and that he might have annihilated them, had it been
his pleasure; and also, that he has a right to dispose of them as
he will, as the potter has power over his clay. All these things
are consequent on the work of creation; therefore it is an undeniable
argument, that he, who created all things, must be God.
It may also be observed, that to create, is to exert infinite
power, or to act above the power of a creature, which, at best,
is but finite: now whatever is more than finite, must be infinite;
and consequently he who created all things, must exert infinite
power, and that is certainly such as is truly divine.
// File: b358.png
.pn +1
We might farther consider, that there are many scriptures
which appropriate creation to God, and, indeed, it cannot be
otherwise; for to suppose that a creature gave being to itself,
is to suppose him to be both a cause and an effect, and consequently
to be, and not to be, at the same time, to exist as a creator,
and not to exist as brought into being, which is a plain
contradiction; and it is evident, that, in scripture, the creature
is opposed to the Creator: thus, in Rom. i. 25. it is said, they
worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator, who
is blessed forever. And there are several scriptures that speak
of creation, as a distinguishing evidence of divine glory: thus,
in Isa. xl. 28. we have a magnificent description of God, taken
more especially from this work, when he is called, The everlasting
God, the Lord, the Creator of the ends of the earth; and,
in chap. xlii. 5. Thus saith God the Lord, he that created the
heavens, and stretched them out; he that spread forth the earth,
and that which cometh out of it; he that giveth breath unto the
people upon it, and spirit to them that walk therein; in which,
and many other scriptures of the like nature, which might be
referred to, it appears that creation is a work peculiar to God.
The next thing we are to prove is, that our Saviour created
all things. There are many who think that this may be proved
from the work of creation’s being ascribed to more persons
than one; and therefore when we read of creators, in the plural
number, as it is in the original, in Eccles. xii. 1. Remember
thy Creator, or creators; and when God, in creating man, is
represented as speaking after this manner, Let us make man after
our own image, &c. this seems to imply that there were
more divine Persons engaged in this work than the Father.
I do not indeed lay so much stress on this argument, as many
do, yet it is not wholly to be neglected; for, I confess, I cannot
see any reason why there should be such a mode of expression
used, were it not to signify this divine mystery, of a
plurality of Persons in the Godhead, to whom this work is ascribed.
Object. As for the objection, which some of the Anti-trinitarians,
especially the Socinians, bring against it, that this mode
of speaking, is such as is used in conformity to the custom of
kings who, speak in the plural number;
Answ. To this it may be answered, that though kings do often
speak in the plural number, yet this is only a modern way of
speaking, implying, that whatever a king does, is by the advice
of some of his subjects, who are his peculiar favourites, and
who are also made use of to fulfil his will; but, nevertheless,
this way of speaking is not so ancient as scripture-times, much
less as Moses’s time, or the beginning of the world, which he
refers to, when God is represented as thus speaking. It is the
// File: b359.png
.pn +1
custom of kings, in scripture, to speak in the singular number:
and it is very absurd to pretend to explain any mode of speaking
used in scripture, by customs of speech, not known till many
ages after.
I am sensible, some think that mode of speaking used by
Ahasuerus Esth. i. 15. What shall we do unto the queen Vashti,
according to law? is a proof that it was used in former ages.
But the words may be rendered, What is to be done, according
to law, &c. or what is expedient for me to do? and therefore
it doth not prove that kings used, in ancient times, to speak of
themselves in the plural number; and consequently it cannot
be argued, that when God is represented as speaking so in
scripture, it is in compliance with any such custom. Besides,
whenever he is represented as speaking in scripture, in all other
instances, excepting those that are supposed to be contained in
our argument, he is always represented as speaking in the singular
number; and therefore it seems still more probable, that
this variation from his usual way of speaking, is not without
some reason, and that hereby we are led into this doctrine, that
there are more divine Persons than one, that created all things.
But not to insist on this, since we have more plain proofs
hereof in scripture, it evidently appears that Christ made all
things, not only from what is said in John i. 3. that all things
were made by him; and without him was not any thing made
that was made; but, from Col. i. 16. By him were all things
created, that are in heaven, and that are on earth, visible and
invisible, whether they are thrones, or dominions, or principalities,
or powers: all things were created by him, and for him;
in which he is not only said to be the Creator, but the end of
all things, which is the same with what is said in Prov. xvi. 4.
that the Lord hath made all things for himself.
This farther appears from Psal. cii. 25. Of old hast thou laid
the foundations of the earth, and the heavens are the work of thy
hands; which is expressly applied to Christ by the apostle, in
Heb. i. 10.
By these, and such-like scriptures, it evidently appears that
Christ made all things. The Socinians, indeed, who are sensible
that creation was an evident proof of divine power, and
therefore that the Creator of all things must be God, labour
very hard to prove that all those scriptures that ascribe this
work to our Saviour, are to be taken in a metaphorical sense,
and so signify nothing else but his being the author of the gospel-state,
which is a kind of new creation peculiar to him; and
that he did this as a prophet, revealing those doctrines which
relate thereunto; and accordingly they take the sense of that
scripture, in John i. 2, 3. which speaks of his being in the beginning,
and that all things were made by him, as intending nothing
// File: b360.png
.pn +1
else, but that he was in the beginning of the gospel, and that
whatever was made, or ordained, to be a standard and rule of
faith, was by him; and that, in the discharge of this work, he
was to restore decayed religion, and to correct several mistaken
notions, which the Jews had entertained concerning the moral
law, to add some new precepts to it, and give directions concerning
that mode of worship which should be observed in the
church for the future. This is all they suppose to be intended
by that work, which is ascribed to Christ as a Creator; whereas,
in this scripture, it is plainly said, that there was nothing in
the whole frame of nature, nothing that was an effect of power,
made without him. And there is another scripture, which cannot,
with any colour of reason, be understood in that sense, viz.
in Col. i. 16. By him were all things created that are in heaven,
and that are in earth, visible and invisible; where the apostle
speaks of the creation of angels and men, as well as all other
things: now, certainly, Christ did not come into the world to
rectify any mistakes or restore decayed religion among the angels,
therefore the apostle here plainly proves that our Saviour
created all things.
But since this opinion of the Socinians is now almost universally
exploded by the Anti-trinitarians, we have no occasion
to add any thing farther in opposition to it; but shall proceed
to consider what the Arians say concerning Christ’s creating
all things. These allow that the work of creation is ascribed to
him; but they deny that this argues him to be God in the same
sense as the Father is. The account which they give thereof
is, that God, to wit, the Father, created all things by the Son,
as an instrument, created by him, immediately for that purpose;
so that the Son was an inferior, or second cause of the
production of all things; and therefore that it cannot, from
thence, be concluded that he is God equal with the Father.
What I would humbly offer, in opposition hereunto is,
1. That, in this account of creation, there is not a just difference
put between the natural and supernatural production of
things, of which the latter can only be called creation; therefore,
if these two be confounded, the distinguishing character
of a Creator is set aside, and consequently the glory arising
from hence cannot be appropriated to God; nor is that infinite
perfection, that is displayed therein, duly considered, but according
to this scheme or method of reasoning a creature may
be a Creator, and a Creator a creature; nor can the eternal
power and Godhead of the divine Being be demonstrated by the
things that are made or created, as the apostle says they are in
Rom. i. 20.
2. From that first mistake arises another, namely, that because,
in natural productions, that which was created by God,
// File: b361.png
.pn +1
may be rendered subservient to the production of other things;
in which respect it may be termed an instrument made use of
by a superior cause, and may have an energy or method of acting,
peculiar to itself, whereby it produces effects according to
the course and laws of nature, fixed by God, the first cause of
all things; therefore they suppose, though without sufficient
ground that God might create all things by an instrument, or
second cause thereof, as they conclude he did by the Son.
3. Notwithstanding we must assert, that creation being a supernatural
production of things, what has been said concerning
natural production, is not applicable to it; therefore,
4. Though things may be produced in a natural way, by second
causes, whose powers are limited, and subjected as aforesaid,
to the laws of nature; yet supernatural effects cannot be
produced by any thing short of infinite power; therefore, since
creation is a supernatural work, it must be concluded to be a
work of infinite power.
5. It follows, from hence, that it is not agreeable to the idea
of creation, or the producing all things out of nothing, for God
to make use of an instrument. That this may appear, let it be
considered, that whatever instrument is made use of, it must
be either finite or infinite. An infinite instrument cannot be
made use of, for then there would be two infinites, one superior,
the other inferior. Nor can a finite one be made use of,
for that, according to our last proposition, cannot produce any
supernatural effect, as creation is supposed to be, which requires
infinite power, and that cannot be exerted by a finite medium,
therefore no such instrument can be used. Moreover, if it requires
infinite power to create all things, this power, in its method
of acting, would be limited, by the instrument it makes
use of; for whatever power a superior cause has in himself, the
effect produced, by an instrument will be in proportion to the
weakness thereof. This some illustrate by the similitude of a
giant’s making use of a straw, or a reed, in striking a blow in
which the weakness of the instrument renders the power of the
person that uses it insignificant. Thus if God the Father should
make use of the Son, in the creation of all things, the power that
is exerted by him therein, can be no other than finite; but that
is not sufficient for the production of things supernatural, which
require infinite power. To this we may add,
6. That the creation of all things is ascribed to the sovereignty
of the divine will; accordingly the Psalmist describing it,
in Psal. xxxiii. 9. says, He spake and it was done; he commanded,
and it stood fast; so when God, in Gen. i. 3. said, Let
there he light, and there was light; and when we read of the
other parts of the creation, as produced by his almighty word,
it implies that they were produced by an act of his will. Now
// File: b362.png
.pn +1
it seems impossible, from the nature of the thing, that an instrument
should be made use of in an act of willing any more
than in an act of understanding.
7. No cause can reasonably be assigned why God should
make use of an instrument in the production of all things; for
certainly he that, by his immediate power, produced the instrument,
might without any difficulty, or absurdity, attending the
supposition, have created all things immediately without one.
And we must farther suppose, that if there were nothing in
the nature of things, which required him to make use of an instrument,
he would not, by making use of one, to wit, the Son,
administer occasion to him, to assume so great a branch of his
own glory, namely, that of being the Creator of the ends of the
earth; or for his being, as the result thereof, worshipped as a
divine Person supposing him to have a right to divine worship,
for no other reason.
Object. 1. Though no one supposes that God stood in need
of an instrument, or could not have created all things without
it, yet we must conclude that he did not, because the scripture
speaks of the Father’s creating all things by the Son; and when
one person is said to do any thing by another, it implies that he
makes use of him as an instrument therein.
Answ. This seems to be the only foundation on which this
doctrine is built. But there is no necessity of understanding
the words in this sense, especially if we consider that all effects
are produced by the power of God; and this power, supposing
the Son to be a divine Person, (which we have endeavoured,
by other arguments, to prove) must belong to him; and
the Father, and the Son being united, in the same Godhead,
one cannot act without the other; therefore whatever is said to
be done by the Father, may, in this sense, be said to be done
by the Son; for though the Persons are distinct, the power
exerted is the same.
Thus a learned writer[150] accounts for this matter, when he says,
that “The Son is of the same nature and substance with the
Father, so nearly allied, so closely united, that nothing could
be the work of one, without being, at the same time, the work
of both: Hence it was, that the Son was Joint-creator with
the Father, that all things were made by him, and nothing
without him; it was not possible for them either to act, or to
exist separately; and therefore it is that the work of creation
is, in scripture, attributed to both.” This is a very safe as
well as a just way of reasoning, consistent with, and founded
on the doctrine of the Father and the Son’s being united in the
same Godhead, though distinct Persons; and therefore it is
agreeable to the sense of those scriptures, which attribute this
// File: b363.png
.pn +1
work to the Son, in the same sense, as when it is attributed to
the Father.
But I am sensible that the Arians will reply to it; that this
does not sufficiently account for that subordination in acting,
that seems to be implied in the sense of those scriptures, in
which the Father is said to have created all things by the Son;
therefore I shall take leave to speak more particularly to those
texts that treat of this matter, where the same mode of speaking
is used. And though there are several scriptures that represent
the Son as a Creator, or consider all things, as being
made by him, as well as the Father, or as a Joint-creator with
him; yet there are but two places in the New Testament, in
which the Father is said to have created all things by the Son,
namely, Eph. iii. 9. in which it is said, that God, that is, the
Father, created all things by Jesus Christ; and the other is in
Heb. i. 2. where it is said, by whom also he made the worlds.
We have already considered the absurdity of the Socinian
way of expounding those other scriptures, that speak of Christ
as a Creator, in which he is not said to act in subserviency to,
but co-ordinately with the Father. But inasmuch as God the
Father is, in these scriptures, said to create all things by Jesus
Christ, I shall humbly offer it, as my opinion, that though the
other scriptures, in which Christ is set forth as a Creator, have
no reference to him as Mediator, nor to the new creation, yet
this seems to be the more probable sense of both these scriptures.[151]
As for the former of them, though some suppose that it is needless
to give the sense of it, since the words, by Jesus Christ,[152]
are wanting in some ancient copies of scripture, as well as in
the vulgar Latin and Syriac versions; yet, since there are many
copies that have it, we will suppose it to be genuine; and
that we may account for the sense of it, we may observe that
the apostle makes use of the word create three times in this
epistle; we find it, in chap. ii. 10. and iv. 24. in both which
places it is taken for the new creation, which is brought about
by Christ, as Mediator; and, I humbly conceive, that it may
be taken so, in this verse, which we are now considering; and
therefore this is a part of that mystery, of which the apostle
// File: b364.png
.pn +1
speaks in the foregoing words, that was hid in God; and this
sense seems not to be excluded, by those who suppose, that in
other respects, it has some reference to the first creation of all
things.[153]
As for the other scripture, by whom also he made the worlds,
δι ου και τους αιωνας εποιησεν, that is, by whom he made, instituted, or
ordained, the various dispensations, which the church was under,
either before or since his incarnation; this was certainly
done by him as Mediator; and herein he acted in subserviency
to the Father, as well as in all other works performed by him,
as having this character. I would not be too peremptory in
determining this to be the sense of the text, inasmuch as the
apostle speaks of his upholding all things, in the following verse,
which is well put after this account of his having created them:
I am also sensible that the word which we translate worlds, is
used in Heb. xi. 3. to signify the world that was at first created,
in the most proper sense of the word creation, when the
apostle says, that through faith we understand that the worlds,
τους αιωνας were framed by the word of God, &c. But yet when I
find that in many other places of the New Testament, where
the word is used, it is taken in the sense but now given,[154] I cannot
but conclude it the more probable sense of the text; but
that which most of all determines me to acquiesce in it, is, because
the subserviency of the Son to the Father in this work is
most agreeable to it.
If it be objected, that this sense of the text coincides with
that which is given of it by Socinus, and his followers, which
we before-mentioned and opposed;
To this I answer, that the sense I have given of it, is very
foreign to theirs, who endeavour thereby to evade the force of
the argument brought from it, to prove our Saviour’s Deity;
whereas we only exchange one argument, for the proof thereof,
for another; for it seems to me to be as great an evidence,
that he is a divine Person, when considered as the Author and
Founder of the church, in all the ages thereof, or the rock on
which it is built, as when he is called, Creator of the world: if
he be the supreme Head, Lord, and Lawgiver to his church,
in all the ages thereof; if the faith and hope of all that shall be
saved, is founded upon him, as the great Mediator, Redeemer,
and Sovereign thereof, then certainly he is God, equal with
the Father.
// File: b365.png
.pn +1
Object. 2. To what has been before suggested, upon which
the chief stress of our reasoning depends, viz. that a finite creature
cannot be an instrument in supernatural productions, it is
objected, that miracles are supernatural productions; but these
have been wrought by men, as instruments in the hand of God;
therefore the creation of all things may as well be supposed to
have been performed by the Son, as an instrument made use of
to this end by the Father.
Answ. That miracles are supernatural productions, no one
denies; and it follows from hence, that they are either a species
of creation, or equivalent to it; therefore if it be allowed
that a creature can have power communicated to him to work
them, and therein may be said to be an instrument made use
of by God, then we cannot reasonably deny that God the Father
might use the Son as an instrument in creating all things. But
we must take leave to deny that any, who are said to have
wrought miracles, have had infinite power communicated to
them for that purpose; therefore they are not properly instruments
in the hand of God, to produce supernatural effects; but
all that they have done therein, was only by addressing themselves
to God, that he would put forth his immediate power
in working the miracle; and in giving the people, for whose
sake it was to be wrought, occasion to expect it; and afterwards
improving it for their farther conviction. It is true, miracles
are oftentimes said to have been wrought by men; but,
I humbly conceive, nothing more than this is intended thereby;
which, that it may appear, we may observe, that sometimes
they who have wrought them, have not made use of any action
herein, but only given the people ground to expect the divine
interposure: thus, immediately before the earth swallowed up
Korah and his company, Moses gave the people to expect this
miraculous event, Numb. xvi. 28-30. And Moses said, Hereby
shall ye know that the Lord hath sent me. If these men die
the common death of all men, then the Lord has not sent me. But
if the Lord make a new thing, and the earth open her mouth,
and swallow them up, then shall ye know that these men have
provoked the Lord; and as soon as he had spoken the words,
the ground clave asunder, and swallowed them up. This might
be reckoned among the miracles wrought by Moses; though
all that he did was only what tended to raise the people’s expectation,
that such an extraordinary event should immediately
happen. Again, at other times, when a miracle has been
wrought, we read of nothing done but only a word spoken to
signify that God would work it: thus, when the captain, with
his fifty men, was sent by the king of Israel, to the prophet
Elijah, to command him to come to him, the prophet uses this
mode of speaking, 2 Kings i. 12. If I be a man of God, let fire
// File: b366.png
.pn +1
come down from heaven, and consume thee and thy fifty; which
immediately happened accordingly.
At other times, when miracles have been wrought, the Person,
who, in the sense but now mentioned, is said to work them,
has made use of some external and visible sign, which was
either an ordinance for his own faith, if no one was present but
himself; as when the prophet Elisha smote the waters of Jordan
with Elijah’s mantle, and said, 2 Kings ii. 14. Where is the
Lord God of Elijah? or else the sign, being given by divine
direction, was an ordinance for the faith of the people present,
whose conviction was intended thereby; not that they should
suppose that the action used had any tendency to produce the
miracle: but it was only designed to raise their expectation,
that God would work it by his immediate power; as when Moses
was commanded, in Exod. xiv. 16. to lift up his rod, and
stretch out his hand over the sea, and divide it, that Israel might
pass through; or, in chap. xvii. 6. to smite the rock, whereupon
God caused water to come out of it; and in several other actions,
which he used, by divine direction, when other miracles
were wrought; in which respect, though he was said, in a less
proper way of speaking, to have wrought them, yet he was no
more than a moral instrument herein, and therefore the divine
power was not communicated to, or exerted by him; and if
creatures have been instruments in working miracles in no other
sense than this, it cannot be inferred from hence that Christ
might be made use of by the Father, as an instrument in creating
the world: a moral instrument he could not be; for there
was no doctrine contested, no truth to be confirmed thereby,
no subjects present to expect a divine interposure; and, indeed,
none ever supposed that the Son of God was an instrument in
this sense; therefore if no one ever was an instrument in any
other, nor could be from the nature of the thing, as has been
already proved, then the force of the argument, which we have
laid down to prove it, is not in the least weakened by this objection.
Thus we have endeavoured to prove the divinity of Christ
from the work of creation.
2. We shall proceed to consider how our Saviour’s Deity
appears, from those works of providence, which are daily performed
by him. Providence is as much a divine work, and
contains as glorious a display of the divine perfections, as creation;
and this is twofold, viz. preserving and governing. With
respect to the former of these, some divines have asserted,
that it is, as it were, a continued creation, not formally so; but
as the one produces a creature, the other prevents its sinking
into nothing; and because it is, in all respects, dependent on
the power of God, and as much so, for the continuance of its
// File: b367.png
.pn +1
being, as it was for its being brought into being; therefore conserving
providence is an evidence of the divine power of him
who sustains all things.
Now that this glory belongs to our Saviour, is plain from
scripture, which speaks of him, in Heb. i. 3. as upholding all
things by the word of his power; and in Coloss. i. 17. it is
said, by him all things consist; both these scriptures respect
this branch of divine providence, namely, his preserving all
things in being; and this is certainly more than can be said of
any creature. And it is not pretended that herein he acts as
the Father’s instrument, even by those who suppose that he
was so, in the creation of all things, inasmuch as scripture does
not speak of God’s upholding all things by him, but of Christ’s
upholding them by his own, that is, the divine power; so that
we have as plain a proof of his Deity, from his upholding providence,
as there is of the being of a God, which is evidently
inferred from it.
As to the other branch of providence, respecting the government
of the world in general, or of the church in particular,
this is also ascribed to Christ, and thereby his Godhead is farther
proved. Whatever degree of limited dominion may be
said to belong to creatures; yet universal dominion belongs only
to God; and this is assigned, as one ground and reason of his
right to divine honour; therefore it is said, in Job xxv. 2.
Dominion and power are with him, that is, there is a holy reverence
due to him, as the supreme Lord and Governor of the
world; and, in Psal. lxvii. 4. when it is said concerning the
great God, that he shall judge the people righteously, and govern
the nations upon earth, this is considered as the foundation
of universal joy, O let the nations be glad, and sing for joy;
and of praise, ver. 5. Let the people praise thee, O God; let all
the people praise thee; and, in Psal. xxii. 28. when it is said,
the kingdom is the Lord’s; and he is the Governor among the nations;
this is assigned, as the reason of their worshipping him,
ver. 27. All the ends of the earth shall remember and turn unto
the Lord; and all the kindreds of the nations shall worship before
thee. This therefore is, undoubtedly, a branch of the divine
glory; so that if we can prove that universal dominion
belongs to Christ, or that he is the Governor of the world, and
of the church therein, this will plainly evince his Deity.
1. Let us consider him as the Governor of the world. This
seems to be the meaning of several expressions of scripture, in
which royal dignity is ascribed to him; and he is represented
as sitting upon a throne, and his throne to be for ever and ever,
Psal. xlv. 6. and he infinitely greater than all the kings of the
earth; upon which account, he is called, in Rev. i. 5. The
Prince of the kings of the earth; and they are commanded to
// File: b368.png
.pn +1
testify their subjection to him, and all are represented as blessed
that put their trust in him, Psal. ii. 12. And as his kingdom
is considered, in John xviii. 36. as not being of this world,
and the honours due to him, such as are divine, this farther
proves his Deity.
Moreover, his universal dominion, and consequently his Godhead,
is evinced by that glorious character, which we have before
considered[155], as belonging to him, namely, the Lord of
hosts, as the prophet Isaiah says, speaking of the vision which
he had of his glory, in chap. vi. 5. Mine eyes have seen the
King, the Lord of hosts, as denoting his sovereignty over all
the hosts of heaven, and all creatures in this lower world, as
he governs them, and makes one thing subservient to another,
and all this is done to set forth his own glory.
2. This will farther appear, if we consider him as the Governor
of his church; in this he has access to the souls of men,
working in them those graces, which are the effects of almighty
power, which he does, when they are effectually called; and
the work of sanctification, which is consequent hereupon, is
carried on till it is perfected. We shall have occasion, under
some following answers[156], to prove that these are divine and
supernatural works; the more full and particular proof whereof,
we shall reserve to its proper place, and only observe, at present,
that they are spoken of as such in scripture, and ascribed
to the exceeding greatness of the power of God, no less than
that which he wrought in Christ, when he raised him from the
dead, Eph. i. 18,——20. and elsewhere they are called a new
creation, chap. ii. 1. a quickening or resurrection, a breaking
the rock in pieces, taking away the heart of stone, giving an heart
of flesh, or a new heart; Jer. xxiii. 29. Ezek. xxxvi. 26. which
expressions would never have been used, had not the work been
divine and supernatural; therefore it follows from hence, that
since Christ is the Author of this internal work, he is a divine
Person. Now that he is so, is obvious, from many places in
the New Testament; as when he is styled, in Heb. xii. 2. The
Author and Finisher of our faith; and when the apostle, in 1
Tim. i. 14. speaks of faith and love abounding, which is in
Christ Jesus, he speaks, at the same time, of the grace of our
Lord abounding, as the spring and fountain thereof; and when
the apostles, in Luke xvii. 5. desire him to increase their faith,
not in an objective way, as affording some greater foundation
for it, but subjectively, by an internal work, exciting and promoting
the principle thereof, which was before implanted in
them; and so causing all those graces, that accompany it, to
abound, as the effects of his divine power.
We might farther consider Christ’s spiritual government, as
// File: b369.png
.pn +1
extended to his church, collectively considered, which is exposed
to many dangers and difficulties, and meets with much opposition
from its enemies, who attempt its ruin, but in vain, because
it is the object of the divine care, kept by the power of
God, through faith, unto salvation: for which reason, the gates
of hell shall not prevail against it. Now this is, in a peculiar
manner, the work of Christ; he is the rock on which it is built;
and his presence, in the midst of his people, is not only their
glory, but their safety; which it would not be, if he were no
more than a creature. We might also consider the subserviency
of the various dispensations of providence in the world to their
good, as he is Head over all things to the church, Eph. i. 22.
which could not answer that valuable end, had he not been a
divine Person.
We might farther consider how the divine glory of Christ
will be demonstrated, in his second coming to compleat the
work of salvation, begun in this world. To prepare a way for
this, there will be an universal resurrection of the dead, which
will be no less an effect of almighty power, than the creation
of all things was at first. I need not therefore say any thing
farther to prove this to be a divine work; we need only prove
that this general resurrection shall be performed by Christ:
this might be proved from several scriptures; in one whereof
he expressly asserts it himself, in words very plain and particular,
viz. John vi. 38. The hour is coming, in which all that
are in their graves shall hear his voice, and shall come forth, &c.
Moreover, when, at the same time, he is represented as
coming in the clouds, with power and great glory, in his own
glory, as well as that of the Father, and of the holy angels, in
Luke ix. 26. the most natural sense of that text seems to be
this, that his divine glory, which is called his own, which was
comparatively hid from his people, while he was here on earth,
shall eminently be demonstrated in his second coming, and also
that Mediatorial glory, which he has received from the Father,
as what he had a right to, on his having accomplished the work
of redemption, which he came into the world about; and then
there is the glory of his retinue, as appearing with all his holy
angels; which bears some resemblance to that expression whereby
the majesty of God is set forth upon another occasion,
namely, as appearing on mount Sinai, to give the law, when
it is said, in Deut. xxxiii. 2. The Lord came with ten thousands
of saints. And to this we may add, that the work, which he
shall, immediately after this, be engaged in, to wit, that of
judging the world in righteousness, plainly proves his Deity,
since none but a divine Person can judge the secrets of all men,
and bring to light every thing that has been done, from the beginning
to the end of time; and this is to be done, in that day;
// File: b370.png
.pn +1
for it is said, in Eccles. xii. 14. That God shall bring every
work into judgment, with every secret thing, whether it be
good, or whether it be evil. This is a farther improvement of
that argument, before laid down to prove his divinity from his
omniscience; if his judgment must be, as the apostle says,
in Rom. ii. 2. according to truth, and consequently performed
with the greatest impartiality, as well as an exquisite knowledge
or discerning of the cause, without which it could not be said,
that the Judge of all the earth does right, (as he certainly will)
in Gen. xviii. 25. and if rewards shall be proportioned to every
work done, so that every one shall receive as the apostle says,
in 2 Cor. v. 10. according to what he has done, whether it be
good or bad; and if persons are to be rewarded, or punished,
for all the secret springs of action, which must be reckoned
either good or bad, according to what they produce, as well as
the actions themselves; and if this respects not particular
persons only, but all men, who have lived, or shall live, from
the beginning to the end of the world, it evidently proves, that
he, to whom this glorious work is ascribed, must be a divine
Person.
And to this we may add, that the manner of his appearing,
with the terror, as well as the majesty of a judge, being such
as shall strike his enemies with the utmost horror and confusion,
is a farther proof of this matter. This is represented in a lively
manner, in Rev. vi. 15-17. in which it is said, the kings
of the earth, and the great men, those who once rendered
themselves formidable to their subjects shall desire to hide
themselves in the dens and rocks of the mountains, and shall
say to the rocks and to the mountains, fall on us, and hide us
from the face of him that sitteth upon the throne, and from the
wrath of the Lamb: For the great day of his wrath is come;
and who shall be able to stand? And,
Lastly, He will not only pronounce the sentence but execute
it, and that with respect to his saints and subjects; and his
enemies: as to the former of these he will not only command
them to come, and possess the kingdom prepared for them,
but the blessedness which he will confer upon them, pursuant
thereunto, is called the beatific vision, in 1 John iii. 2. We
shall be like him, for we shall see him as he is; and the happiness
of heaven is described in such a way as plainly proves our
Saviour to be the fountain thereof, and consequently a divine
Person; for it is represented as a state, in which they will
behold his glory, John xvii. 24. whereas certainly the beholding
the glory of the most exalted creature, falls infinitely
short of this ingredient in the heavenly blessedness.
And on the other hand, the immediate impressions of the
wrath of God on the consciences of his enemies, or the power
// File: b371.png
.pn +1
of his anger, which shall render them eternally miserable, when
banished from his presence, proves him to be a divine Person,
inasmuch as the highest degree of misery consists in a separation,
or departure from him, which it could not do, if he were not
the fountain of blessedness; nor could the punishment of sinners
be proportioned to their crimes, if it were not to be inflicted
by the glory of his power; the apostle joins both these
together, in 2 Thess. i. 9. though some understand the words,
as implying, that their punishment proceeds from his immediate
presence, in the display of the greatness of his power, as a sin-avenging
Judge; in either of which senses, it argues him to
be a divine Person. And that it is our Saviour who is spoken
of, is evident, from the foregoing and following verses; it is
he who shall appear in flaming fire, taking vengeance on them
that know not God, and obey not the gospel; and it is he that
shall come to be glorified in his saints, and to be admired in all
them that believe; so that we have a very plain proof of his
Deity, from the exercise of his government, either in this or
the other world.
Having endeavoured to prove the divinity of Christ, from
his works of creation and providence and under the former
of these, offered some things in answer to the methods
taken by the Socinians, and especially the Arians, in accounting
for the sense of those scriptures that speak of the Father’s
creating all things by the Son; it is necessary for us now to
consider the most material objections, brought by the Anti-trinitarians
in general, against what has been said in defence
of this doctrine, taken from the works of common and special
providence, as ascribed to him, and, in particular, from the administration
of his kingdom of grace; it is therefore objected.
Object. 1. That his kingdom, and power of acting, in the administration
of the affairs relating thereunto, is wholly derived
from the Father: thus he says in Luke xxii. 29. I appoint
unto you a kingdom, as my Father hath appointed unto me;
and, in Mat. xi. 27. All things are delivered unto me of my
Father; and in Psal. ii. 6. Yet have I set my King upon my
holy hill of Zion. And whatever he does in managing the
affairs thereof, is by the Father’s commission and appointment:
thus in John v. 36. he speaks of the works which he was to
perform, as those which the Father had given him to finish.
And as for his power of executing judgment, which is one of
the greatest glories of his kingly government, this is derived
from the Father, in John v. 22. For the Father judgeth no man,
but hath committed all judgment unto the Son; and, in Acts
xvii. 31. it is said, that he hath appointed a day, in which he
will judge the world in righteousness, by that man whom he hath
ordained, meaning our Saviour; and when he speaks, in Rev.
// File: b372.png
.pn +1
ii. 27. of his ruling his enemies with a rod of iron, and breaking
them to shivers, as the vessels of a potter, he adds, that this
he received of his Father; from whence they argue, that since
he received his dominion, or right to govern the world and the
church, from the Father, therefore he cannot be God equal with
the Father. As we say, in opposition to their scheme of doctrine,
that a derived Deity, such as they suppose his to be, cannot
be the same with that which the Father has; so they allege
this, by way of reprisal, against the argument we have but now
insisted on, that a derived dominion cannot be made use of as
a medium to prove him that has it to be a divine Person, in
the same sense in which we maintain him to be.
2. In all his works, and particularly in the administration of
the affairs of his kingdom, he acts for the Father’s glory, and
not his own; whereas a divine Person, cannot act, for any other
end than for his own glory: this therefore rather disproves,
than evinces, his proper Deity; as when he says, in John viii.
49. I honour my Father; and, in chap. v. 30. he says, I seek
not mine own will, but the will of my Father which hath sent
me. He also speaks of the Father giving him a commandment
to do what he did; as in John xii. 49. I have not spoken of my
self, but the Father which sent me; he gave me a commandment,
what I should say, and what I should speak; and, in chap. xiv.
31. As the Father gave me commandment, so do I; and, in chap.
xv. 10. he speaks of his having kept his Father’s commandment,
and pursuant hereunto, abiding in his love, from whence they
argue, that he who is obliged to fulfil a commandment, or
who acts in obedience to the Father, is properly a subject, or
a servant, and therefore cannot be God in the same sense as
the Father, who gave this commandment, is.
3. They add, that in the government of his church, and the
world, in subserviency thereunto, he acts in the Father’s name,
as deputy and vicegerent; as in John x. 25. The works that
I do in my Father’s name, they bear witness of me; and accordingly
his works are called the Father’s, in ver. 37. If I do not
the works of my Father, believe me not; and these works are
said to be done from the Father, ver. 32. Many good works
have I shewed you from my Father: and, as the consequence
of all this, he acknowledges, as he ought to do, in John xiv.
28. that the Father is greater than he. How then can he be
a divine Person, in the sense in which we have proved him to
be, when there is a God above him, in whose name he acts in
all he does?
4. They farther argue, that he was made both Lord and
Christ, and that by the Father, as it is expressly said, in Acts
ii. 36.
5. They farther argue that the donatives of his kingdom, or
// File: b373.png
.pn +1
those honours which are bestowed on his subjects, are not his
to give, but the Father’s; as it is said, in Matt. xx. 23. To sit
on my right hand, and on my left, is not mine to give; but it
shall be given to them, for whom it is prepared of my Father.
6. This kingdom which he received from the Father, and
thus administers in subserviency to him, is, in the end, to be
resigned, or delivered up: thus, in 1 Cor. xv. 24. Then cometh
the end, when he shall have delivered up the kingdom to God,
even the Father; and in ver. 28. When all things shall be subdued
unto him, then shall the Son also himself be subject unto
him, that put all things under him, that God may be all in all;
and accordingly, he shall lay aside those divine honours which
he now has, or cease to perform those works which give him
a right to claim them. These are the strongest arguments, of
any, that are brought by the Anti-trinitarians against our Saviour’s
proper Deity; and, indeed, as though they had little
else to object, there is scarce an argument to disprove it, but
what is supported in this method of reasoning, which they think
to be altogether unanswerable, (and there are many more scriptures,
which might have been brought to the same purpose)
therefore it is necessary that we should consider what may be
replied to it.
The sum of what has been objected, as thus branched out
into several particulars, is, that since Christ is represented as
below the Father, or inferior to him, he cannot he equal with
him, for that is no other than a contradiction.[157]
// File: b374.png
.pn +1
Answ. To this it may be replied, that though the scripture
speaks of our Saviour, as receiving a commission from the
Father, and acting in subserviency to him; yet let it be considered,
that this does not respect the inferiority of the divine
nature, but the subserviency of what is done by him, as Mediator,
to the glory of the Father, as this character and office
were received from him. And, indeed, whenever the Son is represented,
as engaged in the great work of redemption, or in
any thing tending thereunto, or in any work consequent thereupon,
whereby what was before purchased is said to be applied
by him, this has a peculiar reference to him, as Mediator:
therefore let us consider,
1. That nothing is more common, in scripture, than for him
to be represented as Mediator, especially in all those things
that concern the spiritual advantages, or salvation of his church,
which is the principal thing to be considered in his government;
and in this sense we are to understand those scriptures, which
have been brought to support the objection: and it is plain,
that our Saviour generally speaks of himself under this character,
which is included in his being the Messiah, or Christ,
which is the main thing that he designed to evince by his doctrine
and his miracles; therefore, if we duly consider the import
of this character, it will not only give light to the understanding
such like scriptures, but sufficiently answer the objection
against his Deity taken from them.
// File: b375.png
.pn +1
Our adversaries will not deny that Christ is represented as
a Mediator; but they widely differ from us, when they take
occasion to explain what they intend thereby: sometimes they
seem to mean nothing else by it, but a middle-Being betwixt
God and the creature; and therefore the work performed by
him as such is not what requires him to be, in the most proper
sense, a divine Person, and consequently whatever inferiority
to the Father is contained in this character, they conclude that
this respects his Deity; whereas we distinguish between the
subserviency of the work, performed by him, as Mediator, to
the glory of God the Father, together with the subjection, or
real inferiority of the human nature, in which he performed it
to the Father; and the inferiority of his divine nature: the
former we allow; the latter we deny.
2. When we speak of him as Mediator, we always suppose
him to be God and Man, in one Person; and that these two
natures, though infinitely distinct, are not to be separated. As
God, without the consideration of a human nature united to his
divine Person, he would be too high to sustain the character, or
to perform the work of a servant, and, as such, to yield obedience,
which was incumbent on him, as Mediator; and on the
other hand, to be a mere man, is too low, and would be altogether
inconsistent with that infinite value and dignity, that was
to be put on the work which he was to perform. Therefore
it was necessary that he should have two distinct natures, a divine
and a human, or that he should be God incarnate. This
will be more particularly considered under some following answers[158];
and therefore we shall reserve the proof hereof for its
proper place, and there consider the distinct properties of each
nature; and all that we shall observe at present is, that the
evangelist John, in whose gospel our Saviour is often described,
as inferior to the Father, as well as equal with him, which is
agreeable to his Mediatorial character, lays down this, as a kind
of preface, designing hereby to lead us into the knowledge of
such like expressions, when he says, in John i. 14. The Word
was made flesh and dwelt among us; which is all the proof we
shall give of it at present.
3. It follows from hence, that several things may be truly
spoken concerning, or applied to him, which are infinitely opposite
to one another, namely that he has almighty power in
one respect, as to what concerns his Deity; and yet that he is
weak, finite, and dependent in another, as to what respects his
humanity. In one nature, he is God equal with the Father,
and so receives nothing from him, is not dependent on him,
nor under any obligation to yield obedience. In this nature,
// File: b376.png
.pn +1
he is the object of worship, as all worship terminates on that
Deity, which is common to all the Persons in the Godhead:
but, in the other nature, he worships, receives all from, and refers
all to the glory of the Father; therefore,
4. Those scriptures which speak of him as receiving a kingdom,
doing all things from, or in obedience to the Father, or
in his name, and for his glory, and as inferior to, and dependent
on him, are not only applied to him, as Mediator, but they
have a particular respect to his human nature; so that all that
can be inferred from such modes of speaking, as those above-mentioned,
as so many objections against the doctrine which
we are defending, is, that he who is God is also man, and consequently
has those things predicated of him, as such which
are proper to a nature infinitely below, though inseparably
united with his divine.
Moreover, whereas it is said, that the Father has committed
all judgment to the Son, or that he judgeth the world in righteousness,
by that man whom he hath ordained; all that can be
inferred from hence is, that so far as this work is performed by
him, in his human nature, which will be rendered visible to the
whole world at the day of judgment, it is an instance of the
highest favour and glory conferred upon this nature, or upon
God-man Mediator, as man: but whereas he is elsewhere described,
as having a right to judge the world, as God; and as
having those infinite perfections, whereby he is fit to do it, these
are the same that belong to the Father, and therefore not derived
from him.
Again, when, in another scripture, before referred to, it is
said, that God hath made him both Lord and Christ, it is not
there said, that the Father hath made him God, or given him
any branch of the divine glory; but it signifies the unction that
he received from the Father, to be the King, Head, and Lord
of his church; which, so far as this is an act of grace, or connotes
his dependence on the Father herein, it has an immediate
respect to him, in his human nature, in which, as well as in his
divine nature, this dominion is exercised; whereas his sovereignty,
and universal dominion over the church and the world,
or those divine perfections, which render him, in all respects,
fit to govern it; they belong, more especially to the Mediator,
as God, and are the same as when they are applied to the
Father.
Moreover, when he says, I seek not my own will, but the
Father’s, that sent me; and elsewhere, Not my will, but thine
be done; it argues that he had a human will, distinct from his
divine, in which he expresses that subjection to the Father,
which becomes a creature; this is plainly referred to him as
man; so, on the other hand, when he says, speaking of himself
// File: b377.png
.pn +1
co-ordinately with the Father, As the Father raiseth up the
dead, and quickeneth them, so even the Son quickeneth whom he
will; this, though spoken of him as Mediator, has a peculiar
reference to his divine nature.
Again, when he says, in another scripture, The Father is
greater than I, that is applied to him as man; whereas elsewhere,
in John x. 30. when he says, I, and my Father are one,
that is spoken of him as God, having the same nature with the
Father so that if we suppose our Saviour to be God and Man,
as he is plainly proved to be, from scripture, then it follows, that
whatever is said concerning him, as importing his right to divine
honour on the one hand, or his disclaiming it on the other,
these are both true, when we consider him in these different
natures.
Thus we are to understand those scriptures, that speak of
the real inferiority of the Son to the Father: but when, in other
places, nothing is intended but the subserviency of what is done
by the Son, as Mediator, or its tendency to set forth the Father’s
glory, this may be applicable to those divine works, which
the Mediator performs; and so we may distinguish between
the subserviency of the divine actions to the Father’s glory,
and the inferiority of one divine Person to another; the former
may be asserted without detracting from his proper Deity,
while the latter is denied, as inconsistent with it.
Thus we have endeavoured to explain those scriptures, which
are referred to by the Arians, to overthrow our Saviour’s divinity:
and, by the same method of explication, I humbly
conceive, all others, that can be brought to that purpose, may
be understood. I have passed over that scripture, indeed,
which respects Christ’s delivering up the kingdom to the Father,
and being subject to him, which it might have been expected
that I should have endeavoured to explain; but I choose
rather to refer the consideration thereof to its proper place,
when we speak concerning Christ’s kingly office, and his being
exalted in the execution thereof.
IV. The next argument to prove the divinity of Christ is
taken from his being the object of religious worship, which is
a practical owning of him to be a divine Person, when there
is an agreement between our words and actions, in both which
we acknowledge him to have the perfections of the divine nature.
This argument is so strong and conclusive, that it is very
difficult to evade the force thereof; and, indeed, it affects
the very essentials of religion. Now, that we may herein proceed
with greater plainness, we shall,
1. Consider what we understand by worship in general, and
by religious worship in particular. I am very sensible that
the Anti-trinitarians understand the word in a sense very different
// File: b378.png
.pn +1
from what we do, as taking it in a limited sense, for our
expressing some degree of humility, or reverence, to a person,
whom we acknowledge in some respect, to be our superior;
but whatever external signs of reverence, or words, we use, as
expressive of our regard to him who is the object thereof, this,
when applied to our Saviour, is no more than what they suppose
to be due to a person below the Father. Therefore, that
we may not mistake the meaning of the word, let it be considered;
that worship is either civil or religious; the former
contains in it that honour and respect which is given to superiors,
which is sometimes expressed by bowing, or falling down,
before them, or some other marks of humility, which their advanced
station in the world requires; Though this is seldom
called worshipping them; and it is always distinguished from
religious worship, even when the same gestures are used therein.
It is true, there is one scripture, in which the same word
is applied to both, in 1 Chron. xxix. 20. where it is said, All
the congregation bowed down their heads, and worshipped the
Lord and the king, that is, they paid civil respect, accompanied
with those actions that are expressive of humility, and that
honour that was due to David, but their worship given to God
was divine or religious. This is the only sense in which we
understand worship in this argument, and it includes in it adoration
and invocation. In the former, we ascribe infinite perfection
unto God, either directly, or by consequence; an instance
whereof we have in 1 Chron. xxix. 11, 12. Thine, O
Lord, is the greatness, and the power, and the glory, and the
victory, and the majesty; for all that is in heaven, and in the
earth is thine; thine is the kingdom, O Lord, and thou art exalted
as Head above all. Both riches and honour come of thee,
and thou reignest over all, and in thine hand is power and might
and in thine hand it is to make great, and to give strength unto
all; and, in Deut. xxxii. 3. in which we are said to ascribe
greatness unto him; and, in Rom. i. 21. to glorify him as God,
or, give unto him the glory due to his name, Psal. xxix. 2.
Invocation is that wherein we glorify God, as the Fountain
of blessedness, when we ask those things from him, which none
but a God can give, which is sometimes called seeking the Lord,
Psal. cv. 4. or calling upon him, Psal. l. 15. And this includes
in it all those duties which we perform, in which we consider
him as a God of infinite perfection, and ourselves dependent
on him, and desirous to receive all those blessings from him,
which we stand in need of; and particularly faith, in the various
acts thereof, is a branch of religious worship, as connoting
its object to be a divine Person; as also supreme love, and
universal obedience; and, indeed, it contains in it the whole of
religion, in which we have a due regard to that infinite distance
// File: b379.png
.pn +1
that there is between him and the best of creatures; and religious
worship is no where taken in a lower sense than this in
scripture.
2. Religious worship, as thus described, is to be given to
none but a divine Person, according to our Saviour’s words, in
Matth. iv. 10. Thou shall worship the Lord thy God, and him
only shalt thou serve. This is evident, from the idea we have
of religion in general, which is a giving that glory, or ascribing
those perfections to God, which belong to him, as being founded
in his nature; and therefore it is the highest instance of
blasphemy and profaneness to apply them to any creature, since
it is in effect to say that he is equal with God.
3. It plainly appears, from Scripture, that Christ is the object
of religious worship, and consequently that the argument
we are maintaining is just, namely, that, for this reason, he must
be concluded to be a divine Person. Now that he is the object
of religious worship, is evident, from many examples in
scripture of such worship being given to him, when, at the
same time, they, who have given it, have not been reproved or restrained,
but rather commended, for performing it. We have
various instances of this nature in the Old Testament, of which
I shall mention two or three, viz. in Gen. xlviii. 15, 16. God,
before whom my fathers Abraham and Isaac did walk, the God
which fed me all my life long unto this day, the Angel which
redeemed me from all evil, bless the lads. When he speaks of
Abraham and Isaac’s walking before him, it implies, that, in
their whole conversation, they considered themselves as under
his all-seeing eye; and Jacob acknowledges him as the God,
who had sustained, preserved, and provided for him hitherto,
the support of his life, and his Deliverer, or Redeemer, from
all evil. This divine Person he addresses himself to, in a
way of supplication, for a blessing on the posterity of Joseph;
and that he intends our Saviour hereby, is evident, because he
has a reference to his appearance in the form of an angel, and
therefore describes him under that character. Now we cannot
suppose that this holy patriarch is here represented as praying
to a created angel, for that would be to charge him with
idolatry. Moreover, this is the same description that is given
of Christ elsewhere, in Isa. lxiii. 9. In all their affliction he
was afflicted, and the Angel of his presence saved them; in his
love, and in his pity he redeemed them, and he bare them, and
carried them all the days of old; and in Mal. iii. 1. The Lord,
whom ye seek, shall suddenly come to his temple; even the Messenger,
or Angel, of the covenant, whom ye delight in; which
contains a very plain prediction of our Saviour’s incarnation,
whose way is said to be prepared by John the Baptist, who is spoken
of in the words immediately foregoing. Now it is certain, that
// File: b380.png
.pn +1
God the Father is never called an angel in scripture, inasmuch
as this is a peculiar description of the Mediator, who, as such,
is never mentioned as the Person sending, but sent; in which
he is considered as one that was to be incarnate, and, in our
nature, to execute those offices, which he was therein obliged
to perform. This is the Person then whom Jacob adored and
prayed to.
We have another instance, not only of his being worshipped,
but of his demanding this divine honour of him that performed
it, in Josh. v. 14, 15. where he appeared as the Captain
of the host of the Lord; upon which, Joshua fell on his
face to the earth, and did worship, and said unto him, What
saith my Lord unto his servant? And the Captain of the Lord’s
host said unto Joshua, Loose thy shoe from off thy foot, for the
place whereon thou standest is holy; and Joshua did so. It
cannot be supposed that it was any other than a divine Person
that appeared; not only because Joshua fell on his face and
worshipped him, and expressed his willingness to fulfil his
command, but because he bid him loose his shoe from his foot,
since the place on which he stood was holy; which expression
is no where used in any other text of scripture, except in Exod.
iii. 5. in which our Saviour, as we before considered, appeared
to Moses, with the majesty and glory of a divine Person,
whose immediate presence made the place relatively holy,
which the presence of a creature never did. Moreover, the
character which he here gives of himself to Joshua, as the Captain
of the Lord’s host, not only implies, that all his success
was owing to his conduct and blessing, on his warlike enterprizes;
but this is also agreeable to the description which is
elsewhere given of our Saviour, in Isa. lv. 4. in which he is
said to be a Leader and Commander to the people; and he is
called in Heb. ii. 10. The Captain of our salvation; and elsewhere,
The Prince of life; and, The Prince of the kings of the
earth.
Moreover, there are various instances in the New Testament
of worship given to Christ; in which, by several circumstances
contained in it, it is evident, that it was divine or religious.
Thus he had divine honour given him by the wise
men from the East, in Matth. ii. 11. who fell down and worshipped
him, &c. and, in Luke xxiv. 52. when he ascended up
into heaven, his disciples worshipped him; where there is nothing
in the mode of expression that distinguishes this from
that worship that is due to God. Moreover, there is a very
illustrious instance of his being thus worshipped by a numerous
assembly, represented in that vision, in Rev. v. 11-13.
I beheld, and heard the voice of many angels round about the
throne, saying, Worthy is the Lamb that was slain, to receive
// File: b381.png
.pn +1
power, and riches, and wisdom, and strength, and honour, and
glory, and blessing: And every creature that is in heaven, and
on the earth, and under the earth, saying, Blessing, and honour,
and glory, and power, be unto him that sitteth upon the throne,
and to the Lamb for ever and ever; in which words there are
such glories ascribed, that higher expressions cannot be used
by any, who adore the divine Majesty; and it is plain, that
our Saviour is intended hereby, because he is described as
the Lamb that was slain; and he is also considered co-ordinately
with the Father, when it is said, that this glory is given
to him that sitteth upon the throne, and to the Lamb. Now if
our Saviour be thus worshipped, he must have a right to it,
or else his worshippers would have been reproved, as guilty
of idolatry; thus Peter reproves Cornelius, or rather prevents
his paying divine adoration to himself, who was no more than
a man, in Acts x. 26. Stand up, I myself also am a man; and
the angel, in Rev. xix. 10. when John at first, through mistake,
thinking him to be a divine person, fell at his feet to
worship him, expressly forbad him, saying, See thou do it not;
I am thy fellow-servant, and of thy brethren that have the testimony
of Jesus; worship God. But our Saviour never forbids
any to worship him; therefore we must conclude that he
is the object thereof, and consequently a divine Person.
We shall now proceed to consider the various branches of
divine worship that are given to him, viz.
1. Swearing by his name, whereby an appeal is made to
him, as the Judge of truth, and the Avenger of falsehood.
Some think that the apostle, in Rom. ix. 1. intends as much
as this, when he says, I speak the truth in Christ, I lie not, that
is, I appeal to Christ, as the heart-searching God, concerning
the truth of what I say. But there is also another sense of
swearing, namely, when in a solemn manner, we profess subjection
to him, as our God and King; which agrees with, or
is taken from the custom of subjects, who swear fealty or allegiance
to their king: thus it is said, in Isa. xlv. 23. Unto
me every knee shall bow, and every tongue shall swear; and, in
doing this, they acknowledge him to be the object of faith, and
to have a right to universal obedience, as well as the Fountain
of blessedness. This religious worship, as the prophet foretels,
was to be given to the Person here spoken of, who is
particularly said to be our Saviour by the apostle, referring to
it in Rom. xiv. 11.
2. This leads us to consider another act of religious worship,
which has some affinity with the former, contained in
the baptismal vow; in which there is a consecration, or dedication,
of the person baptized, to the Father, Son, and Holy
Ghost, according to the command given, in Matt. xxviii. 19.
// File: b382.png
.pn +1
or a public profession, that it is our indispensable duty to exercise
an entire subjection to them, in a religious manner.
This is one of the most solemn acts of worship that can be
performed, wherein there is an explicit mention of the name of
the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost. And here we may consider,
in general, that the Son is put co-ordinately with the Father,
which no creature ever is: and it will be also necessary for
us to enquire what is meant by being baptized in the name of
the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, that so it may farther appear
to be an act of religious worship.
Some hereby understand nothing else but our being baptized
by the authority of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, or by a
warrant received from them to do it: but though this be sometimes
the meaning of our acting in the name of God, yet more
is intended by this expression, used in the administration of
this ordinance, otherwise it is not sufficiently distinguished
from all other acts of religious worship; which cannot be
rightly performed without a divine warrant. According to
this sense of the word, ministers may as well be said to preach
the gospel, and the church to attend on their ministration, in
the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost; for this cannot
he done without a divine warrant, upon which account it may
be deemed an ordinance.
Moreover, to suppose that this instituted form of administering
baptism, conveys no other idea, but that of a divine warrant
to do it, is to conclude that there is no determinate meaning
of the action performed, contained in it; but the administrator
is to intend nothing else by it, but only that he has a
warrant from God to baptize; whereas its being performed in
the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, seems plainly
to intimate the principal thing signified thereby, as a direction
for our faith, when engaging in it: which is, that they who are
baptized are consecrated, or devoted to the Father, Son, and
Holy Ghost, devoted to God professedly, and called by his
name, in the sense in which the phrase is elsewhere used in
scripture; his right to them is hereby signified, and their indispensable
obligation to be entirely his; and that with a peculiar
acknowledgment of the distinct personal glory of the Father,
Son, and Holy Ghost, and the concern that each of them
have in our salvation. The apostle speaking of our being baptized
in the name of Christ, calls it, in Gal. iii. 27. a putting
on Christ; which seems to imply a consecration, or dedication,
to him. Persons as well as things, before this ordinance was
instituted, were consecrated to God by divers washings, as
well as other rites, used under the ceremonial law; and this
seems to be the sense in which the apostle himself explains
this putting on Christ, in ver. 29. when he infers, from this
// File: b383.png
.pn +1
action, that they who had so done were Christ’s, not only by
that right, which he has to them as their Creator and Redeemer,
but by another, which is the immediate result of their professed
dedication to him; therefore this is such a comprehensive
act of worship, that it includes in it the whole of that subjection,
which is due to the Father, Son, and Spirit; and since,
in particular, the Son is considered as the object thereof, together
with the Father, it follows that he is God, equal with
the Father.
I might here consider, that it would be not only an unwarrantable
action, but an instance of the greatest profaneness, for
us to be baptized in the name of any one who is not a divine
Person, which farther argues that it is an act of divine worship;
upon which occasion, the apostle Paul, speaking concerning
some of the church of Corinth, as being disposed to
pay too great a veneration to those ministers who had been instrumental
in their conversion, as though, for this reason, they
were to be accounted the lords of their faith; and, in particular,
that some said they were of Paul, and, being apprehensive
that they thought the minister, who baptized them, had a right
to be thus esteemed, he not only reproves this ungrounded
and pernicious mistake; but takes occasion to thank God, that
he baptized none of them, but Crispus and Gaius, together with
the household of Stephanas, lest any should say he baptized in
his own name; so that while he testifies his abhorrence of his
giving any just occasion to any, to conclude that he was the
object of this branch of divine worship, he takes a great deal
of pleasure in this reflection, that the providence of God had
not led them through the ignorance and superstition that prevailed
among them, to draw this false conclusion from his exercising
this branch of the ministerial work, which properly
they would not have inferred from any other’s having baptized
them, who had not so great an interest in their affections as he
had. This I apprehend to be the meaning of what the apostle
says, in 1 Cor. i. 12-16. which I take occasion to refer to, as
a farther proof of baptism’s being an act of religious worship,
unalienable from the Father, Son, and Spirit, in whose name
alone we are to be baptized; and I cannot but conclude, that
if the Son were not a divine Person, we might as well be baptized
in the name of Paul, or any other of the apostles, as in
his name, which is a just consequence from its being an act of
religious worship; and therefore he would never have joined
his own name with the Father’s when he gave forth his commission
to baptize, if he had not had a right to it, as well as
the Father.
Again, divine worship is due to Christ, as he is the object
of faith; and that not only as we are to depend upon whatever
// File: b384.png
.pn +1
he has revealed, as a matter of infallible verity, otherwise
the faith of the church especially under the New Testament
dispensation, would be built on an uncertain foundation;
but, since I am sensible it would be objected to this, that
whatever is transmitted to us by divine inspiration, is infallibly
true, though the instruments made use of herein were not
divine persons; and when we assert that what Christ delivered
was infallible, in a higher sense than this, we rather suppose
than prove his Deity; the Anti-trinitarians will not deny,
that what he imparted was infallibly true, and therefore the
object of faith; but they suppose at the same time, that whatever
was imparted to the world by the apostles and prophets,
was equally true and infallible; therefore they were the objects
of faith, in the same sense that our Saviour himself was.
In answer to this I would not compare what was delivered
immediately by our Saviour with what was transmitted by those
who spake and wrote by divine inspiration, or suppose that
one was more infallibly true than the other; and therefore that
which I would principally insist on, when I speak of Christ,
as the object of faith, whereby he appears to be a divine Person,
is not only that we are obliged to yield an assent to what
he has imparted to us, but this is to be attended with a firm
reliance on him, or trusting him with all we have, or for all
we expect, to make us completely happy: in this sense we are
to understand the apostle’s words, when he says, in 2 Tim. i.
12. I know whom I have believed, or trusted, and I am persuaded
that he is able to keep that which I have committed unto him
against that day; this is such a faith, as no creature is the object
of. Trust in man is prohibited, and called a departure
from God, in Jer. xvii. 5. Cursed be the man that trusteth in
man, or, by a parity of reason in any other creature, and maketh
flesh his arm, and whose heart herein departeth from the Lord.
Trust is such an act of faith, as is appropriated to a divine
Person; and I cannot but observe, that there is something
peculiar in the mode of speaking, when Christ is represented
as the object thereof, that is never applied to any creature; as
his worshippers are said to believe in him; thus, in John xiv.
1. Ye believe in God, believe also in me,[159] where he commands
// File: b385.png
.pn +1
his people to believe in him, in such a way; as that this act of
faith is accompanied with other graces, which argue him a divine
Person.
This leads us to consider him as the object of supreme love
and universal obedience, which are also acts of religious worship;
the former respects him, as our chief good and happiness;
the latter as our undoubted sovereign and proprietor:
we do not say, that a person’s having a right to be obeyed, or
loved, or trusted, in a limited degree, argues him to be a divine
Person; but when these graces are to be exercised in the
highest degree, without any possibility of our exceeding therein;
and when the exercise thereof is inseparably connected
with salvation, as it often is in scripture, and our not exercising
them, is said to exclude from it, I cannot but from hence
conclude, that, being thus circumstanced, is an act of religious
worship; and it is certain, that our saviour is often represented,
in scripture, as the object thereof.
The last thing that we shall consider, under this head, is,
that he is the object of prayer and praise; and that these are
parts of religious worship, needs no proof. Some think, and
the conjecture is not altogether improbable, that this is intended
by the Psalmist, Psal. lxxii. 15. Prayer also shall be made
for him continually; since it might as well be rendered, continually
made to him, which agrees with what follows, And daily
shall he be praised; and that this Psalm respects the Messiah,
who had a right to more glory than Solomon, appears
from several things, which are said concerning him therein;
but I will not insist on this, since we have more evident proofs
thereof in other scriptures. It is also foretold concerning him
in Isa. xi. 10. that to him, for so the words ought to be rendered,
shall the Gentiles seek; which mode of speaking is frequently
used, to signify our addressing ourselves to a divine
Person with prayer and supplication, for the supplying of our
wants. But we have yet more evident proofs hereof in the
New Testament; the Syrophenician woman’s prayer, which
was directed to him, was indeed short, but very comprehensive,
Matt. xv. 22. Have mercy on me, O Lord, thou Son of
David; and, in ver. 25. She came and worshipped him, saying,
Lord help me; and this act of religious worship was commended
by our Saviour, and her prayer answered. And can we
suppose any other than an act of religious worship, contained
in that petition of the man who came to him to cast the devil
out of his son, in Mark ix. 24? Who said, with tears, Lord, I
believe; help thou mine unbelief; by which we are not to understand
that he desired that his unbelief should be removed
in an objective way, by our Saviour’s giving him more convincing
arguments to confirm his faith, but by a powerful access
// File: b386.png
.pn +1
to his heart, as the Author and Finisher of faith, which is
the peculiar gift of God; and accordingly he is considered as
a divine Person, by those who thus address themselves to him.
We shall conclude this head, with giving a few instances of
short prayers directed to Christ, together with doxologies, or
ascriptions of praise, in which he is sometimes joined with the
Father and Holy Ghost; and he is also argued, from the subject
matter thereof, to be a divine Person: thus the apostle
Paul concludes his epistles with, The grace of our Lord Jesus
Christ be with you all, Amen; 1 Cor. xvi. 23. Phil. iv. 23.
1 Thess. v. 28. 2 Thess. iii. 18. and, The grace of our Lord
Jesus Christ be with your spirit; Philem. ver. 25. and, The
Lord Jesus Christ be with thy Spirit; 2 Tim. iv. 22. which is
a short and comprehensive prayer directed to Christ, that he
would bestow on them all those graces that are necessary to
their salvation; and that this grace may so govern and influence
their spirits, as to fit them for his service, which supposes
him to be the God and Giver of all grace. And, in 2 Cor. x.
iii. 14. he puts up a prayer to the three Persons in the Godhead
expressly; The grace of the Lord Jesus Christ, and the
love of God, and the communion of the Holy Ghost, be with you
all, Amen; desiring, that they would communicate those blessings,
which accompany salvation, by which the divine perfections,
and in particular the Personal glory of the Father, Son,
and Holy Ghost, are demonstrated; and herein the Son is as
much considered as the object of prayer as the Father, and consequently
hereby proved to be a divine Person.
To this we may add those doxologies whereby praise is
given to Christ; and so he is farther considered as the object
of divine worship; thus, in 2 Pet. iii, 18. speaking of our Lord
and Saviour Jesus Christ, he says, To him be glory, both now
and for ever, Amen; and, in Jude, ver. 24, 25. Unto him that
is able to keep you from falling, and to present you faultless before
the presence of his glory with exceeding joy, to the only
wise God our Saviour, be glory and majesty, dominion and power,
both now, and for ever, Amen; where it is plain that he ascribes
this divine glory to Jesus Christ; for he is spoken of in
ver. 21. Looking for the mercy of our Lord Jesus unto eternal
life, that is, for that mercy which shall preserve us unto eternal
life, and then confer it upon us; which is the sense of those
words, Keeping us from falling, and presenting us faultless before
the presence of his glory, with a small variation of the
phrase; and the very same thing he is expressly said to do
elsewhere, in Eph. v. 27. to present it to himself a glorious
church, not having spot or wrinkle, or any such thing, but that
it should be holy, and without blemish, that is, that he may present
it to his own view, as taking a survey of his workmanship,
// File: b387.png
.pn +1
when brought to perfection; as God is said to have taken a
view of all things that he had made at first, when he pronounced
them good Gen. i. 31. and, when he has thus taken a survey
of his church, or presented it to himself, then he presents it to
the view of the whole world of angels and men, which, as it
is said, is attended with exceeding joy; which plainly makes
it appear that our Saviour is the Person here spoken of; which is
agreeable to what follows, where he is called, as he is elsewhere,
God our Saviour, Tit. ii. 10, 13. which character agrees with
the name by which he was most known, to wit, Jesus.
Another doxology we have in Rev. i. 4, 5, 6. Grace be unto
you, and peace from Jesus Christ, &c. Unto him that loved us,
and washed us from our sins in his own blood; and hath made
us kings and priests unto God and his Father, to him be glory
and dominion for ever and ever, Amen.
There are also two places more, in which, to me, it seems
more than probable, that doxologies are directed to Christ,
namely, in 1 Tim. vi. 15, 16. Who is the blessed and only Potentate,
the King of kings, and Lord of lords; who only hath
immortality, dwelling in the light, which no man can approach
unto: whom no man hath seen, or can see; to whom be honour
and power everlasting, Amen: All allow that nothing greater
can be said of God than is here spoken; therefore the only
thing denied by the Arians is, that this is applied to any but
the Father; but to me, it seems very obvious that it is spoken
of Christ, because he is mentioned immediately before: thus,
in ver. 13. it is said, I give thee charge in the sight of God,
who quickeneth all things, and before Christ Jesus[160]; who, before
Pontius Pilate, witnessed a good confession; That thou
keep this commandment without spot, until the appearing of our
Lord Jesus Christ, which in his times he shall shew; Who is
the blessed and only Potentate, &c. where by his times is meant
that season in which his glory shall shine most brightly, when,
what he witnessed before Pontius Pilate, to wit, that he was
the Son of God, he will demonstrate in the highest degree, and
then will eminently appear to have a right to that glory, which
the apostle ascribes to him.
Again, there is another scripture, in which a glorious doxology
is ascribed to Christ, in 1 Tim. i. 17. Now unto the King
eternal, immortal, invisible, the only wise God, be honour and
glory, for ever and ever, Amen. A late learned writer[161] puts
// File: b388.png
.pn +1
this among those scriptures which he applies to the Father,
without assigning any reason for it; which he ought to have
done, inasmuch as the context seems to direct us to apply it to
the Son, spoken of in the foregoing verses; thus, in ver. 12.
I thank Jesus Christ our Lord, who counted me faithful, putting
me into the ministry; and, ver. 14. The Grace of our Lord was
exceeding abundant, &c. and ver. 15. Christ Jesus came into
the world to save sinners; and ver. 16. Howbeit, for this cause
I obtained mercy, that in me first Jesus Christ might shew
forth all long-suffering, for a pattern to them which should hereafter
believe on him to life everlasting. Thus having mentioned
the great things which Christ did for him, it is natural to
suppose that he would take occasion, from hence, to ascribe
glory to him, which he does in the words immediately following,
Now, unto the King, eternal, immortal, &c.
Having considered the force of this argument, taken from
divine worship being ascribed to Christ, to prove his deity, we
shall now proceed to observe the methods used by the Anti-trinitarians
to evade it. Some of the Socinians, as though there
had been no scriptures that speak of him as the object of religious
worship, have peremptorily denied that it is due to him,
and thought very hardly of their brethren, as though they were
involved in the common guilt of idolatry, which they suppose
his worshippers to have been chargeable with. This occasioned
warm debates in Transylvania and Poland, where Socinianism
most prevailed towards the close of the 16 century[162]; and,
indeed, the method of reasoning, made use of by those who denied
that he was the object of worship, though it tended more
to his dishonour, yet it carried in it a greater consistency with
that scheme of doctrines, which both sides maintained, who denied
his divinity.
As for the Arians, they do not expressly deny him to be the
object of worship, but rather deviate from the true sense of the
word, when they maintain his right to it: they speak of great
honours that are to be ascribed to him, by which one would almost
be ready to conclude that they reckoned him a divine Person;
but when these honours are compared with those that are
due to the Father, they very plainly discover that they mean
nothing more hereby, but what in consistency with their own
scheme may be applied to a creature. Thus a late writer[163],
in his explication of that text, in John v. 23. That all men
should honour the Son, even as they honour the Father, plainly discovers
his sense of divine worship, as due to our Saviour, to
// File: b389.png
.pn +1
be very remote from that which is defended by those who
maintain his proper deity. His explication of this text is,
“That the meaning is not that the Son’s authority should, like
that of the Father, be looked upon as underived, absolute,
supreme, and independent; but that as the Jews already believed
in God, so they should also believe in Christ: as they
already honoured God the Father, so they should also for
the future, honour the Son of God; honour him, as having
all judgment committed unto him; honour him, to the honour
of the Father, which sent him; acknowledge him to be
God, to the glory of the Father.” Which is a very low idea
of divine honour; for it is as much as to say, that as the Father
is to be honoured as God, so there is a degree of honour,
which he has conferred upon the Son, infinitely below that
which is due to himself, but yet called divine, because it is given
him by a divine warrant. Whether, in this sense, an angel might
not have had a warrant to receive divine honour, I leave any
one to judge; and, indeed, nothing is contained in this sense, but
what rather tends to depreciate, than advance the glory of
Christ. But that we may better understand how far they allow
that religious worship may be given to our Saviour, as well as
that we may take occasion to defend that right to divine worship,
which we have proved to be due to him, we shall briefly
consider, and endeavour to make some reply to the following
objections.
Object. 1. To what has been said concerning a right to religious
worship, being founded only in a person’s having the perfections
of the divine nature; and accordingly that it is an argument
that our Saviour is truly and properly God, equal with
the Father, because as such, he has a right to it, it is objected,
that if God commands us to worship a creature, we are bound
to obey him; and accordingly, without considering any right
that is founded in his nature, we are to give divine worship to
Christ, by divine direction, or in obedience to a command given
us to that purpose; and that such a command was given, upon
which Christ’s right to receive divine worship is founded, appears
from Heb. i. 6. When he bringeth his first-begotten into
the world, he saith, and let all the angels of God worship him;
which supposes that they did not worship him before, nor would
they have done it afterwards, without this divine intimation.
Answ. 1. As to our yielding obedience to a divine command,
provided God should require us to give divine worship to a
creature, it may be replied, that we do not deny but that all the
divine commands are to be obeyed; but yet this supposition is
groundless, inasmuch as God cannot command us to worship a
creature, any more than he can discharge us from an obligation
to worship himself. This, therefore, is, in effect, to suppose
// File: b390.png
.pn +1
what can never be; therefore nothing can be inferred from
such a supposition; we might as well say, that if God should
cease to exist, he would cease to be the object of worship; or
if a created being had divine perfection, he would have a right
to equal honour with God; which is to suppose a thing that is
in itself impossible; and it is no less absurd to suppose it warrantable
for us to pay divine worship to a creature. This will
farther appear, from what has been said in explaining the nature
of religious worship. Adoration is a saying to a person, who
is the object thereof, thou hast divine perfections, and to say
this to a creature, is contrary to truth; and therefore, certainly
the God of truth can never give us a warrant to say that which
is false, as this certainly would be. And if we consider worship,
as it is our addressing ourselves to him, whom we worship,
in such a way, as becomes a God, he cannot give us a
warrant so to do, for that would be for him to divest himself of
his glory: and it would also disappoint our expectations, by
putting us on trusting one that cannot save us; and such are
justly reproved, in Isa. xlv. 20. as having no knowledge, who
pray unto a god that cannot save. We must therefore conclude,
that since God cannot give his glory to another, he cannot give
any warrant to us to pay divine worship to a creature, as is supposed
in the objection,
2. As for that scripture, referred to, in which God commanded
the angels to worship our Saviour, when he brought him into
the world, it is not to be supposed that he had no right to
divine worship before his incarnation; for if he be a divine
Person, as the scriptures assert him to be, the angels, doubtless
adored him as such before; the only new discovery that
was then made to them was, that the second Person in the Godhead
was now God incarnate; and therefore this instance of
infinite condescension was to be considered as a motive to excite
their adoration, but not the formal reason of it: thus we
are sometimes commanded to adore and magnify God for the
visible displays of his divine perfections in his works; as the
Psalmist says, Psal. cvii. 8. Oh that men would praise the
Lord for his goodness, and for his wonderful works to the children
of men! and, in many other scriptures, where the works
of God are represented, as a means or motive to excite our
worship or adoration; whereas the divine perfections, which
are displayed or rendered visible therein, are the great foundation
or reason thereof; we worship this God because he is
infinitely perfect; though we take occasion, from the visible display
of his perfections, to worship him. In this sense we understand
the worship given to Christ by the angels, when
brought into the world; they took occasion, from this amazing
instance of his condescension, to adore those perfections, which
// File: b391.png
.pn +1
induced the Son of God to take the human nature into union
with his divine; not that they supposed his right to worship
was founded therein.
Object. 2. Since our worshipping Christ includes in it ascribing
all that glory to him that is his due; it is enough for us,
when we worship him, to confess that he has an excellency
above the angels, or that he is the best of all created beings, as
well as the most honourable, and the greatest blessing to mankind,
as he was sent of God to instruct us in the way of salvation
as a Prophet, to intercede for us as a Priest, and to give
laws to us as a King, and that he has done all this faithfully,
and with great compassion to us. These things, and whatever
else he does for the advantage of mankind, may, and ought to
be acknowledged to his praise, as a debt due to him, in which
respect he is to be considered as the object of worship; nevertheless,
we are not to give him that glory which is due to the
Father, as though he were a Person truly and properly divine,
in the same sense as he is.
Answ. 1. It is agreed, on both sides, that that glory, which
is due to him, is to be ascribed; but we humbly conceive, that
the ascribing to a person that honour, which he has a right to,
unless we suppose it to be divine, is not religious worship;
or, to confess that those works which he has done, are wonderful,
and of great advantage to mankind, is no instance of
adoration, unless we suppose that these works are such, as none
but a Person who has the divine nature can perform; whereas
all those works, which they ascribe to him, may, according
to them, be performed by a finite being, or else they must allow
the arguments, which have been taken from thence, to
prove his proper deity.
2. If the works that are ascribed to him be considered as
properly divine, as they are represented to be in scripture, it
must not be concluded, from hence, that he is to be adored,
as performing them; but we are rather to take occasion from
thence, as was observed in our last head, to adore those divine
perfections, which are evinced hereby, which render him
the object of worship; as the works of God are motives to induce
us to worship him, and not the formal reason of that
worship; as when, in the first commandment, God lays claim
to divine honour, or obliges the Israelites to have no other gods
before him, because he had brought them out of the land of
Egypt, we are to consider their deliverance from thence, indeed,
as a motive to worship; but it is the divine power that
was exerted therein, that was properly the object thereof; so,
in Psal. cxxxvi. 1. we are to give thanks to the Lord, whose
mercy endureth for ever; and, in the following verses, there is
a particular mention made of some glorious works which God
// File: b392.png
.pn +1
had done, who alone doth great wonders, who, in wisdom, made
the heavens, stretched out the earth; made the sun to rule
by day, and the moon by night, &c. These, and several other
works there mentioned are all considered as motives to excite
our adoration; but his being Jehovah, the God of gods, and
Lord of lords, as in the 1st, 2d, and 3d verses, is the great
foundation of his right to worship, since that is infinite;
whereas his works are only the effects of infinite power, and
so a demonstration of his right to divine glory. Now to apply
this to those works which are done by our Saviour, if we
suppose them, as we ought, to be properly divine, they are to
be considered only as evincing his right to divine honour, as
they are a demonstration of his deity, which is the only thing
that renders him the object of divine worship.
Object. 3. But some will proceed a little farther, when they
speak of Christ as the object of worship, and so will allow,
that honours, truly divine, may be given to him; yet that this
does not prove him to be God equal with the Father, since he
is herein only considered as the Father’s Representative, on
whom the worship, that is immediately applied to him, must
be supposed to terminate; as when an ambassador, who represents
the prince that sent him, is considered as sustaining that
character, and so receives some honour, which otherwise he
would have no right to, or rather he is honoured as personating
him whom he represents.
Answ. To this it may be replied, that whatever may be said
to be done by an ambassador, as representing the prince that
sent him, there is always something contained in the manner
of his address, or in the honours ascribed to him, that denotes
him to be more than a subject; and it would be ill represented,
should he assume that honour to himself that is due to his
master. Therefore our Saviour, were he not a divine Person,
but only the Father’s Representative, could not have a right
to claim that divine honour that is ascribed to him; neither
have we any foundation, in scripture, to distinguish concerning
a supreme and a subordinate worship, or a worship given
to a person that does not terminate in him, but in another,
whom he represents.
If there be any apparent foundation for this supposition, it
must be taken from those expressions in which Christ is represented,
as Mediator, as acting in the Father’s name, and
not seeking his own glory, but the glory of him that sent him,
or referring all the honour, that is given to him as such, to the
Father. But to this it may be replied, that when our Saviour
uses such a mode of speaking, he disclaims any right to divine
honour due to him as Man, in which respect he received a
commission from the Father, and acted in his name; but when
// File: b393.png
.pn +1
the honour of a divine Person is given to him as God, though
considered as Mediator, he is not to be looked upon as representing
the Father, or transferring the divine glory that he receives,
to the Father, but as having the same right to it as the
Father has, inasmuch as he has the same divine nature, otherwise
we cannot account for those modes of speaking, in which
the glory of a divine Person is ascribed to him, without restriction
or limitation, as it oftentimes is in scripture.
Object. 4. To what has been said in defence of Christ’s divinity,
from our being baptized in his name, it is objected,
that it does not follow, that because we are baptized in the
name of the Son, as well as of the Father, that therefore he is
God equal with the Father; for though this ordinance, as it
respects the Father, contains, properly, an act of divine worship,
in which we consider him as the great Lord of all things,
to whom divine worship, in the highest sense is due; yet we
consider the Son, as well as the Holy Ghost, only as having a
right to an inferior kind of worship, in proportion to the respective
parts which they sustain, by the will of the Father, in
the work of our salvation; and, in particular, to be baptized in
the name of Christ, implies in it nothing else but a declaration
that we adhere to him, as the Father’s Minister, delegated by
him to reveal his mind and will to us, and to erect that gospel-dispensation,
which we, in this ordinance, professedly submit
to; and accordingly to be baptized in the name of Christ,
is to be taken in the same sense, as when, in 1 Cor. x. 2. the
Israelites were said to be baptized into Moses, in the cloud, and
in the sea; as they signified thereby their consent to be governed
by those laws, which Moses was appointed, by God, to
give them; upon which account, they were denominated a particular
church, separated from the world, and obliged to worship
God in such a way, as was prescribed in the ceremonial
law: even so, by baptism, we own ourselves Christians, under
an obligation to adhere to Christ, as our Leader and Commander,
who has revealed to us the gospel, which, by subjecting
ourselves to, we are denominated Christians; and to this
they also add, especially the Socinians, that as baptism was
first practised as an ordinance, to initiate persons into the Jewish
church, and was afterwards applied by our Saviour, to signify
the initiating the heathen into the Christian church; so it
was designed to be no longer in use among them, than till
Christianity was generally embraced; and consequently we
being a Christian nation, are not obliged to submit to it, since
we are supposed to adhere to the doctrines of Christianity, and
therefore it is needless to signify the same by this ordinance.
It was upon this account that Socinus, and some of his followers,
// File: b394.png
.pn +1
not only denied the baptism of infants, but that of all others,
who were supposed to be Christians.
Answ. 1. As to the first part of this objection, to wit, that
baptism does not signify the same thing when it is administered
in the name of Christ, as when administered in the name of
the Father, this is founded on a supposition, that the Son has
not a right to the same honour that is due to the Father, which
ought to be proved, and not taken for granted; and it altogether
sets aside the consideration of the Father, Son, and
Holy Ghost’s being herein co-ordinately represented, as the
objects of this solemn dedication, which tends very much to
derogate from the Father’s glory. As it supposes the Son and
Spirit to have a right to that glory which belongs to him,
while they deny them to be divine Persons; and according to
this method of reasoning, God might as well have ordained,
that we should have been baptized in his name, together with
the name of any of his prophets and apostles, which were appointed
to be his ministers, in revealing his will to us, as in
the name of the Son and Spirit, unless they were accounted
worthy of having an honour infinitely superior to that which is
given to any creature given to them herein.
2. When it is supposed that our professed subjection to
Christ in baptism, is nothing else but our consent to be governed
by those laws, which he has given us in the gospel, and so
is compared with that declaration of subjection to the law of
Moses, which was contained in the baptism of the Israelites
into Moses.
To this it may be replied; that this supposes Christ to be
no other than a Lawgiver; and that to be a Christian, is nothing
else but to be professedly a member of that society,
which goes under that denomination; and that to put on Christ
is not to consecrate or devote ourselves to him as a divine Person;
which is a very low idea of Christianity; and consequently
the character of a Christian does not imply in it so
much, when assumed by an Anti-trinitarian, as when applied
to those who suppose that they are hereby obliged to honour
him, as they honour the Father, or to submit to his government,
as truly and properly divine. A Christian is not barely
one who is of Christ’s party, in the same sense as a Mahometan,
who adheres to the laws of Mahomet, is of his; for
Christianity contains in it an obligation to perform those religious
duties, of trust, universal obedience, and love, that are
due to Christ as a divine Person.
3. As to the supposition, that baptism being an ordinance
of Proselytism to the Christian faith, therefore a Christian nation
is no longer obliged to submit to it, this is directly contrary
to what our Saviour says in the words immediately following
// File: b395.png
.pn +1
the institution thereof, in Matt, xxviii. 20. Lo, I am
with you always, even unto the end of the world, that is, you
may expect my presence with you in administering this ordinance,
as well as preaching the gospel, not only during the
first age of the church, till Christianity shall obtain in the world,
but as long as there shall be a society of Christians in it. And,
indeed, if Christianity were nothing more than a public declaration
of our obligation, to adhere to the laws of Christ; it
does not follow, that because we are born in a Christian nation,
therefore such a profession is no longer necessary. But
since more than this is contained therein, as hath been before
observed, namely, our professed subjection to Christ, in a religious
way, as a divine Person, this extends the baptismal obligation
much farther than to our being called Christians, and
argues the necessity of our engaging in this ordinance, as long
as Christ is the object of faith, or to be acknowledged to be
the Prophet, Priest, and King of his church, and, as such, the
object of religious worship, namely, unto the end of the world.
Object. 5. There is another objection against the argument
in general, relating to Christ’s being the object of divine worship,
taken from his having refused to have one of the divine
perfections ascribed to him, and directing the Person that gave
it, to ascribe it to the Father, in Matt. xix. 17. He said unto
him, Why callest thou me good, there is none good but one, that
is God; q. d. there is but one Person who is good, as goodness
is properly a divine attribute, and that is the Father: therefore
he alone is the object of that worship, which consists in
the ascribing the perfections of the divine nature to him, in
which sense we have before supposed religious worship to be
understood.
Answ. 1. As to what our Saviour says, concerning the divine
unity, when he asserts, that there is none good but one,
that is God; it is, doubtless to be understood in the same sense
with all other scriptures, that deny a plurality of gods, in opposition
to the principles and practice of idolaters; but it does
not follow from hence, that the Father is the only Person who
is God, or the object of divine worship. This has been before
considered[164], and therefore all that I shall reply to this
part of the objection is, that the word God is sometimes taken
for the Godhead, without a particular restriction or limitation
thereof, either to Father, Son, or Holy Spirit, but may be
equally applied to them all. In this sense it is to be taken,
when the being of a God is demonstrated by the light of nature;
as from the effects of the divine power, we argue, that
there is a God, who is the Creator of all things; but this cannot,
// File: b396.png
.pn +1
if we have no other light to guide us herein but that of
nature, be applied to the Father, as a distinct Person in the
Godhead, for the distinction that there is between the divine
Persons is a matter of pure revelation; therefore all that our
Saviour intends by this expression is, that no one has a right
to have divine perfections ascribed to him, but he that has a
divine nature, which whether it be meant of the Father, Son,
or Holy Ghost, he is denominated the one only living and true
God.
It follows from hence, that when such modes of speaking are
used in scripture, though the Father be called the one or only
God, the Son is not excluded, as a late judicious writer well
observes.[165]
2. As to that part of the objection, which concerns our Saviour’s
blaming the man for calling him good, there are two
senses given of it; one is taken from a different reading of the
words, namely, Why dost thou ask me concerning good.[166] But
it will not be much to our purpose either to defend or disprove
// File: b397.png
.pn +1
this reading, since Mark and Luke read it, Why callest thou
me good, &c. therefore, passing this over and supposing that
it ought to be read, as we generally do; the common answer
that is given to this objection, which, I humbly conceive, may
be well acquiesced in, is; that our Saviour considers the man,
as ascribing a divine perfection to him, whom, at the same
time, he concluded to be no more than a creature; and therefore
it is as though he should say; either, first, acknowledge
me to be a divine Person, or else do not ascribe divine honours
to me, for then by consequence, thou mightest as well ascribe
them to any other creature. And accordingly, by the same
method of reasoning, had he conversed with any Anti-trinitarian,
in his day, who had given divine worship to him, and yet
denied his proper deity, he would have reproved him for this
mistake arising from an erroneous conscience, as much as he
does the man, whom he reproves, in the same sense, for styling
him good.
That Christ does not exclude himself from having a right to
this divine perfection, is not only evident, from those several
scriptures, which have been before referred to, that ascribe perfections
to him that are equally divine, inasmuch as he that
has a right to one divine perfection, has a right to all; but he
also styles himself, in John x. 14. The good Shepherd, which
certainly imports as much as good Master, which expression
was used by the man before-mentioned; and that his being the
good Shepherd argues him to be the Fountain of blessedness,
which is certainly a divine perfection, is evident, because he
speaks of himself, as communicatively good in the highest
sense, ver. 28. I give unto them, viz. my sheep, eternal life.[167]
// File: b398.png
.pn +1
Secondly, Having proved the deity of the Son, we proceed
to consider that of the Holy Ghost, in which we are obliged
to oppose the Socinians and Arians, though in different respects:
As for the Socinians, they seem to be divided in their sentiments
// File: b399.png
.pn +1
about this matter, some of them considering the Holy
Ghost no otherwise than as a divine power; and therefore they
call him Virtus Dei, or the divine energy, or power of acting,
seeming, by this account of it, to deny his distinct Personality,
as the Sabellians do that of the Son and Spirit; though others
of them, being convinced that there is sufficient proof of his
Personality in scripture, to deny his deity, supposing him to
be no other than a created ministering Spirit.[174]
As for the Arians, though this controversy was not brought
upon the stage in the council at Nice, which was so much employed
in defending the deity of our Saviour, by proving him
to have the same essence with the Father, that they had no
opportunity to proceed in the defence of the consubstantiality
of the Holy Ghost; yet this is universally denied by all who
give into the Arian scheme: It is true, that as they do not
question his Personality, so they allow that he has many glories
ascribed to him, agreeing, in words, with the scripture account
thereof; but they are, notwithstanding, far from asserting his
proper deity, any more than that of the Son.
We have already proved him to be a distinct Person,[175] and
therefore nothing remains, but that we consider him as having
a divine nature. And, to make this appear, we shall proceed
// File: b400.png
.pn +1
in the same method, in which we have proved the divinity of
the Son, namely, from those divine names, attributes, works,
and worship, which are ascribed to him; though we have no
occasion here to insist on the proof of that proposition, that he
who is thus described is God, as having done that already under
each of those distinct heads, in defence of our Saviour’s deity;
and therefore we need only consider them as applied to the
Holy Ghost. And,
1. It appears that he is God, equal with the Father and Son,
inasmuch as the same divine names are given to him that are
given to them; particularly,
(1.) He is called God, without any thing tending to detract,
or diminish, from the proper sense of the word, when applied
to the Father or the Son: thus, in Acts v. 3, 4. Peter said,
Ananias, Why hath satan filled thine heart to lie to the Holy
Ghost? thou hast not lied unto men, but unto God, where he is
not only called God, but put in opposition to the creature; and
it is as though the apostle should say, thou hast endeavoured
to deceive him, by whom I am inspired, which is a greater
crime, than if thou hadst only lied to me.
Object. It is objected, that it is not the Holy Ghost who is
here called God, but the Father; in defence of which sense of
the text it is supposed, that though the lie was immediately
designed to deceive the apostles, or the Holy Ghost, by whom
they were known to be inspired, yet this was interpreted by
God the Father, as an attempt to impose upon him, whose
Minister the objectors suppose the Holy Spirit to be, as well
as the apostles; and accordingly they thus argue; he that does
any thing against God’s ministers, to wit, the Father’s, may be
said to do the same against him. And here they refer to some
scriptures, which, they think, give countenance to this argument
namely, Exod. xvi. 8. where Moses tells the Israelites, when
they murmured against him, Your murmurings are not against
us, but against the Lord; and, in 1 Sam. viii. 7. where God
says to Samuel, speaking concerning the Israelites, They have
not rejected thee, but they have rejected me; and also our Saviour’s
words to his disciples, in Luke x. 16. He that heareth
you, heareth me; and he that despiseth you, despiseth me; and
he that despiseth me, despiseth him that sent me; and, in 1 Thes.
iv. 8. He that despiseth, despiseth not man, but God, who hath
also given unto us his Holy Spirit.[176]
Answ. How plausible soever this objection may seem to be,
yet, if duly considered, it will not appear sufficient to overthrow
the argument we are maintaining; it is true, indeed, that what
// File: b401.png
.pn +1
is done against any one, who acts by a commission, as a servant
to another, is interpreted to be done against him that gives him
the commission; as he that affronts a judge, or an ambassador,
in this respect, affronts the king, whom he represents; or if an
inferior servant is ill treated, in delivering a message from his
master, this is always supposed to contain a reflection on him
who sent him; But, I humbly conceive, this cannot be applied,
as it is in the objection, to Ananias’s not lying unto men, but
unto God. And, to make this appear, let it be considered;
that here are two terms of opposition; and these either respect
God the Father and the apostles; or God the Father and the
Holy Ghost; or else God the Holy Ghost and the apostles.
1. God the Father cannot be said here to be opposed to the
apostles, so as to give countenance to this phrase, or mode of
speaking used, Thou hast not lied unto men, but unto God, because
it is said, in the foregoing verse, that they had lied to the
Holy Ghost: if the Holy Ghost had not been mentioned, indeed,
then there might have been more ground to conclude, that
Peter opposed himself to God the Father, or intimated hereby,
that Ananias, in attempting to deceive him, attempted to deceive
God that sent him; but even then it would not have fully
corresponded with the sense of those scriptures but now referred
to; for though he that despises a servant, despises him that
sent him; and, accordingly, he that despises a minister, when
he is preaching the gospel, or despises the message that he
brings, may be said to despise God, whose message it is; yet
it does not follow, that if a person designs to impose upon a
minister, in other respects, that he imposes upon God that sent
him; for he may not disown the divine authority, or commission,
which he has to preach the gospel, and yet may conclude that
he may deceive him, though he be sensible that he cannot deceive
God, who knoweth all things: But this I need not farther
insist on, since it is not supposed, in the objection; but God
the Father is therein opposed to the Holy Ghost, or else there
would be no appearance of any argument in it; therefore,
2. Let us consider God the Father as being here opposed
to the Holy Ghost; and then it is as much as to say, Thou
hast lied to the Holy Ghost, wherein thou hast not lied to man,
but to God, to wit, the Father; to which we may answer,
That had the apostle designed to oppose the Holy Ghost to
the Father, and thereby deny his deity, it ought to have been
expressed thus; Thou hast not lied unto the Holy Ghost, but
unto God; and this would effectually have determined him not
to have been God, and removed any umbrage or suspicion, as
though, by the expression, Thou hast not lied unto men, we
were to understand the apostles; or since it will be objected,
that this would have been contrary to matter of fact, for Ananias
// File: b402.png
.pn +1
did lie both to the apostles and to the Holy Ghost; therefore
it would have been better understood, had it been said, Thou
hast not lied to the Holy Ghost, or to men, that is, not to them
only, but thou hast, interpretatively, in lying to them, lied unto
God, to wit, the Father. If it had been so expressed, the sense
would have been plain and obvious, in favour of the Anti-trinitarians,
as well as agreeable to the scriptures before-mentioned,
as giving countenance to it; but since it is not so expressed,
we must conclude,
3. That in this text there is no other opposition, but of God
the Holy Ghost to the apostles; and accordingly the sense is
very plain and natural, which is as though the apostle had said,
Thou hast endeavoured to deceive me, who am under the immediate
inspiration of the Holy Ghost, which is a greater crime
than if thou hadst only lied to me, at another time, when this
honour was not conferred upon me; for herein thou hast committed
a double crime, inasmuch as thou hast not only lied to
me, which thou oughtest not to have done, but thou hast lied
to the Holy Ghost, and, in so doing, hast not lied unto men,
but unto God; or, as it is expressed, in ver. 9. that Ananias
and his wife had agreed together to tempt the Holy Ghost.
Which is called a lying to him, in one verse, is styled a tempting
him in the other; this therefore seems to be a plain and
easy sense of the words, which any unprejudiced reader would
be inclined to give into; and since the scripture is written to
instruct the most injudicious Christians, as well as others, I
cannot conceive that such modes of speaking would have been
made use of therein, which have a tendency to lead persons out
of the way, by deviating from the common sense of words, (especially
in a matter of so great importance as this is) whereby
some, at least, would be inclined, as we are, by adhering to the
most proper sense thereof, to acknowledge the Holy Ghost to
be God, if he were not so.
There is another scripture, in which the Holy Ghost is called
The God and the Rock of Israel, in 2 Sam. xxiii. 3. Now it
seems very evident, that this is applied to him, by comparing
it with the foregoing and following words; in which it is said,
the Spirit of the Lord spake by me, and his word was in my
tongue; and then we have an account of what be said, namely,
He that ruleth over man, must be just, &c. It cannot, with any
colour of reason, be supposed that there is more than one Person
here intended, who imparted this to the prophet; and inasmuch
as this Person is not only called the God, but also the Rock
of Israel, that is a plain intimation that he is the almighty God
of Israel, which is the sense of the metaphor, taken from a rock,
when applied to God in other scriptures.
Again, it is said, in 1 Cor. iii. 16. Know ye not that ye
are the temple of God, and that the Spirit of God dwelleth in you.
// File: b403.png
.pn +1
Here it must be observed, that their being called the temple
of God, who is said to dwell in them, denotes the inhabitant
to be a divine Person, since a temple, according to the known
acceptation of the word, always connotes a deity; and so it is
called the house of God. Now he that dwelt in them, upon
which account they are called his temple, is expressly said to
be the Spirit of God, which is agreeable to what is said concerning
him elsewhere, in chap. vi. 19. Know ye not that your
body is the temple of the Holy Ghost, which, or who, is in you?
(2.) He is called Lord; this seems very evident, from Isa.
vi. 8, 9. And I heard the voice of the Lord, saying, Whom shall
I send, and who will go for us? Then said I, Here am I, send
me. And he said, Go, and tell this people, Hear ye, indeed,
but understand not, &c. where we observe, that the person
sending speaks both in the singular number and the plural,
Whom shall I send, and who will go for us? by the former expression,
Whom shall I send, he evinces his divinity, as having
a right to give a commission to the prophets, to declare his
mind and will to man, which, as will be observed under a fol-head,
none but a divine Person has a right to do; by the latter,
Who shall go for us, he includes himself among the Persons in
the Godhead, as it has before been observed[177]; viz. that when
God is represented, as speaking in the plural number, a Trinity
of Persons seems to be intended thereby.
But that which we shall principally consider is, that the
Holy Ghost is here called Lord, which appears from what the
apostle says, in Acts xxviii. 25, 26. Well spake the Holy Ghost,
by Esaias the prophet, unto our fathers, saying, Go unto this
people, and say, Hearing, ye shall hear, and shall not understand,
&c.
It cannot be reasonably objected to this, that the apostle only
refers to the book of Isaiah, and not to this particular part thereof;
for though, indeed, these words, Thus saith the Holy Ghost,
might be used, as a preface to any quotation from scripture, as
all scripture is given by his inspiration; yet this message, referred
to by the apostle, was not only transmitted by Esaias to the
church, but it is distinguished from all those other things, which
the Spirit of the Lord spake by him; and therefore it cannot be
supposed that the apostle means, when referring to this scripture,
any other than the Holy Ghost’s giving him this commission,
when he says, Well spake the Holy Ghost by him; and consequently
he that gave this commission, or spake thus to him,
is the Holy Ghost, who is, in the foregoing words, called the Lord.
Moreover, there is another scripture, in 2 Cor. iii. 18. where
it is said, We are changed from glory to glory, even as by the
Spirit of the Lord; or, as it is observed in the margin, As by
the Lord the Spirit; which reading is certainly as proper as
// File: b404.png
.pn +1
any other, and is preferred, by some, to it; and therefore it
contains, at least, a probable argument that the Spirit is expressly
called Lord.[178]
2. The Holy Ghost appears to be God, from those divine
attributes that are ascribed to him. Accordingly,
(1.) He is said to be eternal, in Heb. ix. 24. Christ, through
the eternal Spirit, offered himself without spot to God. I am
sensible, many think this eternal Spirit signifies Christ’s eternal
Godhead; which is so called, because of the spirituality of
its nature; and that, in this place, it is designed to set forth
the infinite value, which the oblation that he made of himself,
in his human nature to God, received from the divine nature,
to which it was united; which, though it be a very great truth,
yet there does not seem to be so great a propriety in the expression,
when we suppose the eternal Spirit is taken for the
divine nature, as if it be understood of the Holy Ghost: and
Christ may be said, by him, to have offered himself, without
spot, to God, as implying, that the unction, which he received
from the Holy Ghost, was the means to preserve him from all
sinful defilement, upon which account his oblation was without
blemish; and, indeed, it was no less necessary, in order to its
being accepted, that it should be spotless, than that it should be
of infinite value; therefore I must conclude, that it is the Holy
Ghost who is here called the eternal Spirit.
Moreover, his eternity may be evinced from his having created
all things, as he that made the world, and all finite things,
wherewith time began, must be before them, and consequently
from everlasting; by which the eternity of Christ was proved,
under a foregoing head; and that the Holy Ghost made all
things, will be proved under our next argument.
(2.) His immensity or omnipresence, is a farther proof of
his deity; and this seems to be plainly contained in Psal.
cxxxix. 7. Whither shall I go from thy Spirit? or whither
shall I flee from thy presence? q. d. there is no place where
the Spirit is not; and it is allowed by all, that the divine immensity
is here described in a very elegant manner; though,
it is true, it is objected, that one part of this verse is exegetical
of the other, and therefore the Psalmist, by the Spirit, intends
nothing else but the presence of God; but it is equally,
if not more probable, that the Spirit is distinguished from the
presence of God, and consequently that he is a distinct Person
in the Godhead; and this does not contain any strain upon
the sense of the words, since the Spirit is so often spoken of
in scripture as a Person, as has been before observed;[179] and
// File: b405.png
.pn +1
therefore it is not strange that he should be mentioned as such
in this text; and, if he be spoken of as a Person, it is beyond
dispute that he is there proved to be a divine Person.
(3.) He is said to be omniscient in 1 Cor. ii. 10. The Spirit
searcheth all things; yea, the deep things of God. To search,
indeed, is a word used in condescension to our common mode
of speaking, as we arrive to the knowledge of things by searching,
or enquiry, though this idea is to be abstracted from the
word, when applied to God; for him to search, is to know all
things; and, in this sense, it is used, in Psal. cxxxix. 23, 24.
Search me, O God, and know my heart; try me, and know my
thoughts; and see if there be any wicked way in me, &c. It does
not imply the manner of his knowing, but the exquisiteness of
his knowledge; and so we must understand it in this scripture,
when applied to the Spirit’s searching all things, in which we
have an account of the objects of his knowledge, namely, the
deep things of God: thus he knows all those things, which were
hid in the divine mind from all eternity, and the infinite perfections
of the divine nature, which are incomprehensible to a
creature, and which none can, by searching, find out to perfection,
Job xi. 7. in which respect the highest creatures, viz.
the angels, are said to be charged with folly, whose knowledge
is comparatively imperfect, chap. iv. 18. Moreover, we may
observe, that the manner of the Spirit’s knowing all things, is
not like ours, that is by inferring consequences from premises,
in a way of reasoning; for it is said, in the verse immediately
following, that he knows the things of God, in such a way, as
a man knoweth the things of a man, that is, his own thoughts,
by an internal principle of knowledge, not by revelation, or any
external discovery: thus the Spirit knows the divine nature,
as having it; therefore his omniscience is a plain proof of his
Deity.
3. The Deity of the Holy Ghost may be farther evinced,
from his performing those works which are proper to God
alone. And,
(1.) He is said to have created all things: thus, in Gen. i.
2. The Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters; where,
by the Spirit of God, cannot be meant, as some suppose, the air
or the wind; for that was not created till the second day, when
God made the firmament. Again, it is said, in Job xxvi. 13.
By his Spirit he hath garnished the heavens; and, in chap.
xxiii. 4. The Spirit of God hath made me. Some of the Arians
are so sensible that the Spirit is represented as the Creator of
all things as well as the Son; that they suppose him to be an
instrument to the Son in the creation thereof; which is as much
as to say, he is an instrument of an instrument; and, indeed,
to say the Son created all things, as an instrument, has
// File: b406.png
.pn +1
been considered as an indefensible notion;[180] but this is much
more so.
(2.) Extraordinary or miraculous works, which are equivalent
to creation, have been performed by the Spirit; thus the
apostle, speaking concerning extraordinary gifts, subservient to
the propagation of the gospel, in the first preaching thereof,
attributes them to the Spirit, which he largely insists on, in
1 Cor. xii. and when he says, ver. 4, 5, 6. that there are diversities
of gifts, but the same Spirit; and there are differences
of administrations, but the same Lord; and there are diversities
of operations, but it is the same God, which worketh all in all;
which many who defend the doctrine of the Trinity, take for
granted, that it signifies all the Persons in the Godhead, that
our Saviour is called Lord, and the father God, therein; and
some of the Anti-trinitarians, from hence, would argue, that
the Spirit is not God, because he is distinguished from the
Father, whom they suppose to be there called God, I cannot
but from hence conclude, that the Holy Spirit is set forth under
all these three names; and the works attributed to him,
notwithstanding the variety of expressions, are the same, and
included in that general term of spiritual gifts. And so I take
the meaning of the text to be this, there are diversities of gifts,
or extraordinary operations, which some were enabled to put
forth in the exercise of their ministry, which are all from the
same Spirit, who is called Lord and God, who has an infinite
sovereignty, and bestows these blessings as he pleases, as becomes
a divine Person; and this agrees very well with what
is said, in ver. 11. All these worketh that one and the self-same
Spirit, dividing to every man severally as he will.
(3.) The Spirit of God commissioned and qualified ministers
to preach the gospel, and thereby to gather and build up
churches, determining that their ministry should be exercised
in one place, and not in another; which is a peculiar branch of
the divine glory, and no one has a right to do it, but a divine
Person. A creature may as well pretend to command the sun
to shine, or stop its course in the heavens at his pleasure, as he
can commission a minister to preach the gospel, or restrain the
preaching thereof. And here we may observe, that the Holy
Ghost is plainly said to have called and appointed the apostles
to exercise their ministry in the first preaching of the gospel,
after he had, by conferring extraordinary gifts upon them,
qualified them for it; and accordingly he speaks in a style truly
divine, in Acts xiii. 2. The Holy Ghost said, separate me Barnabas
and Saul, for the work whereunto I have called them; and,
in Acts xx. 28. the apostle tells the elders, or ministers of the
church at Ephesus, that the Holy Ghost had made them overseers.
// File: b407.png
.pn +1
We read also of the Spirit’s determining where they
should exercise their ministry; thus he commanded Philip to
go and preach the gospel to the eunuch, in Acts viii. 29. Then
the Spirit said unto Philip, Go near, and join thyself to this
chariot; and, at another time, the Spirit bade Peter to go and
preach the gospel to Cornelius, when he doubted whether it
were lawful for him to do it or no, in Acts x. 19, 20. The Spirit
said unto him, Behold, three men seek thee; therefore get thee
down, and go with them, doubting nothing, for I have sent them;
and, at another time, it is said, in Acts xvi. 6, 7. They were
forbidden of the Holy Ghost to preach the word in Asia; and
that they assayed to go into Bithynia, but the Spirit suffered
them not; and, in ver. 9, 10. the apostle Paul was ordered, in
a vision, to go to Macedonia; which command he obeyed,
assuredly gathering that the Lord, that is, the Spirit, had called
him to preach the gospel unto them. Nothing can be a greater
argument of the sovereignty of the Holy Ghost, in what respects
this matter, which was of the highest importance; therefore
it is an evident proof of his divinity. But to this we
may add,
(4.) That his divinity farther appears from the unction,
which he conferred on our Saviour, to perform the work of a
Mediator in his human nature: thus it is said, in Isa. lxi. 1.
The Spirit of the Lord God is upon me, because the Lord hath
anointed me to preach good tidings to the meek, &c. And this
is particularly referred to, as signifying our Saviour’s unction
by the Holy Ghost, in Luke iv. 18, 19. The Spirit of the Lord
is upon me, because he hath anointed me, &c. And, indeed, it
is not denied that this is spoken of the Holy Ghost, even by
those who do not infer his deity from it; accordingly it is inserted,
by a late writer, among those scriptures that speak particularly
of the Holy Ghost;[181] and it would be a great strain
on the sense of the text, to suppose that he hath anointed me,
refers to the Father, and not to the Spirit. As to the meaning
of the word unction, it is borrowed from the ceremonial law,
under which the prophets, priests, and kings were publickly
anointed with oil, as used to signify the warrant, or commission,
they had received from God, to execute these offices, together
with the qualifications which were to be expected for
the discharge thereof. In this sense our Saviour is said to have
been anointed by the Holy Ghost, to wit, in his human nature,
in which he was obliged to yield obedience and subjection to
God, and accordingly he was authorized and qualified to perform
this obedience by the Holy Ghost; so that, how difficult
soever it was, it might be discharged by him, without the least
failure or defect therein, as we observed before, that it was
// File: b408.png
.pn +1
owing hereunto, that his oblation was without spot: the work was
certainly extraordinary, and consequently the glory redounding
to the Holy Ghost from hence, is such as proves him to be a
divine Person.
(5.) He farther appears to be so, inasmuch as the work of
grace, both as to the beginning, progress, and completing of
it, in the souls of believers, is ascribed to him, as well as to the
Father and the Son. That this is a work of God’s almighty
power, and consequently too great to be performed by any creature;
and that the Holy Ghost is, in particular, the author
thereof, we shall here take for granted, without attempting to
prove it, which would not be a just method of reasoning, were
we not led to insist on this subject, under some following answers,
in which this will be more particularly proved.[182] And if
the work appears to be the effect of the exceeding greatness of
the power of God, whereby we are regenerate and sanctified,
and enabled to overcome all the opposition which attends it,
till we are brought to glory, then he, who is the author hereof,
will evidently appear to be the God of all grace; and therefore
we shall proceed to consider,
4. That the Holy Ghost appears to be God, inasmuch as he
has a right to divine worship. That none but a divine Person
has a right hereunto, has been already proved; and that the
Spirit has a right to it, might be evinced, from his having those
divine perfections, which, as has been before observed, are ascribed
to him in scripture; since he has the perfections of the
divine nature, which are the objects of adoration, then it follows,
that he is to be adored; and if he has performed those
works, which argue him to be the proprietor of all things, this
must be acknowledged; and if all that grace, which is necessary
to make us meet for the heavenly blessedness, be his work
and gift, it follows from hence, that he is to be sought to for
it, which is a great branch of religious worship. But this being
only an improvement of, or a deduction from those foregoing
arguments, laid down to prove his Deity, we shall enquire
whether we have not something that contains in it the
obligation of a command, or whether there are not some examples,
which are equivalent thereunto, which will farther warrant
our giving divine worship to him. Some suppose, that that
prayer is directed to the Holy Ghost, which is mentioned in
Acts i. 24, 25. Thou, Lord, which knoweth the hearts of all
men, shew whether of these two thou hast chosen, that he may
take part of this ministry and apostleship; and the reason of
this supposition is, because the designation of persons to the
exercise of their ministry, as well as the extraordinary gifts
with which they were furnished, is peculiarly applied to the
// File: b409.png
.pn +1
Holy Ghost in this book; therefore, it is supposed, they prayed
to the Holy Ghost, that he would signify whom he had chosen
to the apostleship, in the room of Judas, of those two that were
nominated by them; but this being, at most, but a probable
argument, I shall lay no stress upon it.
But, I humbly conceive, that we have a more evident example
of prayer made to the Holy Ghost, in 2 Thess. iii. 5. The
Lord direct your hearts into the love of God, and into the patient
waiting for Christ; it seems more than probable that the Holy
Ghost, who is here called Lord, is prayed to; for he is distinguished
from the Father and Son; and the apostle prays to
him that he would direct them into the love of the Father, and
enable them patiently, to wait for the Son.
Again, there is another instance hereof, in 1 Thess. iii. 12,
13. The Lord make you to increase and abound in love one towards
another, to the end, that he may establish your hearts unblameable
in holiness before God our Father, at the coming of
our Lord Jesus Christ; where the Holy Ghost seems to be the
person prayed to; and is plainly distinguished from the Father
and Son, inasmuch as what is prayed to him for, is their being
holy before the Father, at the coming of the Son.
There is another scripture, in which it is still more evident,
that the apostle prays to the Holy Ghost, together with the
Father and Son, viz. Cor. xiii. 14. The grace of the Lord Jesus
Christ, and the love of God, and the communion of the Holy
Ghost, be with you all, amen; where, in that part of this prayer,
which respects the Holy Ghost, is contained an humble supplication,
that he would be pleased to manifest himself to them,
or that he would communicate to them those graces which they
stood in need of; that so, as the church is said elsewhere, in
John i. 3. to have fellowship with the Father, and with his Son
Jesus Christ; here the apostle prays that they may have fellowship
with the Holy Ghost; and how can this blessing be prayed
for, without supposing him addressing himself herein to the
Holy Ghost? Whenever any thing is desired, or prayed for,
that can be considered no otherwise than as an effect, produced
by a free agent, this prayer, or desire, is supposed more
immediately to be directed to him: As suppose a person should
use this mode of speaking, in presence of a disobliged friend;
Oh that he would look upon me, that he would converse with
me, or that he would discover his wonted love to me! though,
according to the form of expression, it seems not be directed
to him, yet every one would suppose it to be equivalent to an
immediate address made to him to that purpose; wherefore, for
the apostle to desire that the Holy Ghost would have communion
with, that is, converse with, and manifest himself to them,
in performing all those works, which were necessary for their
// File: b410.png
.pn +1
edification and salvation, this desire cannot contain less than a
prayer to him.
We shall now proceed to consider some objections, brought
by the Anti-trinitarians, against the deity of the Holy Ghost.
Object. A divine Person cannot be the gift of God, for that
supposes him to be at his disposal, and inferior to him; but
the Spirit is said to be given by him, in Neh. ix. 20. Thou
gavest also thy good Spirit to instruct them; and, in Acts xi.
17. God gave them the like gift, meaning the Spirit, that he did
unto us; and, in Luke xi. 13. God, the Father, is said to give
the Holy Spirit to them that ask him. Again, the Spirit is said
to be sent, and that either by the Father, as in John xiv. 26.
The Comforter, which is the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will
send in my name; or by the Son, as in chap. xvi. 7. If I depart,
I will send him unto you. Again, he is said to receive what
he communicates from another, in John xvi. 14. He shall receive
of mine, and shall shew it unto you; which is inconsistent
with the character of a divine Person, who is never said to receive
what he imparts to others, as the apostle speaks concerning
God, in Rom. xi. 35. Who hath first given to him? Again,
he is said not to speak of himself, but what he hears, when he
shews things to come, John xvi. 13. Accordingly he did not
know that which he was to communicate before he heard it.
Again, he is said to have a mind distinct from God, unless we
suppose that there are a plurality of gods, and so more distinct
divine minds than one; for this, they bring that scripture, in
Rom. viii. 27. He that searcheth the heart, knoweth the mind of
the Spirit. Again, he is represented as making intercession,
which is an act of worship, and consequently he cannot be the
object thereof; ver. 26. The Spirit itself maketh intercession
for us, &c. this also argues that he is not possessed of the blessings
which he intercedes for. Again, he is not only said to
be resisted and grieved, which expressions, it is true, are
sometimes applied to God, though in an improper sense, speaking
after the manner of men; but the Spirit is said to be
quenched, or extinguished: thus, 1 Thess. v. 19. this, together
with what has been before said concerning him, is not
applicable to a divine Person. These are the most material
objections that are brought against the doctrine which we have
been endeavouring to maintain, and the sum of them all is this;
that it is inconsistent with the character of a divine Person to
be thus dependent on, and subjected to the will of another, as
the Spirit is supposed, by them, to be.
Answ. That we may defend the Godhead of the Holy Ghost,
against such-like objections as these, we shall first premise
something relating to all those scriptures which speak of the
Spirit, as given or sent by the Father, and then apply it to the
// File: b411.png
.pn +1
sense of those in particular which are brought to support the
objections, as before-mentioned.
1. It may be easily observed, that in several places of scripture,
especially in the New Testament, the Holy Ghost is often
taken for the gifts or graces of the Spirit; and more particularly
for that extraordinary dispensation, in which the apostles
were endowed with those spiritual gifts, which were necessary
for the propagation and success of the gospel: these,
by a Metonymy, are called the Spirit; and, I humbly conceive,
all those scriptures, which speak of the Spirit’s being poured
forth, as in Prov. i. 23. and Joel ii. 28. compared with Acts
ii. 17. and elsewhere, are to be understood in this sense; and
thus it is explained, in Acts x. 44, 45. The Holy Ghost fell on
all them which heard the word; upon which occasion it is said,
that upon the Gentiles was poured out the gift of the Holy Ghost.
Thus we are to understand that scripture, in Acts xix. 2. We
have not so much as heard whether there be any Holy Ghost;
and another in John vii. 39. the Holy Ghost was not yet, because
Jesus was not yet glorified; the word given is supplied
by our translators, probably, to fence against a weak argument
of some Anti-trinitarians, taken from that text, to overthrow
the eternity of the Spirit; but whether the word be supplied or
no, the sense of the text is plainly this, that the gifts of the
Holy Ghost were not conferred before Christ’s ascension into
heaven; which is a farther confirmation of this acceptation of
the word, or of this figurative way of speaking, being used in
this, and several other places of scripture, to the same purpose.
2. All those scriptures which seem to represent the Holy
Ghost, as inferior to the Father and Son, some of which are
contained in the objection, may be understood as denoting the
subserviency of the works of the Spirit, which are also called
the Holy Ghost, to those works which are said to be performed
by the Father and Son: Now it is certain that the subserviency
of one work unto another, performed by different persons,
does not necessarily infer the inferiority of one person to
the other: accordingly we must distinguish between the Spirit,
as subsisting, and as acting; in the former sense, he is a divine
Person, equal with the Father and Son; in the latter, he
may be said to be subservient to them.
But now we shall proceed to consider the sense of those
scriptures, brought to support the objection, in consistency
with what has been premised. The first scripture mentioned,
is that in which it is said, Thou gavest them thy good Spirit to
instruct them; where the Holy Ghost is described with a personal
character, and probably it is not to be understood metonymically
for his gifts and graces; accordingly the meaning
of it seems to be this; that the Spirit’s efficiency, in guiding
// File: b412.png
.pn +1
and instructing them, was a special gift of God conferred upon
them; and, in this respect, though he was a sovereign Agent,
yet he is said to act by the will of the Father, which is the
same with his own will: for though the Persons in the Godhead
are distinct, yet they have not distinct wills; and it is no
improper way of speaking to say, that when a divine Person
displays his glory, and therein confers a blessing upon men,
that this is given; as when God is said to give himself to his
people, when he promises to be a God to them. There is, indeed,
in this mode of speaking, a discriminating act of favour
conferred on men, upon which account it is called a gift; but
this does not militate against the divinity of the Holy Ghost,
though he is said to be given to them.
As for the other scripture, in which it is said, God gave
them the like gift, as he gave to us, meaning the Holy Ghost,
that is plainly taken for the extraordinary gifts of the Spirit, the
conferring whereof is called, in the foregoing words, a being
baptized with the Holy Ghost; as it is particularly explained in
that scripture, referred to, in Acts x. 45, 46. where it is said,
that on the Gentiles was poured out the gift of the Holy Ghost;
what this gift is, we may learn from the following words, They
spake with tongues, and magnified God.
Again, when it is said, in Luke xi. 13. that your heavenly
Father shall give the Holy Spirit to them that ask him; this is
explained by another evangelist, in Matt. vii. 11. where it is
taken for good things in general, and so includes the graces of
the Spirit, that accompany salvation, when it is said, your
Father, that is in heaven, shall give good things to them that
ask him; so that here the Spirit is taken for all those blessings
which he bestows upon his people, in answer of prayer.
As for those scriptures before mentioned, in which the
Spirit is said to be sent, either by the Father, or the Son, they
are not, indeed, to be understood in the same sense, as when
the Son is said to be sent in his human nature, appearing in
the form of a servant, to fulfil the will of God; but when God
is said to send his Spirit, the word is to be taken in a metaphorical
sense; in which, sending imports as much as giving;
and when the Spirit is said to be given, it has a peculiar reference
to the grace which he was to bestow upon them. If we
enquire into the reason of this metaphorical way of speaking,
it may probably be this; that we may understand hereby that
the Spirit, which was to produce these effects, was a divine
Person, and that the effects themselves were subservient to
those works which were performed, by which the Personal
glories of the Father and Son were demonstrated.
Again, when it is farther said by our Saviour, in John xvi.
14. that the Spirit shall receive of mine, and shew it unto you;
// File: b413.png
.pn +1
this plainly intends the Spirit’s applying to them those blessings
which Christ had purchased by his blood, which tended to his
glory; and still it signifies only the subserviency of the Spirit
to the Son, in working, as the application of redemption tends
to render the purchase thereof effectual, to answer its designed
end.
As to the next scripture, before mentioned, in John xvi. 13.
where the Spirit is said not to speak of himself, but whatsoever
he shall hear, that shall he speak; this does not argue, in the
least, that the Spirit receives what he communicates, as dependent
on the Father, for the knowledge of those things he
is to impart, or that he has ideas impressed on his mind, as
creatures are said to have; for that is inconsistent with what
has been before proved from scripture, viz. That the Spirit
knoweth the deep things of God, even as the spirit of a man
knoweth the things of a man; or, as an intelligent being, is
conscious of his own thoughts, or actions, not by information,
but by an immediate internal perception. The sense therefore
of this text is this; that the Spirit shall communicate no other
doctrines, or give no other laws, but what Christ had before
given in the gospel; or that what he revealeth, is the same that
Christ had given them ground to expect: accordingly, it is so
far from militating against the Spirit’s divinity, that it proves
the harmony and consent of what is suggested by one divine
Person, with what had been before delivered by another; and
as to the mode of expression here used, concerning the Spirit’s
speaking what he had heard; this is spoken after the manner of
men, and is no more inconsistent with his divine omniscience,
or the independence thereof, than when God is said, in other
scriptures, to know things by searching them, or, as it were,
by enquiry, as hath been before observed, in considering omniscience,
as attributed to the Holy Ghost. These, and suchlike
expressions, by which God is represented, by words, accommodated
to our usual way of speaking, when applied to men,
are to be understood, notwithstanding, in a way agreeable to
the divine perfections, by abstracting from them every thing
that argues the least imperfection in him, when applied to
the Holy Ghost; as when some expressions, agreeable to human
modes of speaking, are elsewhere used, with a particular
application to the Father, without detracting from his divine
glory.
Again, when it is objected, that the Spirit hath a distinct
mind from God, as when it is said, God knoweth the mind of
the Spirit; and, as though he were represented as engaged in
an act of worship, he is, in the following words, described, as
praying, or, making intercession for us, according to the will
of God; as, in Rom. viii. 26, 27. it is plain, that, by the mind
// File: b414.png
.pn +1
of the Spirit, we are to understand those secret desires in
prayer, which are wrought in believers by the Spirit, when
they want words to express them; instead of which, they address
themselves to God, as it is said, with groanings that cannot
be uttered, which are from the Spirit, as the Author of these
secret desires, which are only known to the heart-searching
God, who knows the meaning of them, what it is we want, in
which respect, this is called the mind of the Spirit, as the Author
thereof, though it is subjectively our own mind or desires,
which we want words to express; and when the Spirit is
said to make intercession for us, it implies nothing else but
his enabling us, whether in more or less proper modes of speaking,
to plead with God for ourselves.
Lastly, As to those expressions, by which the Spirit is represented,
as quenched, or extinguished, these are to be understood
in the same sense as when by a metonymy, as before mentioned,
the gifts of the Spirit; as when those extraordinary
gifts were first promised, they were led to expect that they
should be baptized with the Holy Ghost, and with fire, that is,
they should have the extraordinary gifts of the Holy Ghost
conferred upon them, which were to be signified by the emblem
of fiery tongues, that sat on them, in Acts ii. 3. the reason
of which emblem might probably be this; that as a necessary
qualification from their preaching the gospel, they should
be filled with an holy flame of love to God, and zeal for his
glory, as well as with the gift of tongues, by which they might
communicate his mind to the world. This privilege, which
they had received, the apostle exhorts them not to forfeit, abuse,
or provoke the Holy Ghost to take from them, which is
called a quenching the Spirit; therefore this metaphorical way
of speaking, accommodated hereunto, must not be supposed to
be inconsistent with his divinity.
I shall conclude with some inferences, which more especially
respect the practical improvement of the doctrine of the Trinity.
And,
1. We may take occasion, from hence, to observe the difference
that there is between natural and revealed religion.
As the former respects the knowledge of God so far, as it may
be attained without the help of divine revelation, and that
worship, which the heathen, who have nothing else to guide
them but the light of nature, are obliged to give to the divine
Being; the latter, which is founded on scripture, contains a
display of the Personal glory of the Father, Son, and Holy
Ghost, which is necessary to be known and believed, as being
the foundation of all revealed religion; so that the sum of
Christianity consists in our subjection to, and adoring the Godhead,
as subsisting in the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.
// File: b415.png
.pn +1
2. As this doctrine is eminently displayed in the work of
redemption, it is necessary for us to consider how it is accommodated
to, and demonstrated by all the branches thereof. The
price that was given, by our great Redeemer, has a value put
upon it, in proportion to the dignity of his Person, and lays a
sure foundation for our hope of being accepted in the sight of
God, on account of his obedience and sacrifice, which was of
infinite value: and the application of redemption being a work
which the Spirit, who is a divine Person, has undertaken to
perform, encourages us to expect that it shall be brought to
perfection; so that they, who are the objects of redeeming love
and sanctifying grace, shall, in the end, be completely saved.
3. As it is necessary for us to adore and magnify the Father,
Son, and Holy Ghost, for the hope which we have of this inestimable
privilege in the gospel; so we must observe the distinct
glory that is to be given to each of these divine Persons
for this work; to the Father, in that whatever is done by the
Mediator, to procure this privilege for us, is considered, in
scripture, as taking its rise from him, 1 Cor. i. 30. Of him are
ye in Christ Jesus, who of God is made unto us, wisdom, and
righteousness, and sanctification, and redemption: And whatever
was done in the human nature, or by God incarnate; that
is, in a peculiar manner, the work of the Son, and a revenue
of glory is due to him for it, who gave his life a ransom for
many, and herein expressed the highest instance of condescension,
which is enhanced by the infinite dignity of his Person.
Moreover, whatever work is performed in subserviency to the
Mediator’s glory, whereby the Spirit demonstrates his distinct
Personal glory; this gives us occasion to adore him, in all the
displays of his power, in beginning, carrying on, and completing
the work of grace in the souls of men.
4. As to what respects that fellowship or communion, which
believers have with the Father, Son, and Spirit, this depends
on the account we have, in scripture, of the distinct methods,
in which their Personal glory is set forth therein: Thus we
have access to God the Father, through the Mediation of the
Son, by the powerful influence of the Holy Spirit, as the apostle
says, in Eph. ii. 18. Through him we have an access, by one
Spirit unto the Father; and our hope of blessedness proceeds
this way, as it is the gift of the Father, who has prepared an
inheritance for us, the purchase of the Son, on whose death it
is founded, and the work of the Holy Ghost, as bringing us to
and putting us into the possession of it.
5. This directs us as to the way of performing the great duty
of self-dedication, to the Father, Son, and Spirit; to the
Father, as our covenant God in Christ; to the Son, as the Mediator,
Head, and Surety of this covenant; and to the Spirit,
// File: b416.png
.pn +1
by whom we are made partakers of the blessings promised
therein; in all these, and many other respects, we are to have
a particular regard to the persons in the Godhead, in such a
way, as their Personal glory is set forth in scripture.
6. Since the Father, Son, and Spirit, are one, though we
distinguish them as Persons, yet we must consider them as
having the same divine perfections, the same divine understanding
and will, lest, while we give glory to each of the Persons
in the Godhead, we should suppose that there are more
Gods than one; therefore, though the Person of the Father is
distinct from that of the Son and the Holy Ghost, we are not
to suppose the power, wisdom, goodness, and faithfulness, or
any other divine perfections, belong, in a more or less proper
sense, to one Person than another.
7. This doctrine is of use to direct us how we are to address
ourselves to God in prayer: thus, when therein we call him
our Father, we are not to consider him in the same sense, as
when he is represented as the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ;
but we address ourselves to him, as the Author of our being,
the God of all grace, and the Fountain of blessedness; in which
respect, the Son and the Holy Ghost are not to be excluded, especially
unless we consider him as our Father in Christ, and
so express our faith with respect to his distinct Personality,
from that of the Son and the Spirit. And though only one divine
Person be particularly mentioned in prayer, the blessed
Trinity is to be adored; or whatever Personal glory we ascribe
to one, as subsisting distinctly from the other, we must, notwithstanding,
consider the Father, Son, and Spirit, as the one
only living and true God.
Thus we have gone through this great and important subject,
and therein have taken occasion, particularly, to insist on
the chief matters in controversy relating to the doctrine of the
ever-blessed Trinity, and consider the various methods taken
to oppose it both by the Socinians and Arians, and endeavoured,
not only to defend the Deity of our Saviour, and the Holy
Ghost by enquiring into the sense of those many scriptures, in
which our faith therein is founded, but to answer the most
material objections that are brought against it; and our enlarging
more on it, than we shall do on several following answers,
cannot be reckoned a needless work, inasmuch as a great deal
hath been written in opposition to it, whereby the faith of some
has not only been shaken, but overthrown. I would never attempt
to speak of this doctrine, or any of the divine perfections,
without being sensible of the difficulty of the subject, it
being such as is not to be comprehended by a finite mind. I
hope nothing will appear to have been suggested inconsistent
with the essential, or Personal glory of the Father, Son, or
// File: b417.png
.pn +1
Spirit; and it may reasonably be expected that there should be
allowances made for great defects, since it is but a little of God
that can be known by us; therefore, when we pretend to speak
concerning him, it will not be thought strange if we give occasion
to any to say, that we have the greatest reason to acknowledge,
that, in many instances, we cannot order our words, by
reason of darkness.
.fn 76
“God is One: a most pure, most simple, and most perfect Being.
“The absolute unity and simplicity of this glorious Being is strictly exclusive of
any division of perfections. Yet, as human knowledge is not intuitive but discursive,
we find it necessary to form and communicate our conceptions, by referring
them to distinct and infinite attributes. Such are independence, spirituality, eternity,
immutability, power, knowledge, rectitude, and benevolence.
“It is absurd to say, that either the abstract essence, or any of the infinite perfections
of God, in themselves, or in their exercise, can be grasped, included, or
comprehended (or whatever equivalent term be used) by a limited intellect. ‘A
part of His ways, a little portion of Him,’ we know; for He has unveiled it. The
knowledge of the best and greatest finite mind can only be, to immortality, an approximation;
and therefore must for ever be infinitely small. God alone is CAPABLE
of COMPREHENDING His own nature, mode of existence, and perfections.
“The only questions, therefore, that we have to ask, are, Has Deity, in fact, communicated
to man any information concerning HIMSELF? And what has He communicated?
Whatever such revelation may be, it is impossible that it should be
self-contradictory, or any other than most becoming to infinite wisdom and purity.
“This revelation authorizes us, by a variety of inductive proofs, to conclude,
that, with regard to the mode of existence of the ONE Divine Essence, the Unity
of the Godhead includes a Trinity of Persons (so denominated for want of any
better terms) who are scripturally styled the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit:
Distinct, not in essence or in perfections, but only personally: One, not personally,
but in the common possession of the same identical nature and attributes.
“No contradiction or absurdity is involved in this doctrine, because the unity refers
to one respect, and the trinity to another. But we make no difficulty in professing
our incapacity to include in our knowledge, or express by any possible
terms, the respect in which the Trinity of persons subsists in the perfect Oneness
of the Deity. Such pretension would imply a contradiction.”
Smith’s Letters to Belsham.
.fn-
.fn 77
“That which is taught in the scriptures concerning the incomprehensible
and spiritual essence of God ought to suffice, not only to overthrow the foolish
errors of the common people, but also to confute the fine subtilties of profane
philosophy. One of the old writers seemed to have said very well, ‘That God is
all that we do see, and all that we do not see.’ But by this means he hath imagined
the Godhead to be diffused into all the parts of the world. Although God,
to the intent to keep men in sober mind, speak but sparingly of his own essence,
yet, by those two names of addition that I have rehearsed, he doth both take away
all gross imaginations, and also repress the presumptuous boldness of man’s mind.
For surely his immeasurable greatness ought to make us afraid, that we attempt
not to measure him with our sense: and his spiritual nature forbiddeth us to imagine
any thing earthly or fleshly of him. For the same cause he often assigneth
his dwelling place to be in heaven. For though, as he is incomprehensible, he filleth
the earth also: yet because he seeth our minds by reason of their dulness to lie
still in the earth, for good cause he lifteth us up above the world, to shake off our
sloth and sluggishness. And here falleth to ground the error of the Manichees,
which, in appointing two original beginnings, have made the devil in a manner
equal with God. Surely, this was as much as to break the unity of God, and restrain
his unmeasurableness. For where they have presumed to abuse certain testimonies,
that sheweth a foul ignorance, as their error itself sheweth a detestable
madness. And the Anthropomorphites are also easily confuted, who have imagined
God to consist of a body, because oftentimes the scripture ascribeth unto
him a mouth, ears, eyes, hands, and feet. For what man, yea, though he be slenderly
witted, doth not understand that God doth so with us speak as it were childishly,
as nurses do with their babes? therefore such manner of speeches do not
so plainly express what God is, as they do apply the understanding of him to our
slender capacities. Which to do, it behoved of necessity that he descended a great
way beneath his own height.
“2. But he also setteth out himself by another special mark, whereby he may
be more nearly known. For he so declareth himself to be but one, that he yet
giveth himself distinctly to be considered in three persons: which, except we
learn, a bare and empty name of God without any true God fleeth in our brain.
And that no man should think that he is a threefold God, or that the one essence
of God is divided in three persons, we must here seek a short and easy definition,
to deliver us from all error. But because many do make much about this
word Person, as a thing invented by man, how justly they do so, it is best first
to see. The apostle naming the Son the engraved form of the hypostasis of his
Father, he undoubtedly meaneth, that the Father hath some being, wherein he
differeth from the Son. For to take it for essence (as some expositors have done,
as if Christ like a piece of wax printed with a seal did represent the substance of
the Father) were not only hard, but also an absurdity. For since the essence of
God is single or one, and indivisible, he that in himself containeth it all, and
not by piece-meal, or by derivation, but in whole perfection, should very improperly,
yea, foolishly, be called the engraved form of him. But because the
Father, although he be in his own property distinct, hath expressed himself
wholly in his Son, it is for good cause said, that he hath given his hypostasis to
be seen in him. Wherewith aptly agreeth that which by and by followeth, that
he is the brightness of his glory. Surely by the apostle’s words we gather, that
there is a certain proper hypostasis in the Father, that shineth in the Son: whereby
also again is easily perceived the hypostasis of the Son, that distinguisheth
him from the Father. The like order is in the holy Ghost. For we shall by and
by prove him to be God, and yet he must needs be other than the Father. Yet
this distinction is not of the essence, which it is unlawful to make manifold.
Therefore, if the apostle’s testimony be credited, it followeth that there be in God
three hypostasis. This term seeing the Latins have expressed by the name of
Person, it were too much pride and frowardness to wangle about so clear a
matter. But if we list word for word to translate, we may call it subsistance.
Many in the same sense have called it substance. And the name of Person hath
not been in use among the Latins only, but also the Grecians, perhaps to declare
a consent, have taught that there are three Prosopa, that is to say Persons, in
God. But they, whether they be Greeks or Latins that differ one from another
in the word, do very well agree in the sum of the matter.
“3. Now howsoever the hereticks cry out against the name of Person, or some
overmuch precise men do carp that they like not the word feigned by the device of
men; since they cannot get of us to say, that there be three, whereof every one
is wholly God, nor yet that there be many gods: what unreasonableness is this,
to dislike words, which express none other thing but that which is testified and
approved by the scriptures? It were better (say they) to restrain not only our
meanings but also our words within the bounds of scripture, than to devise
strange terms, that may be the beginnings of disagreement and brawling: so do
we tire ourselves with strife about words: so the truth is lost in contending: so
charity is broken by odiously brawling together. If they call that a strange word,
which cannot be shewed in scripture, as it is written in number of syllables;
then they bind us to a hard law, whereby is condemned all exposition that is not
pieced together, with bare laying together of texts of scripture. But if they
mean that to be strange, which, being curiously devised, is superstitiously defended,
which maketh more for contention than edification, which is either improperly,
or to no profit, used, which withdraweth from the simplicity of the
word of God, then with all my heart I embrace their sober mind. For I judge
that we ought with no less devout reverence to talk of God than to think of him,
for as much as whatsoever we do of ourselves think of him is foolish, and whatsoever
we speak is unsavoury. But there is a certain measure to be kept. We
ought to learn out of the scriptures a rule both to think and speak, whereby to
examine all the thoughts of our mind, and words of our mouth. But what hindereth
us, but that such as in scripture are to our capacity doubtful and entangled,
we may in plainer words express them, being yet such words as do reverently and
faithfully serve the truth of the scripture, and be used sparingly, modestly, and
not without occasion? Of which sort there are examples enough. And whereas it
shall by proof appear that the church of great necessity was forced to use the
names of Trinity, and Persons, if any shall then find fault with the newness of
words, shall he not be justly thought to be grieved at the light of the truth, as
he that blameth only this, that the truth is made so plain and clear to discern?
“4. Such newness of words, if it be so called, cometh then chiefly in use, when
the truth is to be defended against wranglers that do mock it out with cavils.
Which thing we have at this day too much in experience, who have great business
in vanquishing the enemies of true and sound doctrine. With such folding
and crooked winding, these slippery snakes do slide away, unless they be strongly
gripped and holden hard when they be taken. So the old fathers, being troubled
with contending against false doctrines, were compelled to shew their meanings
in exquisite plainness, lest they should leave any crooked byeways to the wicked,
to whom the doubtful constructions of words were hiding-holes of errors. Arius
confessed Christ to be God, and the Son of God, because he could not gainsay the
evident words of God, and, as if he had been so sufficiently discharged, did feign
a certain consent with the rest. But in the meanwhile he ceased not to scatter
abroad that Christ was created, and had a beginning, as other creatures. But to
the end that they might draw forth his winding subtilty out of his den, the ancient
fathers went further, pronouncing Christ to be the eternal Son of the Father,
and consubstantial with the Father. Hereat wickedness began to boil, when the
Arians began to hate and detest the name Omoousion, consubstantial. But if in
the beginning they had sincerely and with plain meaning confessed Christ to be
God, they would not now have denied him to be consubstantial with the Father.
Who dare now blame these good men as brawlers and contentious, because, for
one little word’s sake, they were so keen in disputation, and disturbed the peace
of the church? But that little word shewed the difference between the true believing
Christians, and the Arians, who were robbers of God. Afterwards rose up
Sabellius, who accounted in a manner for nothing the names of the Father, the
Son, and Holy Ghost, saying in disputation that they were not made to shew
any manner of distinction, but only were several additions of God, of which sort
there are many. If he came to disputation, he confessed that he believed the Father
God, the Son God, the Holy Ghost God. But afterwards he would readily
slip away with saying, that he had in no otherwise spoken than as if he had named
God, a powerful God, just God, and wise God: and so he sung another song,
that the Father is the Son, and the Holy Ghost is the Father, without any order,
without any distinction. The good doctors who then had care of godliness, to subdue
his wickedness, cried out on the other side, that there ought to be acknowledged
in one God three properties: and to the end to fence themselves against
the crooked winding subtilties with plain and simple truth, they affirmed, that
there did truly subsist in one God, or (which is the same thing) that there did
subsist in the unity of God, a Trinity of Persons.
“5. If then the names have not been without cause invented, we ought to take
heed, that in rejecting them we be not justly blamed of proud presumptuousness. I
would to God they were buried indeed, so that this faith were agreed of all men, that
the Father, and the Son, and the Holy Ghost, be one God: and yet that the Father
is not the Son, nor the Holy Ghost the Son, but distinctly, by certain property. Yet
I am not so precise, that I can find in my heart to strive for bare words. For I observe,
that the ancient fathers, who otherwise spake very religiously of such matters,
did not every where agree one with another, nor every one with himself. For
what forms of speech used by the councils doth Hillary excuse? To how great
liberty doth Augustine sometimes break forth? How unlike are the Greeks to the
Latins? But of this disagreement one example shall suffice for this time. When
the Latins wanted to express the word Omoousion, they called it Consubstantial,
declaring the substance of the Father and the Son to be one, thus using the word
substance for essence. Whereupon Hierom to Damasus saith, it is sacrilege to say,
that there are three substances in God: and yet above a hundred times you shall
find in Hillary, that there are three substances in God. In the word hypostasis,
how is Hierom difficulted? for he suspecteth that there lurketh poison in naming
three hypostasis in God. And if a man do use this word in a godly sense, yet he
plainly saith that it is an improper speech, if he spake unfeignedly, and did not
rather wittingly and willingly seek to charge the bishops of the East, whom he
sought to charge with an unjust slander. Sure this one thing he speaketh not
very truly, that in all profane schools, Ousia, essence, is nothing else but hypostasis,
which is proved false by the common and accustomed use. Augustine is
more modest and gentle, who, although he says, De trint. li. 5. cap. 8, 9. that the
word hypostasis in that sense is strange to Latin ears, yet so far is it off, that he
taketh from the Greeks their usual manner of speaking, that he also gently beareth
with the Latins who had followed the Greek phrase. And that which Socrates
writeth in the fifth book of the Tripartite history tendeth to this end, as though
he meant that he had by unskilful men been wrongfully applied unto this matter.
Yea, and the same Hillary himself layeth it as a great fault to the heretics charge,
De trin. li. 2. that by their frowardness he is compelled to put those things in peril
of the speech of men, which ought to have been kept in religiousness of minds,
plainly confessing that this is to do things unlawful, to speak what ought not to
be spoken, to attempt things not licensed. A little after, he excuseth himself
with many words, for that he was so bold to utter new names. For after he had
used the natural names, Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, he addeth, that whatsoever
is sought further is beyond the compass of speech, beyond the reach of sense,
and beyond the capacity of understanding. And in another place he saith, that
happy are the bishops of Gallia, who had not received, nor knew any other confession
but that old and simple one, which from the time of the apostles was received
in all churches. And much like is the excuse of Augustine, that this word
was wrung out of necessity, by reason of the imperfection of men’s language in
so great a matter: not to express that which is, but that it should not be unspoken,
how the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost, are three. This modesty of
the holy men ought to warn us, that we do not forthwith so severely, like censors,
brand them with infamy, who refuse to subscribe and swear to such words
as we propound them: so that they do not of pride, or frowardness, or of malicious
craft. But let them again consider, by how great necessity we are driven to
speak so, that by little and little they may he enured with that profitable manner
of speech. Let them also learn to beware, lest since we must meet on the one
side with the Arians, on the other side with the Sabellians, while they be offended
that we cut off occasion from them both to cavil, they bring themselves in suspicion,
that they be the disciples either of Arius or of Sabellius. Arius saith that
Christ is God, but he muttereth that he was created, and had a beginning. He saith
Christ is one with the Father, but secretly he whispereth in the ears of his disciples,
that he was made one as the other faithful be, although by singular prerogative.
Say once that Christ is consubstantial with his Father, then pluck you off
his visor from the dissembler, and yet you add nothing to the scripture. Sabellius
saith, that the several names, Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, signify nothing in
God severally distinct. Say that they are three, and he will cry out that you name
three gods. Say that there is in one essence a Trinity of persons, then shall you
in one word both say what the scripture speaketh, and stop their vain babbling.
Now if any be holden with so curious superstition, that they cannot abide these
names, yet is there no man, though he would never so fain, that can deny but that
when we hear of one, we must understand an unity of substance: when we hear
of three in one essence, that, it is meant of the persons of the Trinity. Which
thing being without fraud confessed, we stay no longer upon words. But I have
long ago found, and that often, that whosoever do obstinately quarrel about
words, do keep within them a secret poison: so that it is better willingly to provoke
them, than for their pleasure to speak darkly.”
Calvin.
.fn-
.fn 78
“There are some doctrines in the gospel the understanding could not discover;
but when they are revealed, it hath a clear apprehension of them upon a rational
account, and sees the characters of truth visibly stampt on their forehead:
as the doctrine of satisfaction to divine justice, that pardon might be dispensed
to repenting sinners. For our natural conception of God includes his infinite purity
and justice; and when the design of the gospel is made known, whereby he
hath provided abundantly for the honour of those attributes, so that He doth the
greatest good without encouraging the least evil, reason acquiesces, and acknowledges.
This I sought, but could not find. Now, although the primary obligation
to believe such doctrines ariseth from revelation, yet being ratified by reason,
they are embraced with more clearness by the mind.
“2. There are some doctrines, which as reason by its light could not discover;
so when they are made known, it cannot comprehend; but they are by a clear and
necessary connexion joined with the other that reason approves: as the mystery
of the Trinity, and the Incarnation of the Son of God, which are the foundations
of the whole work of our redemption. The nature of God is repugnant to plurality,
there can be but one essence; and the nature of satisfaction requires a distinction
of persons: For he that suffers as guilty, must be distinguished from
the person of the judge that exacts satisfaction; and no mere creature is able by
his obedient sufferings to repair the honour of God: So that a divine person, assuming
the nature of man, was alone capable to make that satisfaction, which the
gospel propounds, and reason consents to. Now, according to the distinction of
capacities in the Trinity, the Father required an honourable reparation for the
breach of the divine law, and the Son bore the punishment in the sufferings of
the human nature; that is peculiarly his own. Besides, ’tis clear that the doctrine
of the Trinity, that is, of three glorious relations in the Godhead, and of the
Incarnation, are most firmly connected with all the parts of the christian religion,
left in the writings of the apostles, which as they were confirmed by miracles,
the divine signatures of their certainty, so they contain such authentic
marks of their divinity, that right reason cannot reject them.
“3. Whereas there are three principles by which we apprehend things, Sense,
Reason and Faith; these lights have their different objects that must not be
confounded. Sense is confined to things material; Reason considers things abstracted
from matter; Faith regards the mysteries revealed from heaven: and
these must not transgress their order. Sense is an incompetent judge of things
about which reason is only conversant. It can only make a report of those objects,
which by their natural characters are exposed to it. And reason can only
discourse of things, within its sphere: supernatural things which derive from revelation,
and are purely the objects of faith, are not within its territories and jurisdiction.
Those superlative mysteries exceed all our intellectual abilities.
’Tis true, the understanding is a rational faculty, and every act of it is really
or in appearance grounded on reason. But there is a wide difference between the
proving a doctrine by reason, and the giving a reason why we believe the truth
of it. For instance, we cannot prove the Trinity by natural reason; and the subtilty
of the schoolmen, who affect to give some reason of all things, is here more
prejudicial than advantageous to the truth: For he that pretends to maintain a
point by reason, and is unsuccessful, doth weaken the credit which the authority
of revelation gives. And ’tis considerable, that the scripture, in delivering supernatural
truths, produces God’s authority as their only proof, without using any
other way of arguing: But although we cannot demonstrate these mysteries by
reason, yet we may give a rational account why we believe them.
“Is it not the highest reason to believe the discovery that God hath made of
himself, and his decrees? For he perfectly knows his own nature and will; and
’tis impossible he should deceive us: this natural principle is the foundation of
faith. When God speaks, it becomes man to hear with silence and submission.
His naked word is as certain as a demonstration.
“And is it not most reasonable to believe that the Deity cannot be fully understood
by us? The sun may more easily be included in a spark of fire, than the
infinite perfections of God be comprehended by a finite mind. The angels, who
dwell so near the fountain of light, cover their faces in a holy confusion, not being
able to comprehend Him. How much less can man in this earthly state, distant
from God, and opprest with a burthen of flesh? Now from hence it follows;
“1. That ignorance of the manner how divine mysteries exist is no sufficient
plea for infidelity, when the scripture reveals that they are. For reason that is
limited and restrained cannot frame a conception that is commensurate to the essence
and power of God. This will appear more clearly by considering the mysterious
excellencies of the divine nature, the certainty of which we believe, but
the manner we cannot understand: As that his essence and attributes are the
same, without the least shadow of composition; yet his wisdom and power are to
our apprehensions distinct, and his mercy and justice in some manner opposite.[79]
That his essence is intire in all places, yet not terminated in any. That he is
above the heavens, and beneath the earth, yet hath no relation of high or low,
distant or near. That he penetrates all substances, but is mixed with none. That
he understands, yet receives no ideas within himself: That he wills, yet hath no
motion that carries him out of himself. That in him time hath no succession;
that which is past is not gone, and that which is future is not to come. That he
loves without passion, is angry without disturbance, repents without change.
These perfections are above the capacity of reason fully to understand; Yet essential
to the deity. Here we must exalt faith, and abase reason. Thus in the mystery
of the incarnation, (1 Tim. iii. 16.) that two such distant natures should
compose one person, without the confusion of properties, reason cannot reach unto;
but it is clearly revealed in the word: (John i. 14.) Here therefore we must
obey, not enquire.
“The obedience of faith is, to embrace an obscure truth with a firm assent, upon
the account of a divine testimony. If reason will not assent to revelation, till it
understands the manner how divine things are, it doth not obey it at all. The
understanding then sincerely submits, when it is inclined by those motives, which
demonstrate that such a belief is due to the authority of the revealer, and to the
quality of the object. To believe only in proportion to our narrow conceptions
is to disparage the divine truth, and debase the divine power. We can’t know
what God can do; he is omnipotent, though we are not omniscient: ’Tis just we
should humble our ignorance to his wisdom, and that every lofty imagination, and
high thing, that exalts itself against the knowledge of God, should be cast down, and
every thought captivated into the obedience of Christ; 2 Cor. x. 5. ’Tis our wisdom
to receive the great mysteries of the gospel in their simplicity: for in attempting
to give an exact and curious explication of them, the understanding, as in an
hedge of thorns, the more it strives, the more ’tis wounded and entangled. God’s
ways are far above ours, and his thoughts above ours as heaven is above the earth.
To reject what we can’t comprehend, is not only to sin against faith, but against
reason, which acknowledges itself finite, and unable to search out the Almighty to
perfection; Job xi. 7.
“2. We are obliged to believe those mysteries that are plainly delivered in
scripture, notwithstanding those seeming contradictions wherewith they may be
charged. In the objects of sense, the contrariety of appearances doth not lessen
the certainty of things. The stars to our sight seem but glittering sparks, yet
they are immense bodies. And it is one thing to be assured of a truth, another
to answer to all the difficulties that encounter it: a mean understanding is capable
of the first; the second is so difficult, that in clear things the profoundest
philosophers may not be able to untie all the intricate and knotty objections
which may be urged against them. ’Tis sufficient the belief of supernatural mysteries
is built on the veracity and power of God; this makes them prudently credible:
this resolves all doubts, and produces such a stability of spirit, as nothing
can shake. A sincere believer is assured, that all opposition against revealed
truths is fallacious, though he cannot discover the fallacy. Now the transcendent
mysteries of the Christian religion, the Trinity of persons in the divine nature,
the incarnation of the Son of God, are clearly set down in the scripture. And
although subtile and obstinate opponents have used many guilty arts to dispirit
and enervate those texts by an inferior sense, and have rackt them with violence
to make them speak according to their prejudices, yet all is vain, the evidence of
truth is victorious. A heathen, who considers not the gospel as a divine revelation,
but merely as a doctrine delivered in writings, and judges of its sense by
natural light, will acknowledge that those things are delivered in it: And notwithstanding
those who usurp a sovereign authority to themselves, to judge of
divine mysteries according to their own apprehensions, deny them as mere contradictions,
yet they can never conclude them impossible: for no certain argument
can be alledged against the being of a thing without a clear knowledge of
its nature: Now, although we may understand the nature of man, we do not the
nature of God, the œconomy of the persons, and his power to unite himself to a
nature below him.
“It is true, no article of faith is really repugnant to reason; for God is the author
of natural, as well as of supernatural, light, and he cannot contradict himself:
They are emanations from him, and though different, yet not destructive of
each other. But we must distinguish between those things that are above reason
and incomprehensible, and things that are against reason and utterly inconceivable:
Some things are above reason in regard of their transcendent excellency,
or distance from us; the divine essence, the eternal decrees, the hypostatical
union, are such high and glorious objects, that it is an impossible enterprise
to comprehend them: the intellectual eye is dazzled with their overpowering
light. We can have but an imperfect knowledge of them; and there is no just
cause of wonder that supernatural revelation should speak incomprehensible
things of God. For he is a singular and admirable Being, infinitely above the
ordinary course of nature. The maxims of philosophy are not to be extended to
him. We must adore what we cannot fully understand. But those things are
against reason, and utterly inconceivable, that involve a contradiction, and have
a natural repugnancy to our understandings, which cannot conceive any thing
that is formally impossible: and there is no such doctrine in the Christian religion.
“3. We must distinguish between reason corrupted, and right reason. Since
the fall, the clearness of the human understanding is lost, and the light that remains
is eclipsed by the interposition of sensual lust. The carnal mind cannot,
out of ignorance, and will not from pride and other malignant habits, receive
things spiritual. And from hence arises many suspicions and doubts, (concerning
supernatural verities) the shadows of darkened reason, and of dying faith. If
any divine mystery seems incredible, it is from the corruption of our reason, not
from reason itself; from its darkness, not its light. And as reason is obliged to
correct the errors of sense, when it is deceived either by some vicious quality in
the organ, or by the distance of the object, or by the falseness of the medium,
that corrupts the image in conveying of it. So it is the office of faith to reform
the judgment of reason, when either from its own weakness, or the height of
things spiritual, it is mistaken about them. For this end supernatural revelation
was given, not to extinguish reason, but to redress it, and enrich it with the
discovery of heavenly things. Faith is called wisdom and knowledge: it doth
not quench the vigour of the faculty wherein it is seated, but elevates it, and
gives it a spiritual perception of those things that are most distant from its commerce.
It doth not lead us through a mist to the inheritance of the saints in
light.”
Bates.
.fn-
.fn 79
Infinitus, immensus & soli sibi tantus, quantus est notus, nobis vero ad intellectum pectus
angustum est, & ideò sic cum dignè estimamus, cùm inaestimabilem dicimus. Min. Fel.
.fn-
.fn 80
He who has marked the differences between truth and error, good and
evil, made them discoverable, and formed human minds susceptible of their
impressions, thereby discovers his will that we should attend to them, and has
made it our duty to do so. With this sentiment sacred revelation is expressly
accordant; “prove all things, hold fast that which is good.” The Gospel requires
not faith without evidence, it demands no more assent than is proportioned
to the weight of probability, and charges as a crime only our refusing to attend
to the evidence, or our coming to it with hearts prejudiced against, and
therefore insensible to, its evidence. The exercise of reason is essential to faith,
for how sudden soever our convictions, still it is the judgment which is convinced.
Yet reason has her due province; she may and ought to ascertain the genuineness,
authenticity, and divine authority of the scriptures. When this is done, she cannot
correctly delay her assent, because she may not fully comprehend the promises
or works of God, for this would require wisdom no less than Divine.
But suppose she should presume to try them, by what balances shall she weigh
them? To what shall she compare them? To the reasons and fitness of things?
what are these but circumstances and relations springing from the works of God?
His creation originated from his wisdom and power, and is ever dependent on
them. This is therefore to circumscribe infinite wisdom by what has been already
discovered of it; it is to limit infinite power from effecting any thing
which it has not hitherto accomplished. Such judgment is not the work of reason,
it is irrational. Reason can only make an induction, where there exists premises
from which a conclusion can be drawn; but here her limits are exceeded,
she has no standard by which she can measure infinity. By reasoning we justly
infer from the works of God, many of his glorious moral, as well as natural, perfections;
we gather that he is holy, just, true, and good, and we may fairly say
that he will never depart from such rectitude, but that all his works will be conformed
to such principles. We can go no farther than unto generals, we have
no right to question any word or act of his, and say it is not conformed to such
perfections, because this would suppose that we possess infinite wisdom. He
may have ways of solving our difficulties and objections, with which we are
not acquainted. Such judgment is not only irrational, but arrogant, as it is an
extension of the claims of reason beyond her just limits. Our duty in such case
is exemplified in the father of the faithful. At God’s command we must, like
him, sacrifice our Isaacs, and leave to him both to accomplish his promises and
to justify the action. It is evident that the doctrine of the Trinity is but partially
revealed to man, but sufficiently to let him into a competent knowledge of the
plan of redemption.
.fn-
.fn 81
Vid. Epist. 2. ad Dionys.
.fn-
.fn 82
Vid. Euseb. Præp. Evang. Lib. XIII. cap. 12.
.fn-
.fn 83
Vid. Huet. Concord. Ration. & Fid. Lib. II. cap. 3.
.fn-
.fn 84
See Dr. Berriman’s Historical account, &c. page 94.
.fn-
.fn 85
“Philo uses not the name for his derivative Being in the Godhead, which
we see the other Jews of the time using in the Gospels. He speaks not of him,
by his natural appellation of the Son of God. No! He takes up another title for
him, which indeed was known equally to other Jews, or Philo could not possibly
have adopted it; which was known equally to the Gentiles, as I shall show hereafter;
but which was known only to the scholars of either. He calls him ‘the
Logos of God.’ This is a name, that can be borrowed, together with the idea
annexed to it, only from the Jews, or from the common ancestors of them and of
the Gentiles; that answers exactly to the Dabar of Jehovah in the Hebrew Scriptures,
and to the Memra of Jehovah in the Chaldee paraphrasts upon them; and
signifies merely ‘the Word of God.’ This name has been since introduced into
our religion, by one of the inspired teachers of it. And notwithstanding the ductility
of the Greek language in this instance, which would allow it to be rendered
either the Word or the Reason of God; yet the English Bible, with a strict adherence
to propriety, and in full conformity to the ancient Christians and ancient
Jews, has rejected the accidental signification, and embraced only the immediate
and the genuine. Yet, even now, the name is confined in its use to the more improved
intellects among us. And it must therefore have peculiarly been, in the
days of Philo, the philosophical denomination of Him, who was popularly called the
Son of God.
“The use of the name of Logos, or Word, by Philo and by St. John in concurrence,
sufficiently marks the knowledge of the name among the Jews. But the
total silence concerning it, by the Jewish writers of the three first Gospels; the
equal silence of the introduced Jews concerning it, in all the four; and the acknowledged
use of it through all the Jewish records of our religion, merely by St.
John himself; prove it to have been familiar to a few only. It is indeed too mysterious
in its allusion, and too reducible into metaphor in its import, to have ever
been the common and ordinary appellation for the Son of God. Originating from
the spiritual principle of connexion, betwixt the first and the second Being in the
Godhead; marking this, by a spiritual idea of connexion; and considering it to be
as close and as necessary as the Word is to the energetick Mind of God, which
cannot bury its intellectual energies in silence, but must put them forth in speech;
it is too spiritual in itself, to be addressed to the faith of the multitude. If with
so full a reference to our bodily ideas, and so positive a filiation of the Second Being
to the First, we have seen the grossness of Arian criticism endeavouring to
resolve the doctrine into the mere dust of a figure; how much more ready would
it have been to do so, if we had only such a spiritual denomination as this, for the
second? This would certainly have been considered by it, as too unsubstantial
for distinct personality, and therefore too evanescent for equal divinity.
“St. John indeed adopted this philosophical title, for the denomination of the
Son of God; only in one solemn and prefatory passage of his Gospel, in two slight
and incidental passages of his Epistles, and in one of his Book of revelations.
Even there, the use of the popular instead of the philosophical name, in the three
Gospels antecedent to his, precluded all probability of misconstruction. Yet, not
content with this, he formed an additional barrier. At the same instant in which
he speaks of the Logos, he asserts him to be distinct from God the Father, and
yet to be equally God with him. ‘In the beginning,’ he says, ‘was the Word;
and the Word was with God; and the Word was God.’ Having thus secured the
two grand points relating to the Logos, he can have nothing more to say upon the
subject, than to repeat what he has stated, for impressing the deeper conviction.
He accordingly repeats it. His personality he impresses again, thus; ‘THE SAME
was in the beginning with God.’ His divinity also he again inculcates, thus: ‘ALL
THINGS WERE MADE BY HIM, and WITHOUT HIM WAS NOT ANY THING MADE THAT
WAS MADE.’ Here the very repetition itself, of enforcing his claim to divinity, by
ascribing the creation to him; is plainly an union of two clauses, each announcing
him as the Creator of the universe, and one doubling over the other. And the uncreated
nature of his own existence is the more strongly enforced upon the mind,
by being contrasted with the created nature of all other existences. These were
MADE, but he himself WAS; made by Him, who was with God, and was God. Nor
would all this precaution suffice, in the opinion of St. John. He must place still
stronger fences against the dangerous spirit of error. He therefore goes on to say,
in confirmation of his personality and divinity, and in application of all to our Saviour:
‘He was in the world, and THE WORLD WAS MADE BY HIM, and the world
knew him not; He came unto HIS OWN [PROPER DOMAINS,] and HIS OWN [PROPER
DOMESTICKS] received him not.’ And he closes all, with judiciously drawing
the several parts of his assertions before into one full point; and with additionally
explaining his philosophical term, by a direct reference of it to that popular
one which he uses ever afterwards: ‘and the Word was made flesh, and dwelt
among us; and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the
Father, full of grace and truth.’
“Yet, when such guards were requisite, what induced St. John to use this philosophical
title at all? The reason was assuredly this. The title was in high repute,
and in familiar use, among the refined spirits of the age; and his Gospel
was peculiarly calculated for the service of such. The almost perpetual recurrence
of the appellation in Philo’s works shows evidently the use and the repute
in which it was, among the more spiritualized of the Jews. St. John therefore
adopted it himself, for the more easy access to their conviction. It was also congenial,
probably, of itself to the spiritualized state of St. John’s mind. He, who
has dwelt so much more than the other Evangelists upon the doctrines of our Saviour;
and who has drawn out so many of them, in all their spiritual refinement
of ideas; would naturally prefer the spiritual term of relationship for God the Son
and God the Father, before the bodily, whenever the intellect was raised enough
to receive it, and whenever the use of it was sufficiently guarded from danger.
These were two reasons, I suppose, that induced St. John to use it a few times.
And these were equally (I suppose) the reasons, that induced him, with all his
guards, to use it only a few.
“Nor let us be told, in the rashness of Arian absurdity, that we misunderstand
St. John in this interpretation of his words. If reason is capable of explaining
words, and if St. John was capable of conveying his meaning in words to the ear
of reason; then we may boldly appeal to the common sense of mankind, and insist
upon the truth of our interpretation. Common sense indeed hath already determined
the point, in an impartial person, in an enemy, in a Heathen. I allude to
that extraordinary approbation, which was given by a Heathen of the third century
to this passage of St. John. ‘Of modern philosophers,’ says Eusebius,
‘Amelius is an eminent one, being himself, if ever there was one, a zealot for the
philosophy of Plato; and he called the Divine of the Hebrews a Barbarian, as
if he would not condescend to make mention of the Evangelist John by name.’
Such is Eusebius’s account of our referee. But what are the terms of his award?
They are these. ‘And such indeed was the Logos,’ he says, ‘by whom, a perpetual
existence, the things created were created, as also Heraclitus has said;
and who by Jupiter, the Barbarian says, being constituted in the rank and dignity
of a Principle, is with God and is God, by whom all things absolutely were
created; in whom the created living thing, and life, and existence, had a birth,
and fell into a body, and putting on flesh appeared a man; and, after showing
the greatness of his nature, and being wholly dissolved, is again deified and is
God, such as he was before he was brought down into the body and the flesh
and a man. These things, if translated out of the Barbarian’s theology, not as
shaded over there, but on the contrary as placed in full view, would be plain.’
In this very singular and very valuable comment upon St. John’s Gospel in general,
and upon his preface in particular, we may see, through the harsh and obscure
language of the whole, some circumstances of great moment. The bold air
of arrogance in the blinded Heathen over the illuminated Divine must strike at
once upon every eye. But the Logos appears, from him, to have been known to the
philosophers of antiquity later than the Gospel; and known too as a perpetual
Existence, and the Maker of the world. St. John also is witnessed by a Heathen,
and by one who put him down for a Barbarian, to have represented the Logos as
the Maker of all things, as with God, and as God; as one likewise, ‘in whom
the created living Thing,’ or the human soul of our Saviour, ‘and’ even ‘Life
and Existence’ themselves, those primogenial principles of Deity, ‘had a birth,
and fell into a body, and putting on flesh appeared a man,’ who was therefore man
and God in one; who accordingly ‘showed the greatness of his nature’ by his
miracles, was ‘wholly dissolved,’ and then ‘was again DEIFIED, and is God,’
even ‘SUCH AS HE WAS, before he was brought down into the body and the flesh and
a man.’ And St. John is attested to have declared this, ‘not even as shaded over,’
but ‘on the contrary as placed in full view.’ We have thus a testimony to the
plain meaning of St. John, and to the evident Godhead of his Logos, a Godhead
equally before and after his death; most unquestionable in its nature, very early
in its age, and peculiarly forcible in its import. St. John, we see, is referred to in
a language, that shows him to have been well known to the Grecian cotemporaries
of Amelius, as a writer, as a foreigner, and as a marked assertor of Divinity
for his Logos.”
Whitaker.
.fn-
.fn 86
Vid. Forbes. Instruct. Hist. Theol. Lib. I. cap. 2 §. 8.
.fn-
.fn 87
Vid. Curcell in Quattern. Dissert. de Voc. Trinit. personæ ge.
.fn-
.fn 88
Vid. Calv. Institut. Lib. I. cap. 13. §. 5.
.fn-
.fn 89
“The doctrine of a plurality appears in the very first words of inspiration.
God would not record the history of creation, without informing the Church that
the character of Creator was by no means to be confined to one person. It has often
been observed, that this is taught in the words rendered God created, where
we have a noun in the plural joined with a verb in the singular number, plainly
expressing a plurality in unity. That this is the genuine sense of the passage appears
from the work ascribed, in the next verse, to the Spirit of God, who is said
to have ‘moved on the face of the waters.’ By modern Jews, whom some Christians
have followed, this expression has been rendered, ‘a wind of God,’ or ‘a
mighty wind.’ But the firmament, or expanse, was not created till the second
day. This includes the atmosphere which surrounds our earth: for the fowl is
said to ‘fly above the earth in the open firmament of heaven.’ Now, it cannot
reasonably be supposed that there could be a mighty wind, or any wind at all,
before the existence of an atmosphere.
“If we turn to the gospel-history, we find a third person mentioned as engaged
in the work of creation. ‘All things were made by’ that Word, who ‘in the beginning
existed with God.’
“This plurality appears still more expressly, when the sacred historian gives an
account of the creation of man: ‘And God said, Let us make man in our image,
after our likeness.’ But it is a plurality in unity: ‘So God created man in
his own image.’ It has been justly observed, that to this the language of Elihu,
and of the royal Preacher, agrees: ‘None saith, Where is God my Makers;’
and, ‘Remember now thy Creators.’ Nothing can be more absurd than the various
attempts which have been made to shew, that this language may be otherwise
understood. God could never speak in this manner to angels, or to any second
causes. For to whomsoever these words were addressed, they must have
been co-operators with God in this divine work. They must have assisted him in
making man. Philo the Jew expressly says that these words, Let us make, declare
a plurality. That the Jewish writers in general view this language as including a
mystery, not to be made known to the vulgar, and indeed studiously concealed by
them, from their abhorrence of Christianity, has been elsewhere demonstrated.
It is therefore unnecessary to enlarge here. I shall only add, that the modern Jews
are so fully convinced that the doctrine of a plurality is contained in these words,
as to wish to alter the reading. Instead of Let us make man, they incline to read,
Let man be made; although the Samaritan text, the Septuagint, the Talmudists,
and all their translations, whether ancient or modern, express the language in the
same manner with our version.
“The same important doctrine is introduced in the history of the Fall. That
three-one God, who said, ‘Let us make man after our image,’ in the same character
laments the loss of this image. ‘Jehovah God said, Behold, the man is become
as one of us;’ or, as some read the passage, ‘Behold the man, who was as
one of us!’ Here Philo observes; ‘These words, as one of us, are not put for one,
but for more than one.’ The learned Allix has remarked that the ancient Jewish
writers maintain, that God ‘speaks not this to the angels, who had no common
likeness to the unity or essence of God, but to Him who was the celestial Adam,
who is one with God.’ To whom this character applies, we learn from the Targum
of Jonathan on the place, who here speaks of ‘the only begotten in heaven.’
“This doctrine is also taught in the history of the Confusion of Tongues. ‘Jehovah
said,—Go to, let us go down, and there confound their language.’ Here the
Jews repeat their contemptible subterfuge, that God addresses his ‘house of
judgment,’ that is, created angels. For it is an established doctrine with them,
that ‘God does nothing without previously consulting with his family above.’
But it has justly been observed, that these words, if spoken to angels, would imply
that God were one of them, or that he descended in the same manner with
them, by a real change of place. Besides, in a moment to change one language
into many, and to infuse these into the minds of men, who were utter strangers to
them before, so that they should entirely forget their former modes of speech, is
a work that far surpasses the power of angels, and can be accomplished by no being
but that God, with whom to will and to do is the same.
“It must be evident to every one, who reads the history of the Old Testament
with any degree of attention, that an Angel is often introduced as speaking the
language, performing the works, and accepting the worship, which exclusively
belong to the Supreme Being. In other words, one, who is undoubtedly a divine
person, often appears in a delegated character. Now, while it was the will of God
in this manner constantly to remind his Church of the economy of redemption, he
at the same time taught her a distinction of persons in the divine essence. It was
this Angel who appeared to Abraham on different occasions, to Hagar, to Jacob,
to Moses, to Joshua, to the Israelites at Bochim, to Gideon, to Manoah and his
wife. But I enter not into a particular consideration of these appearances, having
endeavoured to illustrate the character of this divine Messenger in another place.
There it has also been proved, that the law was given to the Israelites at Mount
Sinai by the second person of the adorable Trinity, in the character of the Angel
of Jehovah. It deserves particular attention, that at the very time that the God
of Israel gave his people a law, by which they were to be distinguished from all
the idolatrous nations around, one special design of which was to preserve the
doctrine of the divine unity;—at the very time that he pronounced that leading
precept, ‘Thou shalt have no other gods before me;’ he, according to the Sacred
History, viewed in its connexion, sustained the character of an Angel, and
was pleased to communicate the knowledge of this fact to his people. How can
these apparent contradictions be reconciled, but by admitting that it was the will
of God to reveal himself to his church, as at the same time possessing essential
unity and personal plurality?
“The more ancient Jewish writers declare, that two persons were engaged in
promulgating the law. They say; ‘The two first precepts were spoken by the
Supreme Spirit, but he spoke all the rest by his Glory, who is called El Shaddai,
known to the fathers; by whom the prophets foretold future events; who
is called Jah: in whom the Name of God is; the Beloved of God who dwelt in
the temple; and the Mouth of the Lord; and the Face of the Lord; and the
Rock; and that Goodness which Moses saw, when he could not see God.’ Elsewhere
they call him ‘the Schechinah, by whom we draw near to God, and present
our supplications to him; who is that Angel in whom the name of God is,
who is himself called God and Jehovah.’ The change of person, in the promulgation
of the law, asserted by these writers, is evidently a mere fancy. But their
language deserves attention; as it shews how fully they were convinced of the
doctrine of a plurality in unity, when they introduced it in this manner.
“It has been universally admitted by the friends of revelation, that the great end
which God hath in view in the work of Redemption is the display of his own adorable
perfections. But there is doubtless another, although less attended to, nowise
incompatible with this, nay, itself an eminent branch of the supreme end.
This is the manifestation of the mystery of the Trinity, and of the mode of subsistence
peculiar to each person in the divine essence. This must undoubtedly be
viewed as included in the one great design of the all-wise God in our redemption;
and it is evident that he hath still kept it in eye, in the revelation given to
the Church, and especially in the history of that work, as it is recorded in the
gospels. We may trace the doctrine of a Trinity in the accounts given of the old
creation; but it appears with far superior evidence in the history of the new. This
corresponds to the superior greatness of the work, and to the brighter and more
extensive display of divine perfection.
“Such was the state of the Church, as to admit of a more full manifestation of
this mystery. It was more obscurely revealed to the patriarchs, and under the
Mosaic economy. This was analogous to the general character of the revelation
then made; as well as to the state of the Church, yet in her infancy, and exposed
to constant temptations to polytheism, from the situation of all the surrounding
nations. But ‘when the fulness of the time was come,’ that the
gospel should be preached to every creature, and the kingdom of Satan fall as
lightning from heaven, in the overthrow of heathen darkness; there were no
such impediments to the more clear revelation of this mysterious doctrine. The
rest of the divine conduct indeed rendered this necessary. God had now ‘sent
forth his Son, made of a woman, made under the law, to redeem them that
were under the law.’ The ends of this mission could not be accomplished,
without a full revelation of the character of this illustrious Messenger. He
could not otherwise receive that homage from the Church, which he merited as
her Redeemer, and which was necessary, in order to her salvation. Now, his
character, as essentially the Son of God, and at the same time a divine Messenger,
could not be properly unfolded, without a declaration both of the paternity
of the First Person, and of that wonderful dispensation, according to which the
Second, although equal in power and glory, voluntarily ‘emptied himself.’
Nor could the unity of the work of redemption, as pervading all the dispensations
given to the Church, and the beautiful harmony of the law and the gospel,
be otherwise displayed. Without a full revelation of this mystery, how could
it have been known that he, who appeared in the end of ages as sent of God, was
the very same person who had formerly led the Church, as the Angel of his
face; that He, who now brought spiritual redemption to his folk, was no other
than that Angel-Redeemer, who had already so frequently delivered them from
temporal calamities?
“If this mystery be unknown or disbelieved, there can be no faith in Christ as
the Mediator between God and men. For he who believes not that the Son is in
the Father, and the Father in the Son, as to identity of essence, while at the
same time there is a distinction of persons, denies the voluntary subjection of
the Son to the Father in the eternal covenant, and thus the whole foundation of
his merit and of our salvation. In relation to the work of our redemption, and
in the history given of it, are revealed various internal actings of the divine persons
towards each other, as well as those of an external nature. The Father
appoints, gives, sends, prepares a human nature for his Son; the Son undertakes,
gives himself, comes, assumes this nature.
“From the history given of the conception of Christ, we find that three divine
persons were engaged in the creation of this ‘new thing in the earth.’ The
Father appears in the character of ‘the Highest;’ the Third Person, as ‘the
Holy Ghost,’ and ‘the Power of the Highest;’ and the Second, as ‘the Son
of God.’ When this wonderful Person, the incarnate Word, was to be manifested
to Israel at his baptism, each divine Person concurred in the work. The
Father testified his presence and approbation by a voice from the excellent
glory, announcing Jesus as his beloved Son; and the Holy Ghost descended like
a dove, and rested on him. The history of his death, viewed in its connexion,
affords a proof of a similar kind. As ‘it pleased Jehovah,’ in the person of
the Father, sustaining the character of Judge, to bruise the Son as our Surety;
and as he, having power over his own life, commended his spirit into the hands
of his Father, thus presenting unto him a sacrifice of a sweet-smelling savour;
he did so ‘through the Eternal Spirit.’ The same thing appears from the resurrection
of Jesus. He was ‘powerfully declared to be the Son of God in his
resurrection from the dead;’ for he had ‘power to take again’ that which
no one could take from him. This work is frequently ascribed to God, where
the term evidently denotes the First Person. ‘God hath raised up Jesus again;
as it is also written in the second psalm, Thou art my Son, this day have I begotten
thee.’ As he was ‘put to death in the flesh, he was quickened by the
Spirit,’ by that Spirit of holiness, ‘by which also he went and preached unto
the spirits in prison.’ Nor is this less evident from the account given of the
effusion of the Spirit. This is undoubtedly a divine work; and it is described
as belonging to each adorable Person. Jesus had foretold that the Comforter
should come, that himself should send him, and that he should at the same
time be sent by the Father. Accordingly, from the account given of this wonderful
event by the apostle Peter, which is left on record for the instruction of
the Church, we find that each divine Person was engaged in accomplishing it:
‘Jesus, having received of the Father the promise of the Holy Ghost, hath shed
forth this which ye now see and hear.’
“It is undeniable, that one special end, which Christ had in view in his miraculous
works, was to confirm his doctrine with respect to his equality with the
Father. When he gave thanks at the tomb of Lazarus, before raising him from
the dead, it was because of the people who stood by, that they might believe
that the Father had sent him; and sent him as a Messenger invested with divine
power, because essentially possessing divine perfection. For he had previously
said to his disciples: ‘This sickness is not unto death, but for the glory of God,
that the Son of God might be glorified thereby;’ and taught Martha, that if
she ‘would believe, she would see the glory of God,’ in seeing the manifestation
of that power which essentially belonged to himself, as ‘the Resurrection
and the Life.’ When he cured the man sick of the palsy, it was in order to
prove that he had ‘power on earth to forgive sin;’ while he admitted the principle
held by the scribes, that no one could forgive sins but God only. On different
occasions he refers to his miraculous works, as irrefragable evidences of
his having the same essence with the Father; and of the mutual inexistence, as
some have expressed it, of the Father in the Son, and of the Son in the Father,
in respect of this essential unity, while there is at the same time a real distinction
of persons. When his enemies accused him of blasphemy, because he said, ‘I
am the Son of God,’ ‘making himself God;’ he replied, ‘If I do not the
works of my Father, believe me not. But if I do, though ye believe not me,
believe the works; that ye may know and believe that the Father is in me,
and I in him.’ To Philip, when desiring to see the Father, he said, ‘Believe
me, that I am in the Father, and the Father in me; or else believe me for the
very work’s sake.’ The Evangelist John, when referring to the signs recorded
in the preceding history, subjoins this declaration; ‘These are written, that ye
might believe that Jesus is the Son of God.’ That he appropriates this character
to Jesus, as expressive of supreme deity, is evident from the uniform tenor
of the gospel which bears his name.
“The doctrine of the Trinity is peculiarly elucidated by the history of redemption;
as it does not merely exhibit all the adorable Persons as engaged in this
work, but ascribes a peculiar operation to each Person. The contrivance of our
redemption is ascribed to the Father; the purchase of it to the Son; and the effectual
application of this purchased redemption to the Holy Spirit. The Father
sends his Son as our Surety; the Son cheerfully comes in this character; and the
Holy Spirit is sent by both. The purpose of election is more immediately
ascribed to the Father; the objects of his love are all chosen in Christ; and they,
who were thus chosen from eternity, are in time chosen out of the world, and separated
for himself, by the renewing and sanctifying work of the Spirit.
“Nor is this all. The peculiar operation of each Person, in the work of our salvation,
is perfectly analagous to the order of subsistence in the Holy Trinity; and
thus beautifully illustrates the mutual relations of the divine Persons. All the external
works of God, indeed, are common to each Person; as the divine nature is
the same indivisible principle of operation. Yet these works are distinctly ascribed
to the three Persons, because each Person operates according to the order of
subsistence. In the old creation, the Father called all things into being by his
co-essential Word, communicating life immediately by the Spirit, as exercising a
generating power on the unformed mass. When God created man, the First Person
formed him by the Second, as his essential Image, giving him life, both natural
and moral, by the Third, as ‘the Spirit of life.’ Yet this implies no inferiority,
or mere instrumentality, in any of the adorable Persons; but only the most
perfect order and harmony. The case is the same in the new creation. It seems
most consistent with divine wisdom, that he who is first in the order of subsistence
should rather send than be sent; that the Son, who is ‘the image of the invisible
God,’ should procure the restoration of that blessed image lost by sin;
and that he, who proceeds from the Father and the Son, should be sent by both,
to quicken those who are spiritually dead. This distinct operation indeed, as it
corresponds with the order of subsistence, beautifully harmonizes with the distinguishing
character belonging to each Person. He, who is essentially the Father,
assumes the character of paternity, in a federal respect, towards those who are
orphans and aliens. The only begotten Son of God is sent forth, made under the
law, that they may ‘receive the adoption of sons,’ and appears as ‘the first-born
among many brethren.’ The adorable Spirit, ‘the breath of Jehovah,’ breathes
on the slain, that they may live; giving them a new heart and a right spirit. He,
who proceeds from the Father and the Son, unites the sinner to both.
“Is it ‘life eternal to know the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom he hath
sent?’ Hath no one the Father, who ‘denieth the Son?’ Can no one honour
the Father, ‘who honoureth not the Son?’ Is it the Spirit alone who quickeneth,
and who teacheth us to ‘know the things that are freely given us of God?’ Can
no man ‘say that Jesus is the Lord, but by the Holy Ghost?’ Is it through
Christ that ‘we have access by one Spirit unto the Father?’ Let us bless God
for the revelation of the mystery of a Trinity in unity; and especially because he
hath revealed it so clearly in the history of our redemption, in relation to that
work in which a peculiar operation belongs to each adorable Person, in which the
love of a three-one God is so wonderfully displayed, in which we discern so blessed
a harmony, not only of divine perfections, but of divine Persons! In all our
worship, let us view God according to this revelation, ascribing glory to him
‘who is, and who was, and who is to come, and to the Seven Spirits which are
before his throne, and to Jesus Christ, who is the faithful witness, and the first-begotten
from the dead, and the prince of the kings of the earth.’ Let us earnestly
desire communion with this three-one God; with the Father, in his love as
the spring of our salvation; with the Son, in all that grace which he hath purchased
by his blood; and with the Holy Ghost, in the whole extent of his efficacious
operation. In order to this, let us press after union with Christ, that in him
we may be united to the Father by that one Spirit who proceeds from both, and
who is conferred by both as the Spirit of adoption. Let us cultivate love to the
brethren, as members of the same mystical body, desiring to be ‘one heart and
one soul;’ that although many, we may be one, and thus be assimilated, in our
weak measure, to the blessed Trinity in respect of unity; as Jesus prays in behalf
of his Church;—‘That they all may be one; as thou, Father, art in me, and I in
thee; that they also may be one in us.—I in them, and thou in me, that they
may be made perfect in one; and that the world may know that thou hast sent
me, and hast loved them, as thou hast loved me.’”
Jamieson.
.fn-
.fn 90
See Le Clerc’s Supplement to Dr. Hammond on the New Testament, preface
to John i.
.fn-
.fn 91
See Biddle’s Confession of Faith, touching the holy Trinity, Article VI.
.fn-
.fn 92
Some have thought, that εκεινος being of the masculine gender, because it refers
immediately to πνευμα, which is of the neuter, implies, that the Spirit is taken personally,
which is the reason of this grammatical construction; but if it be said that the
reason why it is masculine is, because it agrees with παρακλητος, it, notwithstanding,
proves the Personality of the Holy Ghost, since a Comforter is a personal character.
The same thing is observed in the grammatical construction of that scripture, Eph. i.
13, 14. speaking concerning the Holy Spirit of promise, το πνευμα της επαγγελιας; it is
said, ὁς εστιν αρῥαβων, which denotes the personal character of the Spirit, otherwise it
would have been ὁ εστιν αρῥαβων, unless you suppose ὁς agrees with αρῥαβων, which seems
to be a more strained sense of the grammatical construction than the other, which
proves his personality.
.fn-
.fn 93
“THAT the Holy Scriptures make mention of Three by way of great eminence
and distinction may appear from many passages, out of which I shall only
produce some. At the Prediction of the blessed Virgin’s conception, which was
to be without the concurrence of a man, the divine message is delivered in these
words: The Holy Ghost shall come upon thee, and the power of the Highest shall
overshadow thee; Therefore, also that Holy Thing, that shall be born of thee, shall be
called the Son of God. Here are plainly distinguished from each other, the Holy
Ghost, or Power overshadowing; the Highest, whose Power that Spirit is; and
the Holy Thing, or Person, who is called the Son of God, because born of a mother,
impregnated by that Divine Power. At our Blessed Lord’s Baptism, the Spirit
of God, we read, descended like a dove and rested upon him, and a voice from Heaven
declared him to be the Son of God: Nothing can be plainer than three Personalities
in this transaction; the Father speaking from Heaven, the Son coming
out of Jordan, and the Spirit descending from above. In the Promise, which our
blessed Saviour makes his disciples, to comfort their hearts against what was
coming upon them, I will pray the Father, and he shall give you another comforter,
that he may abide with you forever, even the Spirit of Truth; and when the comforter
is come, whom I will send unto you from the Father, even the Spirit of Truth,
which proceedeth from the Father, he shall testify of me, there are manifestly Acts,
and Persons, and capacities, different. The Father, from whom the Spirit proceeds,
whom the Son prays, and by whom, at the Son’s Request, the Comforter
was given: The Son, praying the Father; sending the Comforter from the Father,
and testified of by the Spirit so sent: And the Spirit, given by the Father, sent by
the Son, testifying of the Son, and, upon the Son’s Departure, abiding for ever
with the Disciples.
“The great Apostle of the Gentiles, to enforce the Doctrine of the resurrection,
tells the Romans, that if the Spirit of him, who raised Jesus from the dead, dwelt in
them, he that raised Christ from the dead would also quicken their mortal bodies by
his Spirit, that dwelled in them; where he evidently refers to Jesus, the Son of
God; raised from the Dead; to the Spirit of God, by which he was raised; and
to him that raised Jesus, and at the last great day shall raise all others, in whom
his Spirit dwells. The same apostle, to satisfy the Corinthians of the benefits of
their conversion, after having enumerated several ranks of sinners, and such were
some of you, says he, but ye are washed, but ye are sanctified, but ye are justified, in
the name of the Lord Jesus Christ, and by the Spirit of our God, i. e. God the Father.
It cannot be denied that Sanctification and Justification are the gifts of God alone;
for none can absolve us from the Guilt and pollution of sin, but he only: But then
the Apostle tells the Corinthians, that this benefit they received not only from
God the Father, but from the Lord Jesus likewise, and from the Holy Spirit:
Analogous to which is that other Passage in the same epistle; There are diversities
of gifts, but the same Spirit, (there is the third Person in the Trinity) there
are differences of Administration, but the same Lord, (there is the second Person)
and there are diversities of operations, but it is the same God, (or first person in
the Trinity) that worketh all in all. Once more, the same Apostle, in his prayer
for the Thessalonians, directs his devotion to the ever blessed Trinity: Now God
himself, even our Father, and our Lord Jesus Christ, direct our way unto you, and
the Lord, (i. e. the Holy Ghost) make you to increase and abound in love one towards
another: For that by the Lord we are here to understand the Holy Ghost, I
think is very plain from the next verse; ‘to the end, that he may establish your
hearts unblameable in holiness before God, even our Father, at the coming of our Lord
Jesus Christ with all his saints;’ since he is the Sanctifier, and to establish our
hearts in holiness is his proper work and office: And if so, then is there a plain
enumeration of the three Persons of the Trinity in this passage.
“The great Apostle of the Jews begins his first Epistle general to his dispersed
Brethren with a declaration of the same article, when he calls them elect according
to the foreknowledge of God the Father, through Sanctification of the Spirit,
unto obedience, and sprinkling of the blood of Jesus; for there we may observe,
that the three Persons are not only expressly named, but their distinct employments,
with reference to man’s salvation, are particularly specified, while the Father is
said to elect, the Spirit to sanctify, and the holy Jesus to shed his blood. The beloved
Apostle St. John, in his Salutation to the Churches, Grace, and Peace from
him, which is, and which was, and which is to come, and from the seven spirits which
are before his Throne, and from Jesus Christ has given us a distinct enumeration
of the three Persons in the Deity, if we will but admit, (as most interpreters have
done) that by the Seven Spirits, which was a sacred number among the Jews,
that one Person (viz. the Holy Ghost) is to be understood, from whom all that
variety of gifts and operations, which were then conspicuous in the Christian
Church, did proceed. But however this be, ’tis certain, that the passage in his
Epistle of the Three which bear record in Heaven, the Father, the Word, and the
Holy Ghost, are as full and plain a Testimony and declaration of this Mystery, as
can be cited in words; and though some have endeavoured to invalidate the authority
of this passage, as not extant in some ancient copies, and seldom appealed
to by the first defenders of the catholick faith against the Arians and Macedonians,
yet the contrary to this is most evident. Tertullian, St. Cyprian, and Fulgentius
quote it in their writings: Athanasius made use of it in the council of Nice against
Arius; and the reason why it was left out in some ancient copies Socrates acquaints
us with in his Ecclesiastical history, when he tells us, ‘That the Christian
Church had all along complained, that the Epistle of St. John had been corrupted
by the first adversaries of the doctrine of Christ’s divinity.’ ’Twas by
their artifice therefore that it was omitted; for several learned pens, both of our
own and other churches, have made it very manifest, that it was[94] originally in the
text, and that the most and ancientest copies always had it.
“But we need not be so tenacious of one text, when, besides these already mentioned,
and many more that might be produced upon a farther enquiry, the very
form of our admission into the Christian covenant is in the name of the Father, and
of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost; the form of our prayers is thus directed, that
through the Son we have an access by one Spirit to the Father; and the form of our
dismission from them is, every day, with this benediction, The grace of the Lord
Jesus, and the love of God, and the fellowship of the Holy Ghost, be with us all evermore;
as if the Wisdom of God had intended to inculcate this notion of the Trinity,
and, in every act of our religious worship, to remind us of the manner of his
subsistence.
“Thus it appears that there are Three, very often occurring in scripture, under
the different appellations of Father, Son, and Holy Ghost: and that these three
are not one and the same Being, under different respects and considerations, but
three real and distinct persons, with a peculiar manner of subsisting, is plain from
the very names of Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, if we understand them in a proper
and natural sense; because these are opposite relations, which can never meet in
the same subject: for a Father cannot be Father to himself, but to his Son; nor
can a Son be Son to himself, but to his Father; nor can the Holy Ghost proceed
from himself, or (in this sense) be his own Spirit, but the Spirit of the Father,
and Son, from whom he proceeds: and therefore the Father is not the Son, nor
the Holy Spirit; nor the Son the Father, or Holy Spirit; nor the Holy Spirit either
Father or Son. The only question is, whether these names, when spoken of the
Trinity have a proper and natural, or only an allusive and metaphorical signification.
“The divine nature and perfections indeed, (as they are far exalted above our
conception) may be brought down by metaphors, taken from some things, that
are analagous in creatures; in which sense we may allow Father and Son to be
metaphorical names, when applied to God: not that God the Father is not, in the
highest and most perfect sense, a Father, and his Son a most proper, natural, and
genuine Son; but because the divine generation is so perfect a communication of
the divine nature and being from Father to Son, that human generations are but
obscure and imperfect images and resemblances of it. The truth is, when any
thing is spoken metaphorically of God, the metaphor and image are always in the
creatures; the truth, perfection, and reality of all, in God: and if so, then if God
be a Father, and have a Son, an only-begotten Son, begotten eternally of himself;
though this eternal generation be infinitely above what we can imagine or conceive,
yet it is evident, that God the Father is more properly and perfectly a Father,
and God the Son more properly and perfectly a Son, than any earthly fathers
or sons ever were. And if God the Father and his Son be truly and perfectly Father
and Son, they must be truly and perfectly distinct beings; for the Father cannot
be the Son whom he begets; nor the Son the Father that begat him; nor the
Holy Ghost either the Father or the Son, from whom he proceeds: consequently,
they must be distinct, and real, and proper persons; for he that begets, and he that
is begotten, and he that proceeds from both, cannot be one and the same person.
“And as this difference of relations makes a manifest distinction between the three
persons; so the different offices and employments, that are ascribed to them in
scripture, is a farther note of discrimination. For who sees not, that the work of
creation of all things at first, and ever since the just, and wise, and merciful disposal
of them, are attributed to the Father; that the great undertaking of our
redemption is the care and employment of the Son; and the business of enlightening
and sanctifying those, whom the Son redeemeth, the particular province of
the Holy Ghost? Without supposing them to be three distinct persons, I say, no
satisfactory solution can be given, why, in the great work of man’s salvation, a
distinct office and operation should be proper to each of them; why the Father
only should be said to elect; the Son only to have shed and sprinkled his blood;
and the Holy Ghost only to sanctify us unto obedience. So far then as a diversity
of names, offices, and operations, distinguishes one being from another, there is
plainly a distinction of persons subsisting in the Godhead. But this is not all.
Those, who pretend to state[95] the true notion of a person as a term made use of
in this argument, tell us, that it is a being, which has understanding, and is a distinct,
entire substance of itself; an individual substance of a rationed nature, or a
complete intelligent substance, with a peculiar manner of subsistence: so that there
is a common nature, which must be joined by a peculiar manner of subsisting, to
make a person, otherwise it would be a mere mode; for we never conceive a person
without the essence in conjunction with it. And this notion may haply be of
use, not only to state the true distinction of the Persons in the Godhead, but to
account likewise for some dubious passages in the fathers, and reconcile the different
parties that contend about them: only we must take care (as I said before)
that, when we discourse of the sacred Trinity, the word person be not conceived
in the same sense as among men. The persons of men are distinct men, as well as
distinct persons; but this is no ground for us to affirm, that the persons in the divine
nature are distinct Gods. The distinction of the persons of men is founded in
a separate and divided subsistence; but this cannot be the foundation of the distinction
of the divine persons, because separation and division cannot belong to an
infinite Being. In a word, three human persons are three men, because, though
they have the same specific nature, yet they have not the same numerical nature:
but the three Persons in the Godhead are not three Gods, because they have the
same numerical essence, which belongs in common to them all: and since it is
confessed on all hands, that nature and subsistence go to the making up of a person,
why may not the way of their subsistence be as different as the human and
Divine natures (one finite, and the other infinite) are confessed to be? Though
therefore in things created it is necessary for one single essence to subsist in one
single person, and no more; yet this does not at all prove that the same must be
necessary in him, whose nature is wholly different from theirs, and, consequently,
may differ as much in the manner of his subsistence. For ’tis a thing agreeable
even to the notions of bare reason to imagine, that the divine nature has a way of
subsisting very different from the subsistence of any created being, and consequently,
may have one and the same nature diffused into three distinct persons:
but how, and in what manner this is effected; how one substance in the Deity is
communicated to more, and becomes theirs; how of one and the same essence,
there can be three persons numerically different; this is the difficulty, and what
made the holy father (writing upon the argument) confess, ‘That the mystery
of the Trinity is immense and incomprehensible, beyond the expression of words,
or reach of sense; that it blinds our sight, and exceeds the capacity of our understanding:
I understand it not, says he; nevertheless I will comfort myself in
this, that angels are ignorant of it, nor do ages apprehend it; that neither the
apostles enquired after it, nor the Son himself has thought fit to declare it.’
“The only valid objection (and to which all others are reducible) against these
personalities, so often occurring in scripture, is taken from the simplicity of the divine
nature, which, in the opinion of some, will not admit of any distinction. But
though the simplicity of God excludes all mixture, i. e. all composition of things
heterogeneous in the Godhead, (there being nothing in God but what is God) yet,
notwithstanding this, there may be a distinction of hypostases in the Godhead, provided
they are homogeneous, and of the same nature. Nay, the simplicity of the
divine nature, if rightly considered, is so far from excluding, that it necessarily
infers a distinction of hypostases in the Godhead: for, since the simplicity of the
Godhead consists chiefly in this, that God is a pure eternal Mind, free from the
mixture of all kind of matter whatever; an eternal Mind must needs have in it,
from all eternity, a notion or conception of itself, which the schools call verbum mentis;
nor can it, at any time, be conceived without it. Now this word cannot be
in God, what it is in us, a transient vanishing accident; for then the divine nature
would be compounded of substance and accident, which would be repugnant to its
simplicity; and therefore must be a substantial subsisting word, and though not divided,
yet distinct from the eternal Mind, from whence it proceeds. This is no
novel subtlety of the schools, but a notion, that[96] runs through all the Fathers of
the first ages, and is not destitute of a sufficient foundation in scripture. It proves
indeed only two Persons in the Godhead, not a Trinity; but then it proves, that a
distinction of persons in the Godhead is very consistent with its simplicity; nay,
that from the true nature of the simplicity of the Godhead, such a distinction necessarily
follows; and if there is a distinction of two, there may be of three; and
that there is of three, the full evidence of scripture (as I have already shewn)
abundantly assures us.”
Stackhouse.
.fn-
.fn 94
To confirm this we may add, that, if the difference of copies happened by the negligence of
transcribers, such a mistake is much more easily made by omitting a clause, than by inserting
one, especially when the same words occur twice very near together, which is the present case:
and that, without this clause, the next verse is maimed, and hardly good sense, the words, in
earth, standing disjointed by themselves; whereas the words, in heaven, (as we now read them)
make a clear, strong, and elegant antithesis: and for these reasons, those copies, in which this
passage is found, are more likely to be true, than those in which it is wanting.—Trapp’s Doctrine
of the Trinity.
.fn-
.fn 95
A late learned author has given us this definition of a single person, “That it is an intelligent
agent, having the distinctive characters of I, thou, and he, and not divided or distinguished
into more intelligent agents, capable of the same characters.” [Waterland’s second Defence,]
and thereupon he thus argues in another place, “Our ideas of person are plainly taken from our
conceptions of human persons, and from them transferred to other subjects, though they do not
strictly answer in every circumstance. Properly speaking, he and him, are no more applicable to
a divine person, than she or her;” but we have no third way of denoting a person, and so, of the
two, we choose the best, and custom familiarizes it.—His Sermons at Lady Moyer’s Lectures.
.fn-
.fn 96
It has, with good reason, been supposed by the Catholick writers, that the design of the word
Λογος was to intimate, that the relation of Father and Son hears some resemblance and analogy
to that of thought, viz. that as thought is co-eval with the mind, so the Son is co-eval with
the Father; and that as thought is closely united to, proceeds from, and yet remains in the mind,
so also may we understand that the Son is in the bosom of the Father, proceeding from him, and
yet never divided or separate, but remaining in him and with him.—Waterland’s Sermons at Lady
Moyer’s Lectures.
.fn-
.fn 97
Some, who take delight in darkening this matter, by pretending to explain it,
call the former a το νυν, stans; the latter, fluens.
.fn-
.fn 98
“In the Saviour’s exalted relation to his Father, the name Son of God comes
chiefly under observation. It is known that in the sacred word, rational creatures
are often dignified with the honorary title of Sons or Children of God; and that
in various respects, and for obvious reasons. But certainly that name in Christ
signifies something higher. John x. 35-38. He is not only a Son of God, but the
Son, by way of eminence above all ο υιος: So that he is by this, as a peculiar and
proper denomination, distinguished from other subjects. We know, that the Son
of God is come. 1 John v. 20. John viii. 36.—He is God’s only-begotten Son. John
i. 14, 18. iii. 16. God’s own Son. Rom. viii. 32. ‘To which of the angels said he
at any time, Thou art my Son, this day have I begotten thee?’ Heb. i. 5. When
Christ spoke to his disciples concerning the Father, he never said, our Father,
(as he had taught them to pray;) but always with an express distinction my Father.
Luke ii. 48, 49. John ii. 16. chiefly John xx. 17.——From the prophetic doctrine,
that name was known in Israel, as in its full force applicable to the Messias;
which can be clearly evinced from various passages. Mat. xvi. 15, 16. xxvi. 63.
Mark iii. 11. John vi. 69. xi. 27. x. 36. Amidst all the confusion of their apprehensions,
they found so much emphasis in it, that the acknowledgment of it was among
them a ground of adoration, Mat. xiv. 33. John ix. 35-38.; so that when
Jesus, with the distinction and appropriation of the divine works, called God his
Father, they thence concluded, which the Saviour did not contradict, that he held
God for his own Father, and thus made himself equal to God. John v. 18. x. 33-36.
Indeed, however intimate the connexion is betwixt being the Messias, the Christ,
and being the Son of God, this last signifies still something different, something
more original. For Paul preached Christ, that he was the Son of God[99]. In the
love of the truth, let us observe the divine testimony, he did not become the Son
of God by or after his coming in the flesh, by or after the execution of his ministry;
but herein is God’s great mercy celebrated, that ‘he sent him who was his
Son, made him under the law, and delivered him up for us all.’ This is evident,
from a variety of passages. Gal. iv. 4. Rom. viii. 32. Heb. v. 8. 1 John iv. 9, 10. It
is plainly supposed in the parable, the lord of the vineyard sent to the husbandmen
many servants, some of whom they beat, and others they slew. Having therefore
yet one son who was dear to him, he sent him last of all to them, saying,
‘they will surely reverence my son.’ Mark xii. 6.——In his supreme excellence,
as the Son of God, lies the reason of punishing unbelief. As the Son of God, ‘he
is the brightness of his glory, and the express image of his person.’ Heb. i. 3. On
the self-same account, he is, according to the language of men, his heir, that is,
has a natural right to all the works of God, especially to his church; which are
also made by him, in communion with the Father. See this described in a lofty
strain by the apostle, Heb. i. 1-3. iii. 3-6. Col. i. 15-17. and also by Jesus himself.
Mark xii. 6, 7.——Though, therefore, a further theological illustration of Christ’s
divine sonship should best be preceded by the proof of his true Deity, yet in the
meantime, the name Son of God, as ascribed to him, points us not only to his distinguished
elevation above all creatures, which Arius acknowledged, but also to
his unity of nature with the Father,[100] and to the ground of his existence in the
eternal and necessary existence of the Father.”
Wynpersse.
.fn-
.fn 99
Acts ix. 20.; see also chap. viii. 37. In both these places, however, there is a different reading
in the Greek. But compare Jesus’ first accusation before Pilate, that he said he was the
Christ. (Luke xxiii. 2.) with a new and a later, that he made himself the Son of God. (John xix. 7.
.fn-
.fn 100
Unity of nature with the Father. In the original it is equality of his nature. But apprehending
that, by an error of the press, gelykheid is put for eenigheyd, I have adventured to translate
the passage as above; and that in the fullest consistency with the design of the worthy author,
in the whole of this treatise, and with his express words in the close of the second paragraph of
this very section, where he says, “we dare not esteem Christ less than ὁμοουσιος, that is, of the
same nature or essence with God.”
.fn-
.fn 101
“The meaning of the terms, Son of God, only-begotten Son of God, must
needs be of importance, inasmuch as the belief of the idea signified by them was
made a leading article in the primitive professions of faith. John vi. 69. iii. 18. xx.
31. Acts xviii. 37. 1 John iv. 15. Whatever disputes have arisen of late among
christians, there seems to have been none on this subject in the times of the apostles.
Both Jews and Christians appear to have agreed in this: the only question
that divided them was, whether Christ was the Son of God, or not? If there had
been any ambiguity in the term, it would have been very unfit to express the first
article of the christian faith.
“It has been frequently suggested, that the ground of Christ’s sonship is given
us in Luke i. 35, and is no other than his miraculous conception: The Holy Ghost
shall come upon thee, and the power of the Highest shall overshadow thee: therefore
also that holy thing which shall be born of thee, shall be called the Son of God.
“It is true that our Lord was miraculously conceived of the Holy Spirit, and
that such a conception was peculiar to him; but it does not follow that by this
he became the Son, or only-begotten Son of God. Nor does the passage in question
prove any such thing. It has been thought that the phrase Son of God,
in this place, is used in a peculiar sense, or that it respects the origin of
Christ’s human nature, as not being by ordinary generation of man, but by the
extraordinary influence of God; and that he is here called the Son of God in
the same sense as Adam is so called, (Luke iii. 38.) as being produced by his
immediate power. If this be the meaning of the term in the passage in question,
I should think it will be allowed to be peculiar, and therefore that no general
conclusion can be drawn from it, as to the meaning of the term in other passages.
But granting that the sonship of Christ, in this place, is to be understood
in the same sense as it is commonly to be taken in the new testament, still it does
not follow that the miraculous conception is the origin of it. It may be a reason
given why Christ is called the Son of God; but not why he is so. Christ is called
the Son of God as raised from the dead, and as exalted at the right hand of God.
Acts xiii. 33. Heb. i. 4, 5. Did he then become the Son of God by these events?
This is impossible; for sonship is not a progressive matter. If it arose from his
miraculous conception, it could not for that reason arise from his resurrection,
or exaltation: and so on the other hand, if it arose from his resurrection, or exaltation,
it could not proceed from his miraculous conception. But if each be understood
of his being hereby proved, acknowledged, or, as the scriptures express
it, declared to be the Son of God with power, all is easy and consistent.
“Whether the terms, Son of God, and only-begotten Son of God, be not expressive
of his divine personality, antecedent to all consideration of his being conceived
of the holy Spirit, in the womb of the Virgin, let the following things determine.
“First: The glory of the only-begotten of the Father, and the glory of the Word,
are used as convertible terms, as being the same: but the latter is allowed to denote
the divine person of Christ, antecedent to his being made flesh; the same
therefore must be true of the former. The Word was made flesh, and we beheld
his glory; that is, the glory of the Word, the glory as of the only-begotten of the
Father, full of grace and truth. John i. 14. It is true, it was by the Word being
made flesh, and dwelling amongst us, that his glory became apparent; but the glory
itself was that of the eternal Word, and this is the same as the glory of the only-begotten
of the Father.
“Secondly: The Son of God is said to dwell in the bosom of the Father; that is,
he is intimately acquainted with his character and designs, and therefore fit to
be employed in making them known to men. The only-begotten Son, who is in the
bosom of the Father, he hath declared him. John i. 18. If this be applied to his divine
person, or that eternal life which was with the Father, and was manifested to
us, 1 John i. 2. it is natural and proper; it assigns his omniscience as qualifying
him for making known the mind of God: but if he became the only-begotten of
the Father by his miraculous conception, or by any other means, the beauty of
the passage vanishes.
“Thirdly: God is frequently said to have sent his Son into the world: John vii.
17. x. 36. 1 John iv. 9, 10. but this implies that he was his Son antecedent to his
being sent. To suppose otherwise, is no less absurd than supposing that when
Christ is said to have sent forth his twelve disciples, they were not disciples, but
in consequence of his sending them, or of some preparation pertaining to their
mission.
“Fourthly: Christ is called the Son of God antecedently to his miraculous conception,
and consequently he did not become such by it.—In the fulness of time
God sent forth his Son, made of a woman, made under the law, that he might redeem
them that were under the law—God sent his own Son, in the likeness of sinful flesh.
Gal. iv. 4. Rom. viii. 3.—The terms, made of a woman, made under the law, are a
parenthesis. The position affirmed is, that God sent forth his Son to redeem the
transgressors of the law. His being made of a woman, and made under the law,
or covenant of works, which man had broken, expressed the necessary means for
the accomplishment of this great end; which means, though preceding our redemption,
yet follow the sonship of the Redeemer. There is equal proof that
Christ was the Son of God before he was made of a woman, as that he was the
Word before he was made flesh. The phraseology is the same in the one case as
in the other. If it be alleged that Christ is here called the Son of God on account
of his being made of a woman, I answer, If so, it is also on account of his being
made under the law, which is too absurd to admit of a question.—Moreover: To
say that God sent his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh, is equal to saying that
the Son of God assumed human nature: he must therefore have been the Son of
God before his incarnation.
“Fifthly: Christ is called the Son of God antecedent to his being manifested to
destroy the works of the devil: but he was manifested to destroy the works of the
devil by taking upon him human nature; consequently, he was the Son of God
antecedent to the human nature being assumed. There is equal proof from the
phraseology of 1 John iii. 8. that he was the Son of God antecedent to his being
manifested to destroy the works of the devil, as there is from that of 1 Tim. iii. 16.
that he was God antecedent to his being manifested in the flesh; or from 1 John
i. 2, that that eternal life, which was with the Father, was such antecedent to his
being manifested to us.
“Sixthly: The ordinance of baptism is commanded to be administered in the
name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit. Matt. xxviii. 19. The
terms, Father and Holy Spirit, will be allowed to denote divine persons; and what
good reasons can be given for another idea being fixed to the term Son?
“Seventhly: The proper deity of Christ precedes his office of Mediator, or High
Priest of our profession, and renders it an exercise of condescension. But the same
is true of his sonship: He maketh the Son a High Priest—Though he was a Son,
yet learned he obedience. Heb. vii. 28. v. 8. His being the Son of God, therefore,
amounts to the same thing as his being a divine person.
“Eighthly: It is the proper deity of Christ which gives dignity to his office of
Mediator: but this dignity is ascribed to his being the Son of God. We have a
GREAT High Priest; Jesus, the Son of God. Heb. iv. 14. His being the Son of God,
therefore, amounts to the same thing as his being a divine person.
“Lastly: It is the proper deity of Christ which gives efficacy to his sufferings—By
HIMSELF he purges our sins. Heb. i. 3. But this efficacy is ascribed to his being
the Son of God—The blood of Jesus Christ, his Son, cleanseth us from all sin.
1 John i. 7. His being the Son of God therefore amounts to the same thing as his
being a divine person.
“Those who attribute Christ’s sonship to his miraculous conception, (those however
to whom I refer,) are nevertheless constrained to allow that the term implies
proper divinity. Indeed this is evident from John v. 18, where his saying that
God was his own Father is supposed to be making himself equal with God. But if
the miraculous conception be the proper foundation of his sonship, why should it
contain such an implication? A holy creature might be produced by the over-shadowing
of the Holy Spirit, which yet should be merely a creature; i. e. he
might, on this hypothesis, profess to be the Son of God, and yet be so far from
making himself equal with God, as to pretend to be nothing more than a man.
“It has been objected, that Christ, when called the Son of God, is commonly
spoken of as engaged in the work of mediation, and not simply as a divine person
antecedent to it. I answer; In a history of the rebellion in the year 1745, the name
of his Royal Highness, the commander in chief, would often be mentioned in connexion
with his equipage and exploits; but none would infer from hence that he
thereby became the king’s son.
“It is further objected, that sonship implies inferiority, and therefore cannot be
attributed to the divine person of Christ.—But, whatever inferiority may be attached
to the idea of Sonship, it is not an inferiority of nature, which is the point
in question: and if any regard be paid to the Scriptures, the very contrary is
true. Christ’s claiming to be the Son of God was making himself, not inferior, but
as God, or equal with God.
“Once more: Sonship, it is said, implies posteriority, or that Christ, as Son,
could not have existed till after the Father. To attribute no other divinity to
him, therefore, than what is denoted by sonship, is attributing none to him; as
nothing can be divine which is not eternal. But if this reasoning be just, it will
prove that the divine purposes are not eternal, or that there was once a point in
duration, in which God was without thought, purpose or design. For it is as true,
and may as well be said, that God must exist before he could purpose, as that
the Father must exist before he had a Son: but if God must exist before he could
purpose, there must have been a point in duration in which he existed without
purpose, thought, or design; that is, in which he was not God! The truth is,
the whole of this apparent difficulty arises from the want of distinguishing between
the order of nature and the order of time. In the order of nature, the sun
must have existed before it could shine; but in the order of time, the sun and its
rays are coeval: it never existed a single instant without them. In the order of
nature, God must have existed before he could purpose; but in the order of time,
or duration, he never existed without his purpose: for a God, without thought or
purpose, were no God. And thus in the order of nature, the Father must have
existed before the Son; but, in that of duration, he never existed without the Son,
The Father and the Son therefore are properly eternal.”
Fuller.
.fn-
.fn 102
Και περ is used six times in the New Testament; in two or three of which places
it might be rendered, without deviating from the sense of the respective texts, &
quidem, as well as quamvis; and I see no reason why the enclitic particle περ, being
added to και, should always, without exception, alter the sense thereof, any more
than when it is joined to ως, εαν, or ει. And whereas I render και, in ver. 9. But,
instead of And, that may be justified by several scriptures, where it is so rendered;
as Luke vii. 35. Matth. xii. 39. Acts x. 28. 1 Cor. xvi. 12.
.fn-
.fn 103
Dr. Ridgley differs from the most of his brethren on the Sonship of Christ
as Mediator. The following note, and the two preceding, represent, it is presumed,
the orthodox doctrine on this important head.
“The Redeemer is the Son of God, in a peculiar and appropriated sense, and
by which he is distinguished from every other person in the universe. He is
therefore called the first begotten, or first born son of God: his only begotten son,
his own son; and eminently The Son, and The Son of the Father. His dear Son;
or, as it is in the original, The Son of his love; His beloved Son, in whom he is
well pleased. ‘For he received from God the Father, honour and glory, when
there came such a voice to him from the excellent glory, This is my beloved
Son, in whom I am well pleased.’ 2 Pet. i. 17. He is ‘The only begotten Son,
which is in the bosom of the Father.’ John i. 18. Who only knows the Father;
and none does or can reveal and make him known but the Son. Matt. xi. 27. John
i. 18. He being the brightness of his glory, and the express image of his person;
he that hath seen the Son, hath seen the Father, John xiv. 9. Heb. i. 3.
Which epithets and declarations distinguish him from all other sons; as much
as his Father is distinguished from all other fathers. He is mentioned as the
Son of God above an hundred times in the New Testament; and fifty times by
the apostle John. And the Father of Jesus Christ, the Son, is mentioned above
two hundred and twenty times; and more than one hundred and thirty times in
the gospel and epistles of St. John. Jesus Christ often makes use of the epithets,
The Father, My Father, &c. This character is represented as essential
to the Redeemer and peculiar to him, and is an essential article of the Christian
faith. This confession Peter made as the common faith of the disciples of Christ.
‘We believe, and are sure that thou art that Christ, the Son of the living God,’
John vi. 69. Matt. xvi. 16. This was the Eunuch’s faith, required in order to
his being baptized. ‘I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God.’ And he
who believes with all his heart, that Jesus Christ is the Son of God, hath the
Son, and with him eternal life. When Peter made this confession, ‘Thou art
Christ, the Son of the living God,’ Christ said to him, ‘Blessed art thou; for
flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven.’
Matt. xvi. 16, 17. ‘He that believeth on the Son, hath everlasting life,
and he that believeth not the Son, shall not see life.’ John iii. 36. And John
says, ‘Whosoever shall confess that Jesus is the Son of God, God dwelleth
in him, and he in God. Who is he that overcometh the world, but he that
believeth that Jesus is the Son of God! He that hath the Son, hath life; and he
that hath not the Son of God, hath not life. These things have I written unto
you that believe on the name of the Son of God: that ye may know ye have eternal
life, and that ye may believe on the name of the Son of God.’ 1 John iv. 15. v. 5,
12, 13.
“It must be farther observed, that this title, the Son of God, is the highest title
that is given to the Redeemer, and denotes his divinity, or that he is himself
God, and therefore equal with the Father, if his divinity be any where expressed
in the Bible; and that it is there abundantly declared, we have before shewed.
He styles himself, and is called The Son of Man, more than eighty times in
the New Testament, by which epithet his humanity is more especially denoted,
but not excluding his divinity. And, on the contrary, he is called the Son of
God, more particularly to express his infinitely superior character, his divinity
or godhead. In this view, let the following passages be considered. When the
angel, who declared to the virgin Mary that she should be the mother of the Messiah,
expressed to her the greatness of this her Son, he does it by saying that
he should be called the Son of the Highest, the Son of God. ‘He shall be great,
and shall be called the Son of the Highest. Therefore also that holy thing which
shall be born of thee, shall be called the Son of God.’ Luke i. 32, 35. If this
were not his greatest, his highest title and character, he most certainly would
have given him a higher, and one that did fully express divinity. This, therefore,
did express it in the fullest and strongest manner. And no one, who believes
in the divinity of Christ, can, consistently, have any doubt of it. And
when the Father gives him the highest encomium, and recommends him to men,
as worthy of their highest regards, implicit obedience, and unlimited trust and
confidence, and commands them thus to regard, love, trust in, and obey him,
this is the highest character he gives him, by which his divinity is expressed,
‘This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased: Hear ye him.’ If this
does not express his divinity, we may be sure divinity is no part of his character;
and that he is not God. So, when Peter undertakes to express the idea he
had of the high and glorious character of his Lord and Master, he does it in the
following words, ‘Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God.’ If Peter
believed the divinity of Christ, he certainly expressed this in these words; for
he did not conceive of any higher character, that could be given in any other
words. This also appears by Nathaniel’s using this epithet, when he was struck
with wonder and surprise at the omniscience of Christ. ‘Rabbi, thou art the
Son of God, thou art the King of Israel.’ John i. 49. When our Lord Jesus
Christ proposed himself to the man whom he had restored to sight, as the proper
object of his faith and trust, he said to him, ‘Dost thou believe on the Son
of God?’ And when he told the man that he himself was the person, he said,
‘Lord, I believe. And he worshipped him.’ John ix. 35, 38. It appears from
this, that Son of God was the highest title which Jesus assumed, and that this
had special reference to, and expressed his divinity; and therefore in this character,
and as the Son of God, this pious man paid him divine honour, and worshipped
him. When the disciples of our Lord, and all that were in the ship with
them, had seen him walking upon the sea, in the midst of a terrible storm, and
reducing the boisterous winds, and raging waves, to a calm, by his word and
presence, they were struck with a fresh and affecting conviction of his divinity,
that he was God, and expressed it by coming to him, falling down and worshiping
him, ‘saying, of a truth, thou art the Son of God.’ Matt. xiv. 33. In which
words they expressed his divinity, and gave a reason for their worshipping him,
as their Lord and their God, viz. that they were sure from clear and abundant
evidence, that he was the Son of God. The apostle John, when he would represent
Jesus Christ in his highest and most glorious character, gives him this title,
and adds, ‘This is the true God.’ He says, ‘We know that the Son of God is
come, and hath given us an understanding, that we may know him that is true:
And we are in him that is true, even in his Son Jesus Christ. This is the true God,
and eternal life.’ 1 John v. 20.
“It is to be farther observed, that when our Lord said to the Jews, ‘My Father
worketh hitherto, and I work,’ the Jews, therefore sought the more to kill him,
because he said that God was his Father, (his own proper Father, as it is in the original)
‘MAKING HIMSELF EQUAL WITH GOD.’ This is to be understood as the sense
which St. John the Evangelist puts upon the words of Christ, ‘My Father worketh
hitherto, and I work.’ For this was making himself equal with God the
Father, as doing the same work with him: And this is represented as implied in
God’s being his own Father; or in his being the Father’s own Son, the Son of God.
But if we understand it as the sense which the Jews put upon the words of Christ,
and that they said this was making himself equal with God, it amounts to the
same thing; for it appears that their inference was just; and our Saviour is so far
from denying it to be true, that in his reply to them, he confirms it, and asserts
that whatsoever the Father does, the Son does the same; and instances in his
raising the dead, and judging the world, and having all things, and all power in
his hands. ‘That all men should honour the Son, even as they honour the Father.’
John v. 13-17. Thus he makes the Son equal with the Father. Hence it
appears that to be the Son of God, and God’s own Son, is the same with a divine
person, and denotes one who is truly God; and that this title is used to express
the divinity, rather than the humanity of Jesus Christ.
“The same appears from what passed between our Lord and the Jews at another
time. He said to them, ‘I and my Father are One.’ This, they said, was blasphemy,
because being a man, he made himself God. It is plain from the answer
which he makes to them that they considered him as a blasphemer, because he
claimed to be the Son of God, by calling God his Father. ‘Say ye of him whom
the Father hath sanctified, and sent into the world, Thou blasphemest, because I
said, I am the Son of God?’ This was the blasphemy with which they charged
him; because they considered his saying, that he was the Son of God, by calling
God his Father, as an assertion that he was God. John x. 30, 33, 36. And it appears,
not only from this passage, but from others, that the Jews, and others, did
affix the idea of divinity to the Son of God, and considered this title as expressing
a character infinitely above a mere creature. When Jesus was arraigned before
the Jewish council, the High Priest charged him with the solemnity of an oath,
saying, ‘I adjure thee by the living God, that thou tell us, whether thou be the
Christ, the Son of the living God.’ And when Jesus answered in the affirmative,
he with all the members of the council, charged him with blasphemy; and pronounced
him worthy of death for making this claim. Matt. xxvi. 64, 65, 66. And
they brought this accusation against him to Pilate, ‘We have a law, and by our
law he ought to die, because he made himself the Son of God. When, therefore,
Pilate heard that saying, he was the more afraid.’ John xix. 7, 8. By this, it is
evident that Pilate considered the Son of God, to imply divinity. When the Centurion,
and the guard who were with him, saw the earthquake and the other supernatural
events which attended the crucifixion of Jesus Christ, ‘they feared
greatly, saying, Truly this was the Son of God.’ Matt, xxvii. 54. From this, it is
evident that they considered the Son of God to be more than a man, at least, if
not really God.
“There was some idea and belief propagated among other nations, as well as the
Jews, of an extraordinary personage, a divinity, who was denominated The Son of
God, and who was to make his appearance in the world. To this, Nebuchadnezzar
doubtless had reference, when he said, that in a vision, he saw a fourth person,
walking in the midst of the fire of the furnace into which he had cast three
men; and that none of them had been hurt by the fire; and the form of the fourth
was like the Son of God. Dan iii. 25. And who but this divine person can be meant
by Agur, when he says, ‘Who hath ascended up into heaven, or descended?
Who hath gathered the wind in his fists? Who hath bound the waters in a garment?
Who hath established all the ends of the earth? What is his name, and
what is his Son’s name, if thou canst tell?’ Prov. xxx. 4.
“This epithet and character we find expressly mentioned by David, the divinely
inspired king of Israel, in the second Psalm. And he is there introduced and
described, as a divinity, who claims divine homage, trust, and worship, as the
Omnipotent heir, possessor and ruler of the world. ‘I will declare the decree.
The Lord hath said unto me, Thou art MY SON, this day have I begotten thee.
Ask of me, and I shall give thee the heathen for thine inheritance, and the uttermost
parts of the earth for thy possession. Thou shalt break them with a rod of
iron; thou shalt dash them in pieces like a potter’s vessel. Be wise now, therefore,
O ye kings; be instructed, ye judges of the earth. Serve the Lord with fear,
and rejoice with trembling. Kiss the Son, lest he be angry, and ye perish from
the way, when his wrath is kindled but a little. Blessed are all they that put their
trust in him.’[104] From this ancient oracle in Israel, and from a revelation which
was made upon the first apostacy, and handed down by tradition, not only the
Jews, but also those of other nations who had any particular connexion with them,
were taught to consider the expected Messiah as the Son of God in a peculiar
and appropriated sense; and as implying real divinity. Therefore, it was supposed
on all hands, that this person, the Son of God, the King of Israel, the King of
the Jews, was to be worshipped as worthy to receive divine honours. Hence the
wise men from the East, being admonished of the birth of this glorious personage,
came to worship him, to pay him divine honours; for which they had a particular
warrant, having had him pointed out to them by a STAR, which was a known symbol,
or hieroglyphic of the Divinity, or a God. And Herod took it for granted,
that this person was to be worshipped, and receive divine honours. For he said
to the wise men, ‘When ye have found him, bring me word again, that I may
come and worship him also.’
“All this will be of no weight, indeed, and as nothing with the Anti-trinitarians,
the Sabellians; and with all those who deny the divinity of Jesus Christ, the
Arians and Socinians. But they who believe in a Trinity of persons in the Deity,
and that Jesus Christ is God, the second person of the Trinity, must be sensible
that he is called the Son of God, the Son of the Father, with a special reference
to his divine nature, and to denote his Godhead, as the second person in the Triune
God.—The Arians and Socinians hold that he is the Son of God, considered as a
mere creature, being by this distinguished from all other creatures; and consequently
that there was no Son of God before this creature did exist. The latter,
or Trinitarians, believe that the sonship of Jesus Christ, necessarily includes his
divinity; but are not all agreed as to the foundation of his sonship, and in what it
consists. It has been generally believed, and the common doctrine of the church
of Christ, from the beginning of the fourth century, and so far as appears from the
days of the apostles to this time, that Jesus Christ is the eternal Son of God: That
his Sonship is essential to him, as the second person in the Trinity, and that in
this sense, he is the only begotten Son of the Father, antecedent to his incarnation,
and independent on it, even from eternity. But there are some who think that
the Sonship of the Redeemer consists in an union of the second person of the
Trinity, or the Word, with the human nature; and that he became the Son of
God by becoming man; and therefore before the incarnation, there was no Son of
God, though there were a Trinity of persons in the Godhead. This opinion seems
to be rather gaining ground, and spreading, of late.
“Those on each side of this question differ in their opinion of the importance of
it, and of the bad tendency of either of these opposite sentiments. Some suppose
that the difference is of little or no importance, as both believe the Redeemer to
be God and man, in one person, and that he is the Son of God, and that this implies
his divinity, though they differ in opinion respecting the time and manner
of his filiation. Others think this is a difference so great and important, and attended
with such consequences; and that those who are opposed to them on this
point embrace such a great and dangerous error, that they ought to be strenuously
opposed: and consequently do not desire an accommodation, or think it possible.
“Though it be needless and improper here to undertake the labour of entering
into all the arguments which have been produced, or may be mentioned in support
of each side of this question; yet the following observations may not be altogether
useless; but may be of some help to form a judgment upon this point,
agreeable to the scriptures.
“1. As this question respects the character of the Redeemer, it may justly be
considered as an important one; as every thing relating to his character is very
important and interesting. Who would be willing to be found at last taking the
wrong side of this question; and always to have entertained so unbecoming ideas
and conceptions of the Redeemer, which his must be, if on this point he embraces
and contends for that which is directly contrary to the truth? Though such
an error should not be fatal to him who embraces it, but be consistent with his
being a real Christian; yet it must be a very criminal mistake, and dishonourable
to Jesus Christ; as every idea of him must be, which is contrary to his true character:
For that is so perfect and glorious, that nothing can be taken from it, or
added to it, which will not mar and dishonour it. His character, as it respects
the question before us, is without doubt properly and clearly stated in divine revelation,
and if we embrace that which is contrary to the truth, it must be wholly our
own fault, and a very criminal abuse of the advantages which we enjoy, to know
the only true God, and Jesus Christ his Son, whom he has sent. Those considerations
ought to awaken our attention to this subject, and excite a concern and
earnest desire to know and embrace the truth; which will be attended with a
modest, humble, diligent enquiry, sensible of the danger in which we are, through
prejudice, or from other causes, of embracing error; and earnestly looking to the
great Prophet to lead us into the truth.
“2. What has been observed above, and, it is believed, made evident, viz. that
the term, Son of God, so often given to Christ, is used to denote his divine nature,
and to express his divinity, rather than his humanity, seems naturally, if not necessarily,
to lead us to consider this character as belonging to him independent
of his union to the human nature, and antecedent to his becoming man; and therefore,
that it belongs to him as God, the second person in the Trinity. For if his
sonship consists in his union to the human nature, and he became a son, only by
becoming a man; then this character depends wholly upon this union, and is derived
from his being made flesh: Therefore this epithet could not be properly
used to denote his divinity, independent of his humanity, or what he is as a divine
person, antecedent to his incarnation; or to express his divine, rather than his
human nature. And Son of God, would be no higher a character, and express no
more than Son of man; which is contrary to the idea which the scripture gives
us on this head, as has been shown.
“This may, perhaps, be in some measure illustrated by the following instance.
The son of a nobleman of the first honour and dignity, came from Europe, and
married the daughter of a plebian in America, by which he became his son: But
as his honour and dignity did not consist in his marrying this woman, or in his
being the son of the plebian, by this union with his daughter, but in his original
character; no man thought of expressing his highest and most dignified character
by which he was worthy of the greatest respect, by using an epithet which denoted
only his union to that woman, and which was not applicable to him in any
other view; or by calling him son, as expressing this new relation: But the highest
title which they gave him, was that which had a special respect to, and expressed
his original character, which he sustained antecedent to this union; and
in which his highest dignity consisted. And he being the son of a nobleman and
a lord, in which all his honour and dignity did consist, they used this phrase,
My noble Lord, to express their highest respect, and his most worthy character.
This epithet was always used to express his original and highest character and
relation, and could not, with propriety, be used to express any thing else. He
was often called, indeed, the son of the plebian, when they designed particularly
to express his union to his wife, and speak of him as standing in this relation.
“3. The Son of God is spoken of in many instances, if not in every one where
this term is used, so as will naturally lead the reader to consider him as sustaining
this character and relation antecedent to his incarnation, and independent of
it. ‘God so loved the World that he gave his only begotten Son.’ John iii. 16. Do
not these words seem to express this idea, viz. that there existed an only begotten
son, antecedent to his being given; that God gave this his Son to the world
by his becoming flesh, and being united to the human nature; and not that he
became his Son by this union? ‘In this was manifested the love of God towards
us, because that God sent his only begotten Son into the world, that we might live
through him. Herein is love, not that we loved God, but that he loved us, and sent
his Son to be a propitiation for our sins.’ 1 John iv. 9, 10. If God sent his only begotten
Son into the world, does not this suppose he had a Son to send, antecedent
to his sending him; and that he did not become his Son by his sending him into
the world, or only in consequence of this! This is expressed in the same manner
by St. Paul. ‘But when the fulness of time was come God sent forth his Son,
made of a woman, made under the law.’ Gal. iv. 4. The Son was sent forth. Does
not this seem at least to imply that there was a Son to be sent forth antecedent to
his being made of a woman, and that he was not made a Son, by being made of a
woman or becoming man? ‘No man hath seen God at any time: The only begotten
Son which is in the bosom of the Father, he hath declared him.’ John i. 18.
Do not these words naturally lead us to conceive of the only begotten Son as
existing in the nearest union with the Father as his Son, independent of the human
nature?
“It is said, ‘God was manifested in the flesh.’ 1 Tim. iii. 16. It would be unnatural
and absurd to suppose, from this expression, that Jesus Christ was not God,
antecedent to his being manifested in the flesh, and that by his becoming man,
he became a God. Directly the contrary to this is asserted, viz. that he who is
God from eternity, did in time appear in the human nature, and manifested himself
to be God, independent of the flesh, in which he appeared. It is also said,
‘For this purpose, the Son of God was manifested, that he might destroy the
works of the devil.’ 1 John iii. 8. These two passages appear to be parallel.
God manifested in the flesh, and the Son of God manifested, are two expressions
of the same thing. From this it may be inferred, that the Son of God, and God,
are synonymous here, and of the same import. This serves to confirm what has
been said above of the use and meaning of the term, Son of God. And may it
not with equal certainty be inferred from these two passages, compared together,
that the Son of God existed in this character as the Son of God, antecedent
to his manifestation in the flesh, and independent of it; and that he did not become
the Son of God by being made flesh? If God be manifested in the flesh,
there must be a God to be manifested antecedent to such a manifestation, and
independent of it. And is it not equally certain that if the Son of God be manifested,
he must have existed the Son of God, antecedent to such manifestation,
and independent of it? Consequently he did not become the Son of God by his
being manifested in the flesh: His Sonship does not consist in the union of the
divine and human natures in one person. His personality existed before this
union with the human nature; and he was the Son of God before this: This same
Son of God, this same person who existed without beginning, assumed the human
nature, not a human person, into a union with himself, his own person, and
so appeared, was manifested in the flesh.
“When David speaks of the Son of God, and represents the Father as saying,
‘Thou art my Son, this day have I begotten thee,’ so long before his incarnation,
the idea which most naturally arises in the mind from this is, that there
was then such a person as the Son, who did at that time declare the decree, by
the mouth of David; and not, that there should in some future time be a Son
begotten, who should then declare the decree. ‘I will declare the decree: The
Lord said unto me, thou art my Son, this day have I begotten thee.’ It is very
unnatural, and contrary to all propriety of speech to suppose, ‘this day have I
begotten thee,’ means I will beget thee in some future time; and that the Son
should be made to declare the decree, long before any such person existed; and
when there was in fact no such Son. The decree which the Son declares is not
that declaration, ‘Thou art my son, this day have I begotten thee;’ but what
follows, ‘ask of me, and I will give thee the heathen for thine inheritance, and
the uttermost parts of the earth for thy possession. Thou shalt break them with
a rod of iron, &c.’ ‘This day,’ that is, now, not in time which is passed, or
which is to come; for with God there is no succession, no time passed or to
come; but he exists, as we may say, in one eternal, unsuccessive NOW. Therefore,
when we speak of an eternal, immanent act, it is most properly expressed
thus, ‘This day, or NOW, have I begotten thee.’ This therefore is the sense in
which the best divines have generally understood it.
“St. Paul cites this passage as being illustrated and verified in the resurrection
of Jesus Christ. Acts xiii. 33. But he cannot mean that he by the resurrection
became the Son of God, and was then begotten: for he had this title before that.
His meaning is explained by himself in his epistle to the Romans. ‘Declared
to be the Son of God by the resurrection from the dead.’ Rom. i. 4. That is,
this was a fresh and open manifestation and declaration that he was indeed what
had been often asserted of him, and what he always was: The only begotten Son
of God.
“What the angel said to the virgin Mary, ‘He shall be great, and shall he called
the Son of the Highest—The Holy Ghost shall come upon thee, and the power
of the Highest shall overshadow thee: therefore also that holy thing which shall
be born of thee, shall be called the Son of God,’ cannot reasonably be understood
as a declaration that his sonship consisted in his miraculous conception, or in the
union of the second person of the Trinity with the human nature, thus conceived:
But that this child, conceived in this manner, and born of a virgin, should
appear, and be known to be the Son of God, that very person who had been spoken
of and known in all past ages by this title; of whom Isaiah had particularly
spoken, when he said, ‘Behold, a virgin shall conceive, and bear a Son, and shall
call his name Immanuel. Unto us a Son is given, and the government shall be
upon his shoulder: And his name shall be called, Wonderful, Counsellor, the
mighty God:’ Isaiah vii. 14. ix. 6. That this Son was now to be born of the virgin
Mary: the long expected Messiah, who is considered and spoken of by the people
of God, by the title of the Son of God, which title he shall bear, as he is indeed
the mighty God.
“We are naturally lead to consider the Son of God as existing in this character
before his incarnation, and the same with the Word, by what is said of him in
the first chapter of John. ‘The Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us;
and we beheld his glory as of the only begotten of the Father. No man hath seen
God at any time. The only begotten Son, which is in the bosom of the Father,
he hath declared him. John bare witness of him, and cried, saying, this was he
of whom I spake, he that cometh after me, is preferred before me: For he was
before me. And I saw, and bear record that this is the Son of God.’ Here John
is represented as asserting that the Son of God, concerning whom he bore witness,
did exist before him, which therefore must be before his incarnation; for
John was conceived before the incarnation of Jesus. But how can this be true,
if there were no Son of God, before John existed? But if we consider the Word
and the Son of God as synonymous, who was in the beginning with God, and
who was God, and created all things, this whole chapter will be plain and easy
to be understood; and we shall see John bearing witness to the Son of God, who
existed before him in this character, and was now come in the flesh.
“We find the same representation made in the epistle to the Hebrews. ‘God,
who spake in time past unto the fathers, by the prophets, hath in these last days
spoken unto us by his Son, whom he hath appointed heir of all things; by whom
also he made the worlds. Who being the brightness of his glory, and the express
image of his person, and upholding all things by the word of his power,’ &c. How
could God make the worlds by his Son, four thousand years before he had a Son;
and on this supposition, where is the propriety or truth of this assertion? And
how could the Son be said to uphold all things by the word of his power, thousands
of years before any Son existed? ‘And again, when he bringeth the first
begotten into the world, he saith, And let all the angels of God worship him.’
This expression naturally suggests the idea that God the Father had a first-begotten
Son to bring into the world, whom he commanded the angels to worship.
How can he be said to bring his first begotten Son into the world, when he had
no such Son to bring into the world; and indeed never did bring this his Son into
the world, if he was begotten and received his sonship in this world, when he
took the human nature in the womb of the virgin, and was not a son before?
“Again, speaking of Melchisedec, he says, he was ‘Without father, without
mother, without descent, having neither beginning of days, nor end of life; but
made like unto the Son of God.’ Heb. vii. 3. If there were no Son of God till the
human nature of Christ existed, then the Son of God did begin to exist; consequently
there was a beginning of his days; and Melchisedec was not made like
him, but unlike to him, by having no beginning of days.
“Since there are so many passages of scripture, (and there are many more than
have now been mentioned) which seem to represent the Redeemer as the Son of
God, antecedent to his incarnation, and independent of it, which will naturally
lead those who attend to them to this idea of him; and some of them cannot be
easily reconciled to the contrary opinion; this will fully account for the generally
received doctrine in the Christian world from the earliest ages to this time,
viz. That the Redeemer of man is the second person in the Trinity, the eternal
Son of God, who in the fulness of time was made flesh, by a personal union with
the human nature.
“4. It is worthy of consideration, whether the contrary opinion, viz. That the
Redeemer is the Son of God, only by the second person in the Trinity being united
to human nature, and becoming man, does not naturally lead to dangerous
and evil consequences; and what good end is to be answered by it? If it be not
agreeable to scripture, we know it must be dangerous and hurtful in a greater
or less degree, (as all errors respecting the person and character of the Redeemer
are) and naturally tends to lead into other mistakes, still greater, and
of worse consequence. And if it be agreeable to scripture, it certainly has no
bad tendency. If, therefore, it does appear from reasoning upon it, or from fact
and experience, that this opinion tends to evil consequences, and has a bad effect;
we may safely conclude that it is wrong, and contrary to divine revelation.
“1. Does not this sentiment tend to lower our ideas of the Redeemer, and lead
into a way of thinking less honourably of him? It has been observed that it appears
from scripture, that this title, Son of God, was used to express the highest
and most honourable idea which his friends had of his person and character.
But if we understand by it, nothing but what takes place by his union to man,
by taking flesh upon him, and consider it as signifying nothing but what took
place by his becoming man, nothing is expressed by it more than by Son of man:
And we are left without any epithet or common scripture phrase, whereby to express
the divinity, the Godhead of the Redeemer, and his equality with the Father.
Thus, instead of raising our conceptions of the Redeemer, does it not
tend to sink them? Does not the sonship of Christ become an infinitely less and
more inconsiderable matter, upon this plan, than that which has always been
esteemed the orthodox sentiment on this point, which considers his sonship, as
wholly independent of the whole creation, as eternal, and altogether divine?
“We live in an age when the enemies of the Redeemer lift up their heads, and
are suffered to multiply and prevail. The deists attempt to cast him out as an
impostor. Arians and Socinians strip him of his divinity: And the careless, ignorant,
immoral and profane, treat him with contempt, or neglect. This is agreeable
to his great enemy, Satan; who seems now to be let loose in an unusual degree,
and has uncommon power among men, to lead them into gross errors, and
those especially which are dishonourable to Christ, and injurious to his character.
And if this sentiment now under consideration, concerning the Sonship of the
Redeemer, should spread and prevail now, this would be no evidence in favour of
it; but, considering what has been now observed, concerning it, would it not give
reason to suspect, at least, that it is dishonourable to the Son of God, and leads
to other errors yet more dishonourable to him?
“This leads to observe,
“2. It is worthy of consideration, whether this doctrine of the filiation of Jesus
Christ, does not tend to reject the doctrine of the Trinity, as it has been held by
those who have been called the orthodox in the christian church, and leads to
what is called Sabellianism; which considers the Deity as but one person, and to
be three only out of respect to the different manner or kind of his operations.
“This notion of the Sonship of Christ, leads to suppose that the Deity is the Father
of the Mediator, without distinction of persons; and that by Father so often
mentioned in the New Testament, and generally in relation to the Son is commonly,
if not always, meant Deity, without distinction of persons. If this be so,
it tends to exclude all distinction of persons in God, and to make the personality
of the Redeemer to consist wholly in the human nature; and finally, to make his
union with Deity no more, but the same which Arians and Socinians admit, viz.
the same which takes place between God and good men in general; but in a higher
and peculiar degree.
But if there be no tendency in this doctrine of the sonship of Christ, to the
consequences which have been now mentioned; and it can be made evident that
none of those supposed evils do attend it, or can follow from it; yet it remains
to be considered what advantage attends it, and the good ends it will answer, if
it were admitted to be true. None will say, it is presumed, that it is more agreeable
to the general expressions of scripture relating to this point, than the opposite
doctrine; who well considers what has been observed above. The most that
any one can with justice say with respect to this is, that the scripture may be so
construed and understood, as to be consistent with the sonship of Christ, commencing
at the incarnation, however inconsistent with it some passages may appear
at first view.
“It may be thought, perhaps, that this notion of the sonship of the Redeemer is
attended with two advantages, if not with more, viz. It frees the doctrine of the
Trinity from that which is perfectly incomprehensible, and appears a real contradiction
and absurdity; that the second person should be Son of the first, who is
the Father; the Son being begotten by the Father from eternity; than which
nothing can be more inconceivable, and seemingly absurd. And this appears inconsistent
with the second person being equal with the first; for a son begotten
of a father, implies inferiority, and that he exists after his father, and consequently
begins to exist, and is dependent. Both these difficulties are wholly avoided,
it is thought, by supposing that the second person in the Trinity became a son by
being united to the human nature, and begotten in the womb of the virgin. And
it is probable that these supposed advantages have recommended this scheme of
the Sonship of Christ, to chose who embrace it, and led them to reject the commonly
received opinion; and not a previous conviction that the former is most
agreeable to the scripture. This therefore demands our serious and candid attention.
And the following things may be observed upon it.
“1. If we exclude every thing from our creed, concerning God, his existence,
and the manner of his existence, which to us is incomprehensible and unaccountable,
we must reject the doctrine of the Trinity in unity, and even of the
existence of a God. The doctrine of three persons in one God is wholly inconceivable
by us, and Unitarians consider it as the greatest contradiction and absurdity
imaginable. And those Trinitarians, who have undertaken to explain it,
and make it more intelligible, have generally failed of giving any light; but have
really made it absurd and even ridiculous, by ‘darkening counsel by words
without knowledge.’ If we reasoned properly on the matter, we should expect
to find in a revelation which God has made of himself, his being and manner of
subsistence, mysteries which we can by no means understand, which are to creatures
wonderful, and wholly unaccountable. For the being of God, and the
manner of his existence, and of his subsisting, must be infinitely above our comprehension:
God is infinitely great, and we know him not. And if we attempt to
search out these mysteries by reason, we are prone to think they are contradictions
and absurdities, merely because our reason cannot fathom them; and they
appear more unintelligible, the more we try to understand them. ‘Canst thou
by searching find out God? Canst thou find out the Almighty to perfection? It
is as high as heaven, what canst thou do? Deeper than hell, what canst thou know?
The measure thereof is longer than the earth, and broader than the sea.’ Job ii.
7, 8, 9. ‘Teach us what we shall say unto him, (and what we shall say concerning
him;) for we cannot order our speech by reason of darkness. Shall it be
told him that I speak?’ and attempt to comprehend and explain the mysteries
that relate to his existence? ‘If a man speak, surely he shall be swallowed up.’
Job xxxvii. 19, 20. If a man undertake thus to speak, instead of giving any light,
he will be involved and overwhelmed in impenetrable darkness.
“They, therefore, who do not believe the eternal sonship of Jesus Christ, because
it is mysterious and incomprehensible, and to some it appears to be full
of contradiction, will, if they be consistent with themselves, for the same reason,
reject the doctrine of a Trinity of persons in one God.[105]
“2. If the doctrine of the eternal generation and sonship of the second person in
the Trinity be soberly and modestly considered in the light of the foregoing observation,
and with a proper sense of our own darkness and infinite inferiority to
the divine Being, and how little we can know of him; we shall not be forward
to pronounce it inconsistent with reason, and absurd; but be convinced, that to
do thus, is very bold and assuming; and that it may be consistent and true, notwithstanding
any thing we may know; though it be mysterious and incomprehensible.
This is a divine generation, infinitely above any thing that takes place
among creatures, and infinitely different. It is that of which we can have no
adequate idea, and is infinitely out of our reach. What incompetent judges are
we then of this matter? What right or ability have we to pronounce it absurd
or inconsistent, when we have no capacity to know or determine what is true,
consistent, or inconsistent in this high point, any farther than God has been
pleased to reveal it to us? There may be innumerable mysteries in the existence
and manner of subsistence of the infinite Being, which are, and must be, incomprehensible,
by a finite understanding. God has been pleased, for wise ends, to
reveal that of the Trinity, and this of the eternal generation and sonship of the
second person: And he has done it in a manner, and in words best suited to convey
those ideas of it to men, which it is necessary they should have: And we
ought to receive it with meekness and implicit submission, using our reason in
excluding every thing which is contrary to, or below infinite perfection, and absolute
independence; without pretending to comprehend it, or to be able to
judge of that which is infinitely high and divine, by that which takes place among
creatures, with respect to generation, and father and son.
“God is said in scripture, to repent and be grieved at his heart; to be angry,
and to have his fury to come up in his face; and hands, feet, eyes, mouth, lips
and tongue, &c. are ascribed to him. These words are designed and suited to
convey useful ideas, and important instruction to men. But if we should understand
these expression as meaning the same thing in the Divine Being, that they
do when applied to men; we must entertain very unworthy, and most absurd
notions of God, and wholly inconsistent with other declarations in the sacred
Oracles. But if we exclude every thing that is human, or that implies any change
or imperfection from these expressions when applied to the Deity, they will convey
nothing absurd or inconsistent, or that is unworthy of God. And it will
doubtless be equally so in the case before us; if it be constantly kept in mind
that the only begotten Son of God denotes nothing human, but is infinitely above
any thing which relates to natural, or creature generation, and does not include
any beginning, change, dependence, inferiority, or imperfection. This will effectually
exclude all real absurdity and contradiction.
“It will be asked, perhaps, when all this is excluded from our ideas of generation,
of Father and Son, what idea will remain in our minds, which is conveyed
by these words? Will they not be without any signification to us, and altogether
useless? To this, the following answer may be given: From what is revealed
concerning this high and incomprehensible mystery, we learn, that in the existence
of the Deity, there is that which is high above our thoughts, as the heavens
are above the earth, infinitely beyond our conception, and different from
any thing which takes place among creatures, which is a foundation of a personal
distinction, as real and great as that between father and son among men,
and infinitely more perfect: which distinction may be in the best manner conveyed
to us by Father and Son, to express the most perfect union and equality;
that the Son is the brightness of the Father’s glory, and the express image of
his person, and that there is infinite love and endearment between them; and that
in the economy of the work of redemption, the Son is obedient to the Father, &c.
All this, and much more, our minds are capable of conceiving from what is revealed
on this high and important subject; which is suited to impress our hearts
with a sense of the incomprehensible, infinite, adorable perfection and glory of
the Father and the Son; and is necessary in order to give us a right understanding
of the gospel; of the true character of the Redeemer, and of the work of redemption.
“What has been now said under this second particular, may serve to remove the
other supposed difficulty in admitting the eternal filiation of the second person in
the Trinity, viz. that it represents the Son as inferior to the Father, and as existing
after him, and therefore his existence had a beginning. This is obviated by
the above observations; and particularly by this, that it is a divine filiation, and
therefore infinitely unlike that which is human; and above our comprehension.
Besides, to suppose eternal generation admits of before or after, or of a beginning,
is inconsistent. It may be further observed,
“3. That the opinion that Jesus Christ is the first and only begotten Son of God,
by the second person in the Trinity becoming incarnate, and united to the human
nature, is, perhaps, attended with as great difficulties as the other which has been
considered, if not greater. If so, the inducement to embrace it, and reject the
other, which we are examining, wholly ceases.
“If the Son was begotten by the miraculous formation of the human nature; then
the Holy Ghost begot the Son and is the Father, as much as the first person in the
Trinity. For the angel said to the virgin, ‘The Holy Ghost shall come upon thee,
and the power of the Highest shall overshadow thee: therefore also that holy
thing which shall be born of thee, shall be called the Son of God.’ If we take these
words as referring only to the production of the human nature, and if it be granted
that by the highest, is meant the first person in the Trinity, of which there does
not appear to be any evidence, yet the third person, the Holy Ghost, is represented
as doing as much, and being as active in this production as the first person.
But if this were no difficulty, and the first person of the Trinity be supposed
to produce the human nature, and in this sense to be the Father of Jesus
Christ; yet this will make him his Father in no other and higher sense than he
is the Father of angels, and of Adam; and Jesus Christ will be the Son of God in
no other, or higher sense than they; for they were created and formed in an extraordinary,
miraculous way.
“If the Son was begotten by uniting the second person of the Trinity with the human
nature, and the filiation of the Son is supposed to consist wholly in being thus
united to man; this is attended with the following difficulties, as great, perhaps,
if not greater, than those which attend the eternal Sonship of the second person.
“1. This is as different in nature and kind from natural or creature generation,
as eternal divine generation; and the one bears no analogy or likeness to the other.
“2. This union of God with the creature so as to become one person, is as mysterious
and incomprehensible, as the eternal Sonship of the second person of the
Trinity; and as inexplicable: so that nothing is gained with respect to this, by
embracing this scheme.
“3. It is not agreeable to scripture to suppose that the first person of the Trinity
only, united the second person to the human nature, and so became a Father
by thus begetting a Son. The third person, the Holy Ghost, is represented as
doing this, or at least, being active in it; and there is nothing expressly said of
the first person doing any thing respecting it as such. ‘The Holy Ghost shall
come upon thee, and the power of the Highest shall overshadow thee: therefore
also, that holy thing which shall be born of thee, shall be called the Son of God.’
‘Now the birth of Jesus Christ was on this wise. When his mother, Mary, was
espoused to Joseph, before they came together, she was found with child of the
Holy Ghost.’ And the angel of the Lord said unto Joseph, ‘Fear not to take
unto thee Mary thy wife: For that which is conceived in her is of the Holy Ghost.’
Matt. i. 18, 20. And this uniting the divine nature with the human, is expressly
ascribed, not to the first, but to the second person. ‘For as much as the children
are partakers of flesh and blood, he also himself took part of the same. For verily
he took not on him the nature of angels; but he took on him the seed of Abraham.’
Heb. ii. 14, 16. Do not they speak not only without scripture, but contrary to it,
who say that the first person of the Trinity became a Father by uniting the second
person to the human nature, in the womb of the virgin Mary; by which the
latter became the only begotten Son of the Father? That the relation of Father
and Son began in the incarnation of Christ, and consists wholly in this? And do
they by this supposition avoid any difficulty, and render the filiation of the Redeemer
more consistent, intelligible, or honourable to him? Let the thoughtful,
candid discerning reader judge.”
Hopkins.
.fn-
.fn 104
This is an incontestable proof that the Son is God, even JEHOVAH. The Psalmist often
says, “Blessed are they, blessed is the man who trusteth in the Lord.” And here he says, Blessed
are all they who trust in the Son of God, and yet forbids us to put our trust in any but God.
“Put not your trust in princes, or in the son of man, in whom there is no help. Happy is he that
hath the God of Jacob for his help, whose hope is in the Lord his God.” Psalm cxlvi. 3, 5. And
he says, “My soul, wait thou only upon God; for my expectation is from him.” Psalm lxii.
5. They only are blessed, who trust in God; and all others are cursed. “Thus saith the Lord,
Cursed be the man that trusteth in man. Blessed is the man that trusteth in the Lord, and whose
hope the Lord is.” Jer. xvii. 5, 7. They are blessed, who trust in the Son of God. Therefore
he is the Lord.
.fn-
.fn 105
It has been before observed, that the denial of the eternal sonship of Christ seemed to
have a tendency to a rejection of the doctrine of the Trinity; and in what way. But what is
here observed, shews how the denial of the former tends, another way, to the rejection of the
latter. For if the former be rejected, because it is incomprehensible, and appears inconsistent, it
may be expected that when the doctrine of the Trinity is more particularly considered, it will
appear equally unintelligible; and therefore be rejected, for the same reason. Is it not probable,
that Sabellius, the ancient Anti-trinitarian, was in this way led to give up the doctrine of
the Trinity?
.fn-
.fn 106
See Dr. Owen against Biddle, p. 362.
.fn-
.fn 107
Ονομα ανεκφωνητον.
.fn-
.fn 108
Antiq. Lib. III. Cap. 5.
.fn-
.fn 109
This the Holy Ghost has condescended, for what reason I know not, to give countenance
to, in all those quotations in the New Testament, where the name Jehovah,
is referred to from the Old.
.fn-
.fn 110
In two places, indeed, it is rendered by Θεος, God, Gen. iv. 1. and Isa. liv. 13.
And there is one place in which some think they attempt a literal translation of it,
2 Sam. i. 11. where, instead of the people of the Lord, they translate the text, επι τον
λαον Ιουδα, in which, some think, Ιουδα, is put for Ιουα, or Ιουβα, through the mistake
of some amanuensis; but it seems rather to be an explication than a literal translation
of the words; and whereas some think, the reason of this method used by them in
their translation, is, because the Hebrew letters, of which that name consists, cannot
well be expressed by the letters of the Greek alphabet, so as to compose a word like it,
that does not seem to be the reason of it, inasmuch as they attempt to translate other
names equally difficult; as in Gen. x. 2. Ιωυαν, for Javan; and 2 Kings xii. 2.
Ιωδαε for Jehoiada.
.fn-
.fn 111
See Dr. Allix’s judgment of the Jewish church against the Unitarians, chap.
xiii. to xvi.
.fn-
.fn 112
Vid. Catech. Racov. ad Quest. lix.
.fn-
.fn 113
It is elsewhere said concerning him, 1 John iii. 5. that he was manifested, &c.
εφανερωθη, as also in ver. 8. And as for what is said in the last clause of the verse
we are considering, that he was received up into glory, it is a very great strain on
the sense of these words, to apply it to a mystery, or to the gospel, since the words,
ανεληφθη εν δοξη, plainly intimate a person’s meeting with a glorious reception when ascending
into heaven; αναλαμβαινομαι signifies sursum recipere, therefore we render
it, received up; and so it is often applied to our Saviour, Acts i. 2, 11, 22. and
his ascension is called, Luke ix. 51. ἡμερα της αναληψεως, the time in which he should
be received up.
.fn-
.fn 114
See Whitby in loc.
.fn-
.fn 115
See Dr. Clarke’s reply to Nelson, page 86.
.fn-
.fn 116
Thus they are four times, Luke i. 68. 2 Cor. i. 5. Eph. i. 3. and 1 Pet. i. 3.
wherein ευλογητος is put before Θεος.
.fn-
.fn 117
Dr. Owen against Biddle, page 256.
.fn-
.fn 118
See Dr. Clarke’s reply to Nelson, page 97.
.fn-
.fn 119
See Page #307#.
.fn-
.fn 120
It is certain, that και is oftentimes exegetical, as well as copulative; and it appears
to be so, by a great many instances in the New Testament; when it is put between
two nouns, the first whereof has an article, and the other none; thus it will be
acknowledged by all, that it is taken, in 2 Cor. i. 3. Blessed be God, even the Father
of our Lord Jesus Christ, ὁ Θεος και Πατηρ; so in Eph. i. 3. 2 Thes. ii. 16.
1. Pet. i. 3. Rom. xv. 6. Phil. iv. 20. 2 Cor. xi. 31. and in Col. ii. 2. In these scriptures,
and others of the like nature, the Arians themselves allow that this rule holds
good, though they will not allow it, when it proves our Saviour’s Deity, because it
militates against their own scheme; as in Eph. v. 5. where the apostle speaks of the
kingdom of Christ, and of God, as we render it; but, I think, it ought to be rendered,
even of God; for it is, του Χριστου και Θεου so in 2 Thess. i. 12. The grace of our
God, and, or even, of the Lord Jesus Christ, the words are, του Θεου ἡμων και κυριου
Ιησου Χριστου. See among many other scriptures to the like purpose, 1 Tim. v. 21. and
chap. vi. 13. 2 Pet. i. 2. It is true there are several exceptions to this rule, though they
are generally in such instances, in which it is impossible for the latter word to contain
an explication of the former, though, in other instances, it, for the most
part, holds good; and therefore it will, at least, amount to a probable argument, that
the words in this text, του μεγαλου Θεου και σωτηρος ἡμων Ιησου Χριστου ought to be rendered,
of the great God, even our Saviour Jesus Christ. Vide Granville Sharp on
the Greek article, and Middleton on the same subject.
.fn-
.fn 121
See Dr. Clark’s reply to Nelson, page 85.
.fn-
.fn 122
The words, ὁ Κυριος and ὁ Θεος are in the nominative case, which denotes that
they are not spoken in a way of exclamation.
.fn-
.fn 123
See reply to Nelson, page 67.
.fn-
.fn 124
Acts vii. 43. chap. xiv. 11.
.fn-
.fn 125
See Matt. xix. 26. compared with Mark x. 27.
.fn-
.fn 126
See Scripture-doctrine, &c. page 67, 68, and in many other places.
.fn-
.fn 127
This is the sense of Dr. Clarke’s first section in Part 2, on which the whole
scheme seems to be founded; and he speaks to the same purpose in several other places;
and, in particular, in his reply to Nelson, page 67, 68, he concludes the word
Θεος, God, absolutely taken to import the same, as ὁ παντοκρατωρ or ὁ επι παντων Θεος, by
which he always intends the Father.
.fn-
.fn 128
See Scripture-doctrine, page 3.
.fn-
.fn 129
See page #120#.
.fn-
.fn 130
See Dr. Clarke’s Scripture Doctrine, page 176.
.fn-
.fn 131
Whitby is very particular in laying down this sense of the text, with the defence
thereof, in his annotations on this scripture, from Heliodorus, where he finds
the words, ἁρπαγμα ποιειν, which he renders, to snatch at; and ἁρπαγμα ἡγεισθαι,
which, he supposes, signifies to pursue, or covet, a thing that is desirable, but, however,
the words going before, or following, in that author, may determine that to be
his sense thereof, as the sense of particular words is oftentimes greatly varied thereby;
yet this will not justify the rendering them in the same sense, in other instances,
very foreign thereunto, as certainly the text we are explaining must be reckoned to
be; besides, the word is not the same, for it is ἁρπαγμα, which properly signifies a
prey, or the thing stolen; and therefore though ἁρπαγμα ποιειν ξυντυχιαν may signify,
to catch an opportunity, as a person catches at what he thinks for his advantage,
yet if the word ἁρπαγμον had been used instead of it, it would very much have altered
the sense thereof; also though ἁρπαγμα ἡγεισθαι signifies, to esteem a thing worthy
to be pursued, or catched at, as a prey, yet ἁρπαγμον ἡγεισθαι, which are the
words in the text we are considering, signify no such thing, but rather to reckon a
thing unlawful to be pursued, as what he has no right to; and that is the sense
thereof in our text, q. d. He did not think it unlawful to pursue, or lay claim to that
divine honour, of being equal with God, or, as we render it, thought it not robbery,
&c. For the justifying of this sense, every one, that observes the acceptation of the
Greek words, will find that ἁρπαγμος signifies, the action of robbing, and ἁρπαγμα
the thing stolen, as may be observed in many other words, where the former construction
signifies the act; the latter the effect: as in λογισμος and λογισμα, κομπασμος,
and κομπασμα, κολασμος and κολασμα, ὁρισμος and ὁρισμα, ὁπλισμος and ὁπλισμα,
στοχασμος and στοχασμα; and, in the New Testament, βαπτισμος signifies the action
of baptizing, and βαπτισμα the ordinance in which it is performed. See Mark vii.
8. compared with Matt. iii. 7. and chap. xxi. 25. Multitudes of instances might
have been given, but these are sufficient.
.fn-
.fn 132
Grotius in loc.
.fn-
.fn 133
“It may readily be granted that any tract published by an apostolick man,
in the early Christian church, would be circulated among the Christians of those
times, with great dispatch, immediately on its publication. This is a natural and
indefeasible position, since it arises from a principle in human nature itself. It
is natural, too, that, in those times, it should be copied without delay in such
churches as were then extant. And this first edition would be circulated to the
widest extent, of course. Churches that were established afterwards were more
likely to receive the second edition of such a writer’s works; especially, if they
had intercourse with the town where he resided in his latter days, and drew their
copies from thence, immediately. But I think we may say, that for one copy
of the second edition that was circulated, there would be 20, or 50, or 100 copies
of the first edition; since not only would it have the advantage of priority, but
not one reader in a hundred would think of the second as different from the first.
And this has led our translators to mark, as doubtful, the first quotation which
I selected from the first Epistle of John, in my last; chap. ii. 23. I have no
doubt of the genuineness of the addition; but possibly there may be 50 copies
without it to one which contains it.
“Admitting, then, the residence of St. John be at Ephesus, or any part of Asia
Minor, for the last thirty years of his life, for which we have the testimony of
ancient history, we may date his first epistle, early in that period: or even before
he came to live there. This would spread first, among the neighbouring
churches in Asia Minor: secondly, eastward, to those countries which professed
Christianity, Antioch, for certain: Syria, Cilicia, Pontus, Cappadocia, Galatia,
Babylonia, &c. Toward these countries, there are caravans which go every
month, or six weeks, from Asia Minor: there is a regular intercourse maintained,
between Smyrna, and the internal parts of Asia Minor, and on through Tarsus
to Antioch:—from Ephesus to Smyrna was easy. We have every reason to
affirm, that it was the same anciently, and therefore, there was an immediate
conveyance of such addresses as the apostle John published for the general use
of all Christians, from Ephesus, eastward to the oriental provinces of the Roman
empire, where Christianity was settled and flourished. In these churches his
writings would be in request. Moreover, these churches would be the first to
translate his writings into their current language, for the use of the natives of
these provinces, who did not understand Greek (which, however prevalent the
Greek language was, must have been many) because here was a great number
of professing Christians, who desired to be acquainted with their contents.
“It is evident, therefore, that these translations, having for their basis the first
edition, can be no evidences of what the apostle thought proper to add in his
second addition. The Syriac version, for instance, if we suppose that to be the
earliest of all, would represent the first edition, as would also, all versions made
from it, and all copies made from those, at that time, received in those parts.
Whereas, the Armenian version, because it is much later, would at least stand
the chance of obtaining (and being made from) the second edition. The Syriac
version, therefore, is no evidence against an addition. The Armenian version
is an evidence for it. This version contains 1 John v. 7.
“Also, the churches in Africa were not planted till many years after those of
Asia; their intercourse with Ephesus, being by sea, was irregular, and could
only take place, occasionally, if it was direct. If we suppose it to be, on the
subject before us, through Italy, then it was subject to the same circumstances
as attended the intercourse between Ephesus and Rome. I say Rome, because
we have no reason to think that there was any number of Christians, worth mentioning,
in any other city of Italy. The apostle Paul, when travelling from Rhegio
upward was met by brethren from Rome; which when he saw, he thanked
God, and took courage. Certainly, then, he had not met with many friends in
places that he passed through, and his courage had been somewhat cast down,
for that reason. We find no trace of Christianity in Herculaneum, one of the
cities of Italy, of the second size, which was destroyed A. D. 79, though we
meet with traces of Judaism there; and in short, it must be admitted, that, compared
with Asia, the western provinces had but few Christians. We have no
reason to think that Rome sent out missionaries early. The south of France was
christianized from Asia, though so much further off than Rome. The natural
inference is, that these parts would receive later copies of any apostolick writing,
published in Asia Minor, than those parts which had a regular intercourse,
half a dozen times in a year, at least, but probably much oftener, with Ephesus.
And whatever versions were extant in the west, would represent the second edition
with its variations, whatever they might be.
“As to Rome itself, I infer, that that capital of the empire had, if any place
had, both editions. Suppose, for a moment, that the first edition had reached
Rome, when Aristobulus quitted that city for Britain, or that it was sent to Aristobulus,
in Britain, from Rome, it will follow, that the ancient British copies
would not contain those additions which the apostle John inserted in the second
edition. And to this agrees the fact: for Pelagianism could hardly have been
repressed by any text more effectually than by the one in question. Yet that
errour rose in Britain, and it was not so decidedly opposed then, as it is now,
minus the testimony of this text. Moreover, the text is not quoted by the venerable
Bede, in a passage of his works, where we should expect to find it, at least,
alluded to. He, therefore, might have the first edition.
“In short, almost all the arguments employed against the authenticity of the
text may be admitted. They cease to have any great force, after it is once conceded
to those who use them, that the first edition, together with all its representatives,
in the first century, suppose, had not the words in debate. They are
reduced to the infirmity of a negative argument, at best.
“I must now observe, that the African churches being planted long after the
Asiatick, they, no doubt, would obtain the best transcripts of the works of any
inspired writer, which could be procured about the time of their being founded;
i. e. the second edition of the letter under consideration. To this agrees the fact;
the African bishops quote the passage. Tertullian, Cyprian, Eucherius, Eugenius,
with his consistory of 400 bishops, Vigilius, Fulgentius, &c. &c. so that it was
undeniably extant in their copies from the second century downwards. The argument,
then, is reduced to a point: either these divines found the passage in
their copies, or they put it there. The latter alternative is so dishonourable to
Christians and to Christianity, that one is willing to accept of any hypothesis
which may vindicate professors and teachers from such enormous guilt.—But
further:
“I have said, that Rome might be expected to procure whatever was most excellent
in Christian literature, as well as in other studies. It had, then, the first
edition, because that was the earliest which could be procured; and the second
because the influx of persons to Rome from all parts was so great, that every
thing which was portable of a literary nature, might be expected to be brought
there. Rome had an ancient version of the scriptures, known under the name
of the old Italic version. It is not of any consequence to our argument, whether
this version contained the text of the heavenly witnesses, since it was made very
early; but if the revised Roman version of the New Testament contained it, we
are reduced to the same dilemma as before, in reference to the African bishops—The
reviser of this edition (Jerom) either found it, or forged it. The same
arguments that relieve the characters of the African bishops, relieve the character
of this father. The accusation is incredible. It is loading the party with a
crime so far beyond ordinary culpability, that the mind revolts at the charge. It
is admitted, then, that the Latin version reads this verse; that St. Jerome adopted
it; that it was adopted by the learned after him; as by our own famous Alkwin,
at the time, and in the court of Charlemagne, and has so continued ever since.
The inference is, that St. Jerome preferred the authority and text of the second
edition, and followed it.
“These, moreover, are independent witnesses; for, the African bishops, who
wrote before Jerom, could not receive this passage from his revised version: or,
if any choose to affirm that the African bishops received this passage from the
old Italic version, then the authenticity of the passage follows of course, in proportion
to whatever importance is attached to this increased antiquity.”
SELECT REVIEWS.
.fn-
.fn 134
Mr. Abraham Taylor, in his true Scripture-doctrine of the Trinity, Part. I.
chap. 2. in which we have his own method of reasoning in defence thereof, which is,
at least, sufficient to remove the boasts and insults of those who wonder that we
should not give up the cause entirely to them.
.fn-
.fn 135
See Histoire Crit. du. Nouv. Testam. chap. 18. page 204.
.fn-
.fn 136
See this conjecture of Father Simon learnedly opposed in Smith. Miscellan. contra
Simon.
.fn-
.fn 137
Vid. Epist. lxxiii. ad Jubaianum, & de Unitate Eccl. § v.
.fn-
.fn 138
See true Scripture-doctrine, &c. page 53.
.fn-
.fn 139
Contra Praxeam, cap. 25.
.fn-
.fn 140
See the Author before referred to, in the true scripture-doctrine, &c. as also
Trigland de tribus in cælo testibus.
.fn-
.fn 141
Vide Abbadie on the Divinity of Christ, per totum.
.fn-
.fn 142
See Quest. vii.
.fn-
.fn 143
See Dr. Clarke’s Scripture doctrine, page 127.
.fn-
.fn 144
Reply to Nelson, page 169.
.fn-
.fn 145
See a parallel scripture, Prov. xxx. 2, 3.
.fn-
.fn 146
ὁ ων εν τω ουρανω, is admitted by Griesback into his text.
.fn-
.fn 147
By the wisdom of God seems here to be meant the wisdom of God essentially
considered. But see Matt. xxiii. 34.
.fn-
.fn 148
See Dr. Clarke’s Scripture Doctrine, page 63.
.fn-
.fn 149
See page #344#, #345#, ante.
.fn-
.fn 150
Dr. Waterland, Serm. III. in defence of Christ, page 106.
.fn-
.fn 151
“That Christ was not a mere instrument which God used in the work of creation,
as the Arians pretend, is plain from this, that the Scriptures not only teach,
that Christ was the very supreme God himself that created all things; Psal. cii.
25. Heb. i. 10. but also that no instrument was used in that work. It was wrought
immediately by God himself. As it is written, ‘God himself formed the earth and
made it.’ Isa. xlv. 18. (This, all grant, was the supreme God: And this God
was Jesus Christ.) ‘He alone spread out the heavens.’ Job ix. 8. Not by an instrument,
but by himself alone, Isa. xliv. 24. with his own hands. Isa. xlv. 12.”
Bellamy.
.fn-
.fn 152
δια Ιησου Χριστου are omitted by Griesbach.
.fn-
.fn 153
Vid. Bez. in loc. Unus Deus omnes populos condidit, sic etiam nunc omnes ad se
vocat; condidit autem per Christum, sic per Christum instaurat.
.fn-
.fn 154
See Matt. xii. 32. 1 Cor. x. 11. Eph. i. 21. and chap. ii. 7. Heb. vi. 5. and
chap. ix. 26. the apostle speaking of the foundation of the world, meaning the first
creation, uses the word Κοσμος; but when, in the following words, he speaks of Christ’s
appearing in the end of the world, to put away sin, &c. he uses the words των αιωνων.
.fn-
.fn 155
See page #304#.
.fn-
.fn 156
See Quest. lxvii. and lxxv.
.fn-
.fn 157
“The Father, saith he, is greater than I. John xiv. 28. As Christ is the
head of the church, so the head of Christ is God. 1 Cor. iii. 23. xi. 3. He calleth
the Father his God. Matt, xxvii. 46. John xx. 17.—The Father raised him to Israel;
Acts xiii. 23. anointed him with the Holy Ghost and with power; Acts x.
38. spared him not, but delivered him up for us all; Rom. viii. 32. and raised
him from the dead. Acts ii. 24.—God had appointed him to execute his saving
designs, sent him into this world, and gave him commandments. John iii. 16, 17.
vi. 38-40. The work given him he finished, and in it he was faithful to the
Father. John iv. 34. xvii. 4. Heb. iii. 2. x. 9.—Therefore, God hath also exalted
him above measure; Phil. ii. 9. set him at his own right hand in heaven; Eph.
i. 20. and gave him all power. Matt, xxviii. 18. He hath made him Lord and
Christ; Acts ii. 36. exalted him to be a Prince and a Saviour, to give to Israel
repentance and remission of sins. Acts v. 31. He hath also ordained him to
judge the world in righteousness; Acts xviii. 31. and to him, Christ shall then
be subject, and deliver up the kingdom. 1 Cor. xv. 24-28.
“To be the true God, and to be under God, to be the Infinite, and to be the subject,
are, according to all reason, and the scripture itself, inconsistent properties.
By undeniable authority, however, they are ascribed to the same subject; and
therefore, there must be a way to solve the difficulty. How often do we meet
with particulars in the system of truth, which seem to oppose one another; but
when well considered, agree, and even support one another. The human constitution
itself, exhibits a clear instance. The grand inquiry is, upon what foundation
every different truth is established, and how to reconcile seeming contradictions.
Now, while they who attack the Godhead of Jesus, can never in our opinion,
answer the multitude of proofs in its favour; there is on the contrary, for
the confessors of that doctrine, the greatest store of solutions, as often as something
not divine, something beneath the nature and authority of his Father, and
something finite are testified concerning him. ‘He who was in the form of God,
and counted it not robbery to be equal with God, took upon him the form of a
servant.’ Phil. ii. 6, 7. ‘The Word who was with God, and who was God, became
flesh; but in that flesh, manifested a glory as of the only-begotten of the
Father, full of grace and truth.’ John i. 1, 14.—According to the infallible testimony,
he is therefore true God and true man; and his saving mediatory performances
are inseparably founded on both natures. While the value of these, the
power to save his people forever, and to direct all things in heaven and on earth
to that end, as also the fitness to be the object of their grateful confidence, and
his capacity for conducting the general judgment, are founded on, and give an
invincible proof of his divine perfection; it is at the same time his finite nature,
wherein he finished the human ministrations of his teaching office, and of his
priestly sacrifice.—And thus it is intelligible, how the glory and majesty with
which he governs the kingdom of God, to the mighty ingathering and defence
of his people, and to the destruction of all opposition, occur as an exaltation; in
as far as the human nature, according to its capacity shared therein, obtained the
fruit and reward of its labour, and the Lamb that was slain, deserves and receives
everlasting honour, because of the works of salvation in both natures. This appears,
because every where, his obedience and deepest humiliation are assigned
as the reason of his exaltation.—‘I was dead and behold I am alive for evermore,
Amen! and have the keys of hell and of death.’ Rev. i. 18. ‘To this end Christ
died, and rose, and revived, that he might be Lord over the dead and the living.’
Rom, xiv. 9. See also Phil. ii. 7-10. Heb. i. 3. John v. 27. Rev. i. 5, 6. v. 12-14.”
Wynpersse.
.fn-
.fn 158
See Quest. vii.
.fn-
.fn 159
Creatures are said to be believed, as our Saviour speaking concerning John the
Baptist, in Mark xi. 31. says, Why did ye not believe him? διατι ουν ουκ επιστευσατε
αυτω; and, in Acts viii. 12. the Samaritans believed Philip, επιστευσαν τω Φιλιππω;
and, in John v. 46. Moses is described as a person who ought to be believed; Had
ye believed Moses, &c. says our Saviour, ει γαρ επιστευετε Μωση; but it is never said
that a creature is believed in. This was Augustin’s observation; upon which occasion
he says, In Exposit. Evangel. Johan. Tract. 29. “Though we may be said to
believe Paul and Peter, yet we are never said to believe in them.” But as for
our Saviour, we are not only to believe him, namely, what he has spoken, but πιστυειν
εις αυτον, to believe in him.
.fn-
.fn 160
The words are, ενωπιον του Θεου του ζσττοο ωοποιουντος τα παντα και Χρις του Ιησου; where
και seems to be exegetical, according to the rule laid down, page #318#. and therefore I
would render the words, God, who quickeneth all things even Jesus Christ; and,
if this be a just rendering, then the Father is not mentioned in the context; and
therefore this doxology is not ascribed to him but to our Saviour.
.fn-
.fn 161
See Dr. Clarke’s Scripture Doctrine, page 58, 77.
.fn-
.fn 162
The chief opposers of Christ’s being the object of worship, were Jacobus Palæologus,
Franciscus Davidus, Christianus Franken, Simon Buduæus; and, on the
other hand, it was defended by Socinus, and several others, though not in the same
sense in which we maintain it.
.fn-
.fn 163
See Dr. Clarke’s Scripture Doctrine, page 132.
.fn-
.fn 164
See page #322#, #323#. ante.
.fn-
.fn 165
See Dr. Waterland’s defence of the divinity of Christ, serm. iv. pag. 127. &
seq. where he proves, that the exclusive terms of One, only, &c. do not except the
Son, so as to deny him to have the same Godhead with the Father: this he proves
from several scriptures, viz. Mat. xi. 27. No one knoweth the Son, but the Father;
nor any one the Father, save the Son; it does not follow from hence, that
the Father does not know himself nor the Son himself: and when it is said, in 1 Cor.
ii. 11. The things of God knoweth no one, but the Spirit of God; this does not
exclude the Son, for that would contradict the scripture but now mentioned; no
more than the Son’s only knowing the Father excludes the Holy Ghost, which would
be contrary to this scripture; so in Rev. xix. 12. it is said, that the Son had a name
written which no one knew but he himself: none ever thought that the Father
was excluded by this exclusive term; so when God the Father saith, in Isa. xliv. 24.
I am he that maketh all things, that stretcheth forth the heavens alone, that
spreadeth abroad the earth by myself: this would contradict many other scriptures,
which speak of the Son as the Creator of all things, if he were to be excluded by it.
Again, when the Psalmist saith, concerning the Father, in Psal. lxxxiii. 18. that
his name alone is Jehovah, we must set aside all those scriptures in which our Saviour
is called Jehovah, if he is contained in this exclusive term. See more to this
purpose in the said sermon, in which this argument is managed with a great deal of
judgment. I shall only take leave farther to cite what is well observed in page 33.
“That, perhaps the word God in those places, namely, such in which there are these
exclusive terms, is to be understood in the indefinite sense, abstracting from the
particular consideration of this or that person, in like manner as the word man often
stands not for any particular human person, but the whole species, or human
nature; as when we say, man is frail; man is mortal, or the like.”
.fn-
.fn 166
Τι με ερωτας περι του αγαθου. Beza speaks of two or three of the most ancient
copies in which this reading is found; and Grotius also adheres to it, from the credit,
as he says, of the most ancient and correct copies; and it is also observed, that the
vulgar Latin version renders it so; and Augustin read it so in the copy that he
made use of: and whereas the evangelists, Mark and Luke, read it, Why callest
thou me good, he endeavours to reconcile this different reading therewith as supposing
there was a seeming contradiction between them which he might better have
done, by referring to some copies which had it, as we read it, why callest thou me
good; from whence, it is probable, he saw none that so rendered it in his time. Vid.
Agust. de Consensu. Evan. lib. ii. cap. 63. It is also thus translated in the ancient
Hebrew version of the gospel of Matthew.
.fn-
.fn 167
“If Dr. Priestley, in his celebrated efforts to establish the Unitarianism
of the primitive church against Dr. Horsley, fell so short of ‘complete victory;’
it may be presumed, that the failure would, in some degree, affect his greater
work, The History of Early Opinions concerning Jesus Christ. Many parts of
that elaborate performance are merely a republication of the Letters, excluding
the personalities. Their merits and their fate must, therefore, be closely, interwoven.
“This large and capital work was given to the world under circumstances which
appeared very promising for bringing the controversy to a satisfactory issue.
With great and long continued diligence the indefatigable author collected his
materials. He digested and arranged them, with that lucid perspicuity for which
he was so justly distinguished. He tried every method to call forth into the field
of preparatory discussion, some learned and able Trinitarians and Arians. He
waited for some years after the publication of the work; and then renewed his
public challenge, affording an additional period for the fate of the question. It
was, of course, implied, and the obligation was frankly avowed by the Doctor;
that he would in proper time duly notice what any fair and candid opponents
should produce.
“It is to be lamented, however that the expectations thus excited have not been
completely answered; and the decease of Dr. Priestly excludes every hope that
they will be so.
“Early in the year 1790, a mild and amiable writer, Dr. Williams,[168] addressed to
Dr. Priestley his objections to the whole structure of the argument built on the
History of Early Opinions. He offered reasons to shew, that the appeal to the
fathers was a method calculated to increase difficulties, and to render the controversy
almost interminable; that it has been experimentally proved an insufficient
mode of argument; that it has been long ago solidly refuted;[169] that it was
plainly reprehended by Jesus Christ; that it is highly untheological in its just
consequences; and that it is illogical and inconclusive. This letter breathed the
sincere spirit of amicable controversy; and I cannot but think that it deserved
the very candid and serious attention of your learned friend. But I believe it was
never noticed in any other way than that of private compliment.
“In 1794, Dr. Jamieson published a professed and minute examination of the
History of Early Opinions. This elaborate and learned work was the very performance
which Dr. Priestley had so long desired and challenged. It surely,
then, had a just claim on his particular and public notice. At the time of this
work’s appearance, Dr. Priestley was occupied in the important measure of emigration
to America. But when that step was accomplished, he enjoyed, for the
remaining years of life, a calm and undisturbed retreat. We have, however, yet
to be informed of the reason why his former pledge was not fulfilled.
“As the controversy has been thus left open, it cannot be deemed illiberal in me
to mention the result of personal observation in reading this large work of Dr.
Priestley’s. I am the more inclined to do so, since what I have remarked may be
of use in answering a question of some importance; What degree of reliance can
be placed on Dr. Priestley’s care and accuracy in his citations of the fathers?
“You, Sir, are well aware of the importance which Dr. Priestley attaches to the
position, that the doctrines of the pre-existence and divinity of Christ were acknowledged
by the orthodox fathers to have been most cautiously concealed, in
the earlier preaching of the apostles, and not to have been clearly divulged, till
John taught them at the close of the apostolic age.
“Dr. Jamieson appears to me to have solidly refuted this assertion.[170] But he has,
by no means, proceeded so far as he might easily have done, in shewing Dr.
Priestley’s remarkable inattention to rigid accuracy in the allegation of his authorities.
“The instances of this kind which I have observed have given me much astonishment.
If they concerned merely the literary reputation of this truly eminent
character, to drag them into public notice could only be the work of a petulant
and little mind. But they become cases of a very different nature, when conclusions
of prime importance on a very interesting subject are inferred from egregious
misconstructions of an author’s meaning. In such cases regard to truth
must supersede personal delicacies.
“This duty becomes the more urgent when we are told, from high and respectable
authority, that, ‘in all the most important controversies in which’ Dr.
Priestley ‘was engaged, he had studied the subject thoroughly, and was a complete
master of the whole question:’ and that, in his reasoning, ‘there was
nothing artificial and ambiguous; no design to slur over difficulties and objections,
or to lay greater stress upon a topic than it would well bear.’[171]
“The doctor has selected Chrysostom as the father whose evidence is most ample
in support of the opinion, that John first taught the divinity of Christ.
‘Chrysostom,’ says Dr. Priestley, ‘represents all the preceding writers of
the New Testament as children, who heard, but did not understand things,
and who were busy about cheese-cakes and childish sports, but John,’ he
says, ‘taught what the angels themselves did not know before he declared it.’[172]
“At the bottom of the page, Dr. Priestley faithfully transcribes the Greek of
this passage, and no one can say that his translation is materially unfair, so far
as it goes. The sentence is exactly thus: ‘All the rest, like little children, hear
indeed, yet do not understand what they hear, but are captivated with cakes
and childish sports.’ The omission of the clause ‘all the rest,’ (οι γε αλλοι
παντες) does not appear of much consequence. The insertion of it would only have
led the reader to inquire for the antecedent, and Dr. Priestley has provided a
ready answer: ‘all the preceding writers of the New Testament.’
“Do me the favour, my dear Sir, to take down the volume of Chrysostom, and
turn to the passage. Will you find the antecedent to this relative clause to be
any ‘writers of the New Testament,’ or any persons at all connected with the
New Testament? No, Sir. You will find it to be the effeminate and dissipated
spectators of athletic games, and the auditors of musicians and oratorial sophists![173]”
Smith’s Letters to Belsham.
.fn-
.fn 168
Letter to Dr. Priestley, in vol. i. of Dr. Williams’ edition of Owen on the Hebrews.
.fn-
.fn 169
Dr. Williams refers only to Chillingworth by name. I would take the liberty of adding,
that M. Daille’s admirable work On the Use of the Fathers in Determining Religious Controversies,
is deserving of the most careful perusal with reference to this subject.
.fn-
.fn 170
See his valuable work, Vindication of the Primitive Faith, &c. in Reply to Dr. Priestley’s
Hist. of Early Opinions: vol. i. p. 284-313.
.fn-
.fn 171
Mr. Belsham’s Disc. p. 24, 25.
.fn-
.fn 172
Hist. of Early Op. vol. iii. p. 128, 129.
.fn-
.fn 173
Mr. Belsham denies that these characters are the antecedent to the exceptive clause in
question, and conceives that it refers to the mass of unlearned Christians, who are placed in opposition
to “the spectators and auditors of John, men that are become angels, or are desirous of
becoming such.” But the Greek fathers give some additional features of their character.
“These,” he says, “are devoted to merriment and luxuriousness, living in riches, honours, and
gluttony.” The candid reader will judge whether this description be more applicable to plain
and honest christians, than to the gay and dissipated persons mentioned in a preceding part of
the discourse.
.fn-
.fn 174
In this they agree with those who were formerly called Macedonians, from Macidonius,
bishop of Constantinople, who lived about the middle of the fourth century,
who entertained such sentiments of the Holy Ghost, and had a considerable party that
adhered to him, who were also called Pneumatomachi.
.fn-
.fn 175
See page #249#, #250#.
.fn-
.fn 176
See Woltzogen, and other Socinian writers, in loc. and Dr. Clarke’s Scripture-doctrine,
page 13. where he inserts this among those scriptures; in all which he supposes
that the word God is applied to the Father.
.fn-
.fn 177
See page #358#.
.fn-
.fn 178
Several of the Post Nicene Fathers have taken the words, καθαπερ απο του
πνευματος, in the same sense as by the Lord, the Spirit; and, in particular, Basil. de
Spirit. Sanct. ad Amphiloc. Cap. 21. & Chrysost. in loc.
.fn-
.fn 179
See page #249#, #250#, #251#.
.fn-
.fn 180
See page #359#, #360#.
.fn-
.fn 181
See Dr. Clarke’s Scripture-doctrine, page 198.
.fn-
.fn 182
See Quest. lix. lxvii. lxxii. lxxv.
.fn-
.sp 4
.h2
Quest. XII., XIII.
.sp 2
.pm letter-start
Quest. XII. What are the decrees of God?
Answ. God’s decrees are the wise, free, and holy acts of the
counsel of his will; whereby, from all eternity, he hath, for
his own glory, unchangeably fore-ordained whatsoever comes
to pass in time; especially concerning angels and men.
Quest. XIII. What hath God especially decreed concerning
angels and men?
Answ. God, by an eternal and immutable decree out of his
mere love, for the praise of his glorious grace, to be manifested
in due time, hath elected some angels to glory, and,
in Christ, hath chosen some men to eternal life, and the
means thereof; and also, according to his sovereign power,
and the unsearchable counsel of his own will (whereby he
extendeth, or with-holdeth favour, as he pleaseth) hath passed
by, and fore-ordained the rest to dishonour and wrath,
to be for their sin inflicted, to the praise of the glory of his
justice.
.pm letter-end
.sp 2
Having considered the perfections of the divine nature,
and the Personal glories of the Father, Son, and Spirit,
the next thing to be insisted on is, what God has purposed to
do from eternity, or does, or will do, in pursuance thereof;
the former we call his decrees; the latter, the execution of
them. The object of his decree is whatever comes to pass,
which is the most large and comprehensive sense of his purpose:
but whereas his determinations, in a particular manner,
respect angels and men, or the intelligent part of the creation,
and more especially the eternal happiness of some, or the display
of his righteous judgments against others; in these respects,
they being taken in a more limited sense, are called as
relating to the former, election, and, with respect to the latter,
reprobation, which is the subject matter of these two answers.
And, before we proceed to insist on this sublime and difficult
subject, it may not be inexpedient for us to premise some things
concerning it in general.
1. It is well known that there is no doctrine, contained in
// File: b418.png
.pn +1
scripture, which is more contested than this, which lies before
us; and it is not only denied by some, but treated with the
utmost dislike or detestation, and that to such a degree, that
we must either wholly forbear to mention it in public discourses,
or writings, or else must be liable to the hard fate of being
censured by those who will not do that justice to the argument,
to consider what may be advanced in defence thereof,
as though it were to be taken for granted that we are maintaining
a doctrine that is not only indefensible, but injurious
to mankind, and subversive of all religion.
2. If there be any who give just occasion to these prejudices,
by the methods which they have used in explaining, as
well as the weakness of their arguments in defending it, or by
laying themselves open to those popular objections, which are
usually brought against it, we cannot but conclude that they
are highly to blame; and therefore we are far from approving
of any unguarded expressions, which are to be met with in
some writings, whereby a stumbling-block is laid in the way
of those who are disposed to make men offenders for a word,
rather than to judge impartially of the main drift of their discourse:
it is to be owned, that this has done dis-service to the
cause, which might have been better defended.
3. If these prejudices against this doctrine are ill grounded,
and the objections only founded on the popular cry, by which
it is endeavoured to be run down, and condemned with reproach
and censure; and if persons know not, nor desire to
know what may be said in defence thereof, how such-like objections
may be answered; the disgust and opposition is both
unreasonable and uncharitable, and contains a capricious resolution
not to be undeceived, and consequently renders the person
thus prejudiced, highly culpable in the sight of God, especially
if there be any ground to conclude that his cause is therein
maintained.
4. Let it be farther considered, that it is not a new doctrine,
or such as was altogether unheard of in the world before; nor
has it been only defended by the more ignorant or licentious
part of mankind, or those who have been bold and presumptuous
in affirming that for truth, which they had not duly
weighed, or been convinced of, from the strongest evidence.
Whether it be as ancient as scripture, and, indeed, founded
upon it, we shall leave others to judge, when we have considered
what may be said from it in defence thereof.
5. It was generally asserted, and publicly owned in most of
the confessions of faith of the reformed churches in the last
age, and, in particular, in the church of England, as contained
in one of the articles thereof, and there is no apparent ambiguity
in the words themselves, however, some have endeavoured,
// File: b419.png
.pn +1
of late, to strain the sense thereof, and put such a meaning
on them, as is very different from the writings of those who
compiled them, which might serve as a comment on them.
And to this we may add, that it was maintained by far the
greatest number of divines, in their public discourses and writings
in the last century, how much soever the contrary doctrines
are maintained at this day: however, we do not insist on
this as a proof of the truth thereof, as though it needed to be
supported by numbers of advocates for it, or were founded
thereon; nor do we suppose, that when it has been most
strenuously, and almost universally defended, there were not
at the same time, others who opposed it. This I only mention,
that I may, if possible, remove those prejudices that are inconsistent
with persons judging impartially of it.
Since we are considering the head of prejudices against this
doctrine, we think it necessary to add, that we shall endeavour
to vindicate it, from the reproach that is generally cast on it,
by those who suppose that it cannot be defended, without asserting
God to be the author of sin, or supposing him to be
severe, cruel, and unjust to his creatures, as some conclude we
represent him to be, by unjust consequences deduced from it.
We are far from asserting, as will hereafter appear, that God
from all eternity, purposed to damn a great part of the world,
as the result of his mere sovereign will, without the foresight
of sin, which would render them liable to that condemnation.
Moreover, we shall endeavour to make it appear, in opposition
to the calumnies of some, that the decree of God does
not destroy, or take away, the liberty of man’s will, with respect
to things, within its own sphere; or that considered in
itself, it doth not lay a natural necessity on him, to rush into
inevitable damnation, as though the destruction of sinners were
only to be resolved into the divine purpose, and not their own
wickedness. In considering which, we shall maintain, that the
decree of God does not lay any force on the will of man, nor
preclude the means of grace, as ordained by him, for the salvation
of them that do, or shall hereafter, believe unto life
everlasting; nor does it obstruct the preaching of the gospel,
and therein proclaiming the glad tidings of salvation, to those
who set under the sound thereof, as an ordinance for their faith.
And inasmuch as many are prejudiced against this doctrine,
as being influenced by that popular out-cry, which is made by
some, as though it were of a very pernicious tendency, either,
on the one hand, to lead men to presumption, as giving occasion
to persons to conclude that they may be saved as being
elected though they live as they list; or, on the other hand, that
it leads to despair, as supposing, that if there be such a decree,
as that of reprobation, they must necessarily be included in it,
// File: b420.png
.pn +1
and, by this means, instead of promoting holiness of life, it is inconsistent
therewith: if we cannot maintain this doctrine, without
giving just ground for such exceptions, we shall not only
think our labour lost, but condemn it as pernicious and unscriptural,
as much as they do, as it must of necessity be, if it cannot
be defended from such-like exceptions; which, I hope, we shall
be able to do, and at the same time, make it appear, that it is
not only consistent with, but a very great motive and inducement
to practical godliness: and, if this can be made to appear,
the greatest part of the censorious prejudices, that are entertained
against it, will be removed, and persons will be better
able to judge whether truth lies on that side of the question,
which we shall endeavour to defend, or the contrary.
I could not but premise these things in our entrance on this
subject, as being sensible that such-like reproaches, as these we
have mentioned, are brought by many, without duly weighing
whether they are well grounded or no; so that this doctrine is
often opposed, in such a way of reasoning, that the premises,
as well as the conclusions drawn from them, are rather their
own than ours; or, at least, if some ideas thereof may be found
in the writings, or taken from the unguarded expressions, which
some who have defended this doctrine, have made use of; yet
they have appeared in such a dress that even they, who are
supposed to have advanced them, would have disowned and
rejected them. If persons who are in another way of thinking,
resolve not to lay aside these misrepresentations, it plainly appears
that they are not disposed to lie open to conviction, and
then all attempts to defend this doctrine will be to no purpose;
the preventing whereof has rendered these prefatory cautions
needful.
We shall only add, to what has been said, some rules, by
which we desire that the truth, either of this or the opposite
doctrine, may be judged of.
1. If we do not confirm what we assert, by proofs taken from
scripture, let it not be received; but if we do, whatever may
be said of our method of managing this controversy, the greatest
deference ought to be paid to the sacred oracles: But since
it is very common for persons to answer the arguments taken
from one scripture, by producing other scriptures, which seems
to assert the contrary, as desirous to shift aside in the dispute,
and put us upon solving the difficulties which they suppose to
be contained in them; though this is not to be declined, yet a
more direct answer must be given before the doctrine itself is
overthrown. Whether our explication of those scriptures, on
which our faith therein is founded, be just, we shall leave others
to judge; and also whether the sense we give of other scriptures
that are brought as objections against it, be not equally
// File: b421.png
.pn +1
probable with that of those that bring them; which is all that
need be insisted on in such cases.
2. Let that doctrine be received, and the contrary rejected, on
which side of the question soever it lies, that is most agreeable
to the divine perfections, and explains those scriptures, brought
in defence of it, most consistently therewith; which is a fair
proposal; and such as ought not only to be applied to this particular
head of doctrine, but to the whole of religion, as founded
on scripture, which is far from overthrowing the divine glory,
the advancement whereof is the great end of it.
3. Let that doctrine be rejected, as inconsistent with itself,
and not worthy to be believed or embraced, whether it be ours,
or the contrary thereunto, that shall detract from the harmony
of the divine perfection, or pretend to set up, or plead for one,
and, at the same time militate against the glory of another; and
I desire nothing more than that our whole method of reasoning
on this subject may be tried by these rules, and be deemed true
or false, agreeably to what is contained therein.
In considering this subject, relating to the decrees of God, as
in the two answers, which we are explaining, we shall proceed
in the following method; and shew,
I. What we are to understand, by God’s fore-ordaining whatever
comes to pass, according to the counsel of his own will;
wherein we shall compare the decree with the execution thereof,
and observe how one exactly answers to the other, and is to
be a rule for our judging concerning it.
II. We shall prove the truth of that proposition, that God
hath fore-ordained whatever shall come to pass, either in time,
or to eternity.
III. We shall then particularly consider intelligent creatures,
such as angels and men, and that both good and bad, with respect
to their present, or future state, as the objects of God’s
eternal decree or purpose, and so shall proceed to speak concerning
the decree of election, and reprobation, as contained in
the latter of these answers.
IV. We shall lay down some propositions concerning each of
these, tending to explain and prove them, and that more especially
as to what respects the election and reprobation of men.
V. We shall consider the properties thereof, and how the divine
perfections are displayed therein, and endeavour to make
it appear, in various instances, that the account we shall give
thereof is agreeable thereunto, as well as founded on scripture.
VI. We shall enquire whether the contrary doctrine defended
by those who deny election and reprobation, be not derogatory
to, and subversive of the divine perfections, or, at least,
inconsistent with the harmony thereof; or whether it doth not,
// File: b422.png
.pn +1
in many respects, make God altogether such an one as ourselves.
VII. We shall endeavour to prove that their reasoning from
scripture, who maintain the contrary doctrine, is not sufficiently
conclusive; and that the sense they give of those scriptures,
generally brought to support it, does not so well agree with the
divine perfections, as it ought to do, but that they may be explained
in a different way, more consistent therewith.
VIII. We shall endeavour to answer the most material objections
that are usually brought against the doctrine that we
are maintaining. And,
IX. Shew how it is practically to be improved by us, to the
glory of God, and our spiritual good and advantage.
I. What we are to understand by God’s fore-ordaining whatever
comes to pass, according to the counsel of his own will.
1. By God’s fore-ordaining whatever comes to pass, we do
not understand barely his fore-knowledge of all things, that are,
or shall be done in time, and to eternity, although this be included
in, and inseparably connected with his eternal purpose,
since no one can purpose to act without the foreknowledge thereof;
yet more than this is certainly contained therein; therefore,
2. God’s pre-determining, or fore-ordaining whatsoever
comes to pass, includes not only an act of the divine understanding,
but an act of his sovereign will: It is not only his
knowing what shall come to pass, but his determining, by his
own agency, or efficiency, what he will produce in time, or to
eternity. Accordingly, some call the decrees of God his eternal
providence, and the execution thereof his actual providence;
by the former, he determines what he will do; by the latter, he
brings his determinations to pass, or effects what he before designed
to do. It follows therefore,
3. That God’s fore-ordaining whatsoever shall come to pass,
is vastly different from his bringing things to pass: the one is
an internal act of his will; the other, an external act of his almighty
power: He fore-ordained that they should come to pass,
and therefore, till then, they are considered as future; though
this determination necessarily secures the event, unless we suppose
it possible for his eternal purpose to be defeated, which is
disagreeable to the divine perfections, as will farther appear under
some following heads. And, on the other hand, when we
consider him, as bringing all things to pass, or producing them
by his power, this renders what was before future, present.
With respect to the former, he decrees what shall be; and, with
respect to the latter, his decree takes effect, and is executed accordingly.
They who treat of this matter, generally consider things, either
as possible or future. Things are said to be possible, with
// File: b423.png
.pn +1
respect to the power of God, as every thing that he can do, is
possible to be done, though some things, which he could have
done, he never will do. As for instance: He could have
made more worlds, had he pleased; or have produced more
men upon earth, or more species of creatures; or have given
a greater degree of perfection to creatures, than he has done,
or will do; for it is certain, that he never acted to the utmost
of his power, accordingly he could have done many things that
he will never do; and those things are said to be possible, but
not future.
Moreover, things future are rendered so, by the will of God,
or his having fore-ordained, or determined to produce them;
this is what we call the decree of God, which respects the event,
or determines whatever shall come to pass.
We are now to consider, what we are to understand by God’s
fore-ordaining all things, according to the counsel of his will;
which is a mode of speaking used in scripture, in Eph. i. 11.
Being predestinated according to the purpose of him who worketh
all things after the counsel of his own will.
1. We are not hereby to understand that the decrees of God
are the result of deliberation, or his debating matters within
himself, as reasoning in his own mind about the expediency, or
inexpediency of things, or calling in the advice of others, as
creatures are said to do, when acting with counsel; for he must
not be supposed to determine things in such a way, since that
would argue an imperfection in the divine mind; With whom
took he counsel, and who instructed him, and taught him in
the paths of judgment, and taught him knowledge, and shewed
to him the way of understanding? Isa. xl. 14. But,
2. It implies, that his decrees are infinitely wise. As what
is done with counsel is said, according to human modes of
speaking, to be done advisedly, in opposition to its being done
rashly, or with precipitation; accordingly all the works of God
are done with wisdom, therefore all his purposes and determinations
to do what is done in time, are infinitely wise, which,
according to our way of speaking, is called the counsel of his
will: thus it is said, He is wonderful in counsel, and excellent
in working, chap. xxviii. 29.
We are now to consider the object of God’s decree; This,
as has been before observed, is every thing that has, or shall
come to pass, and it may be considered in different respects.
There are some things which he has determined to effect, namely,
such as are the objects of his power; or all things, which
have a natural or moral goodness in them, which are becoming
an infinitely holy God to produce: and this includes in it every
thing but sin, which God does not produce, it not being the object
of power: Nevertheless, this must be supposed to be committed
// File: b424.png
.pn +1
by his permission, and therefore it is the consequence of
his decree to permit, though not, as other things, of his decree
to effect; it is one thing to suffer sin to be committed in the
world, and another thing to be the author of it. But this we
shall have occasion to enlarge on, under a following head.
II. We shall now proceed to prove the truth of what is laid
down in this answer, namely, that God hath fore-ordained whatever
comes to pass. This will evidently appear, if we consider
the five following propositions in their due connexion.
1. Nothing comes to pass by chance, with respect to God,
but by the direction of his providence, which we are bound to
assert against the Deists, who speak of God, as though he were
not the Governor of the world. This cannot be denied by any,
who think, with any degree of modesty, concerning, or pay a
due deference to the divine perfections, since God may as
well be denied to be the Creator as the Governor of the
world.[183]
// File: b425.png
.pn +1
2. It follows from hence, that nothing is done without the
divine influence, or permission. The former (as was before
observed) respects things that are good, which are the effects
// File: b426.png
.pn +1
of his power; the latter, sin. That nothing comes to pass without
the divine influence, or permission, is evident; for if any
thing came to pass, which is the object of power, without the
// File: b427.png
.pn +1
divine influence, then the creature would be said to exist, or act
independently on the power of God; and, if so, then it would
follow, that it would exist, or act necessarily; but necessary existence
is a perfection appropriate to God.
// File: b428.png
.pn +1
As to what respects the latter, namely, sins being committed
by divine permission, it is evident, that if it might be committed
without the divine permission, it could not be restrained by
God: and to suppose that he could not hinder the commission of
sin, is to suppose that sin might proceed to the greatest height,
without any possible check or controul, which would argue a
great defect in the divine government of the world, as it is also
contrary to daily experience, as well as scripture. Certainly
he who sets bounds to the sea, and says to its proud waves,
Hitherto shall ye come, and no farther, must be supposed to set
bounds to the corrupt passions of wicked men: thus the Psalmist
says, Surely the wrath of men shall praise thee; the remainder
of wrath shalt thou restrain, Psal. lxxvi. 10.
Notwithstanding, this does not argue his approbation of sin,
or that he is the author of it; since it is one thing to suffer, or not
to hinder, and another thing to be the author of any thing. Thus
it is said, These things hast thou done, and I kept silence, Psal.
l. 21. that is, I did not restrain thee from doing them, as I could
have done; so it is said, in times past he suffered all nations to
walk in their own ways. Acts xiv. 16.
3. God never acts or suffers any thing to be done, but he
knows, beforehand, what he will do or suffer. This an intelligent
creature, acting as such, is said do, therefore it must not be
denied of him, who is omniscient, and infinitely wise: He who
knows all things that others will do, cannot but know what himself
will do, or what others will do by the interposition of his
providence, or what he will suffer to be done, before it is acted.
4. Whatever God does, and consequently knows before-hand
// File: b429.png
.pn +1
that he will do it, that he must be supposed to have before determined
to do: This must be allowed, or else it argues him defective
in wisdom. As no wise man acts precipitantly or without
judgment, much less must the wise God be supposed to do
so; concerning whom it is said, that all his ways are judgment,
Deut. xxxii. 4.
5. It therefore appears, even to a demonstration, that God
before determined, or fore-ordained, whatever comes to pass,
which was the thing to be proved.
And inasmuch, as he never began to determine, as he never
began to exist, or as he never was without purposes of what he
would do; therefore it is evident, that he before ordained, from
eternity, whatever should come to pass, either in time, or to
eternity.
It farther appears, that God fore-ordained whatsoever comes
to pass, otherwise he did not determine to create all things before
he gave being to them; and then it could not be said, O
Lord, how manifold are thy works! in wisdom hast thou made
them all, Psal. civ. 24. There are, indeed, many admirable
discoveries of wisdom, as well as power, in the effects produced;
but to suppose that all this was done without fore-thought, or
that there was no eternal purpose relating thereunto, would be
such a reflection on the glory of this perfection, as is inconsistent
with the idea of a God. Moreover, if herein he designed
his own glory, as he certainly did, since every intelligent being
designs some end, and the highest and most excellent end must
be designed by a God of infinite wisdom; and, if he did all
this for his own glory, then it must be allowed, that it was the
result of an eternal purpose: all which, I am persuaded, will
not be denied by those on the other side of the question, who
defend their own cause with any measure of judgment.
To this we may farther add, that to deny that God fore-ordained
whatever comes to pass, is, in effect, to deny a providence,
or, at least, that God governs the world in such a way,
as that what he does therein was pre-concerted. And herein
we expect to meet with no opposition from any but the Deists,
or those who deny a God; and if it be taken for granted that
there is a providence, or that God is the Governor of the world,
we cannot but conclude from hence, that all the displays of his
glory therein, are the result of his eternal purpose. This is
also agreeable to what is said concerning him, that he doth
according to his will in the army of heaven, and among the inhabitants
of the earth, Dan. iv. 35. the meaning of which is
not barely this, (which is a great truth) that he acts without
controul, inasmuch as his power is infinite: But that all he does
is pursuant to his will; and, indeed, it cannot be otherwise, if
we suppose that the divine power, and will, are so inseparably
// File: b430.png
.pn +1
connected, that he cannot be said to produce any thing, but by
the word of his power; or when he willeth that any thing should
come to pass, it is not in an efficacious will, as ours is, for want
of power, to effect what we have done. Therefore for God to
will the present existence of things, is to effect them, which
seems to be the reason of that mode of speaking, which was used
when he produced all things at first; he said, let them exist in
that form, or perfection, which he had before designed to give
them, and the effect immediately followed, Gen. i. 3, 6, 9, &c.
Hitherto, I presume, our argument will not be much contested;
for the main thing in controversy is what relates to the
divine determination respecting intelligent creatures, which will
be considered under a following head: What I have hitherto
attempted to prove is, the proposition in general, namely, that
whatever God brings to pass, or is the effect of power, is the
result of his determinate purpose. And herein, I think, I have
carefully distinguished between God’s will to effect, and his will
to permit; but that will be farther explained, when we speak
of the decrees of God, with a particular application to angels
and men, under the head of election.
Having endeavoured to prove that God hath fore-ordained
whatever comes to pass, we shall lay down the following propositions
relating to his end and design in all his purposes, together
with the nature of things, as coming to pass pursuant
thereunto, and the method in which we are to conceive of the
decree, when compared with the execution thereof.
1. God cannot design any thing, in his eternal purpose, as
the highest end, but his own glory, which is here assigned, as
the end of his decrees. As this is the principal motive, or reason,
inducing him to produce whatever comes to pass; so it
must be considered as the end of his purpose relating thereunto:
This is very evident; for since the divine glory is the
most excellent of all things, he cannot, as an infinitely wise God,
design any thing short of it, as the great motive or inducement
for him to act; therefore, whatever lower ends are designed by
him, they are all resolved into this as the principal, to wit, the
advancement of his divine perfections. Though God designs
his own glory as the highest end, yet he has purposed not only
that this should be brought about, by means conducive thereunto,
but that there should be a subserviency of one thing to
another, all which are the objects of his decree, as well as the
highest end, namely, his own glory. As, for instance, he determines
that the life and health of man shall be maintained by
the use of proper means and medicine, or that grace shall be
wrought instrumentally by those means, which he has ordained,
in order thereunto: thus his purpose respects the end and
means, together with the connexion that there is between them.
// File: b431.png
.pn +1
2. According to the natural order of things, the divine purpose
is antecedent to the execution thereof. Therefore it seems
very absurd to distinguish the decree of God, as some do, into
antecedent and consequent, one going before the use of
means, the other following, of which more hereafter: It is certain,
that every intelligent being first determines to act, and
then executes his determinations; so that nothing can be more
absurd, than to say, that a person determines to do a thing
which is already done. Therefore we conclude, that God first
decreed what shall come to pass, and then brings it to pass:
Accordingly he first determined to create the world, and then
created it; he first determined to bestow the means of grace
on men, and to render them effectual to the salvation of all who
shall be saved, and then he does this accordingly; so, with respect
to his judicial actings, he first determined by a permissive
decree, not to prevent the commission of sin, though infinitely
opposite to his holiness, and then, knowing the consequence of
this permissive decree, or that men, through the mutability or
corruption of their nature, would rebel against him, he determined
to punish sin after it should be committed. Thus the decree
of God is, in all respects, antecedent to the execution of it; or his
eternal providence, as his decrees are sometimes called, is antecedent
to, and the ground and reason of, his actual providence.
3. Though the purpose of God be before the execution thereof,
yet the execution of it is first known by us; and so it is by
this that we are to judge of his decree and purpose, which is
altogether secret, with respect to us, till he reveals it; therefore
we first observe the discoveries thereof, as contained in his
word, or made visible in his actual providence, and from thence
we infer his eternal purpose relating thereunto. Every thing
that is first in the order of nature, is not first with respect to
the order of our knowing it: thus the cause is before the effect,
but the effect is often known before the cause; the sun is, in
the order of nature, before the enlightening the world by it;
but we first see the light, and then we know there is a sun,
which is the fountain thereof: or, to illustrate it by another similitude,
which comes nearer the matter before us; A legislator
determines first to make a law, which determination is antecedent
to the making, and that to the promulgation of it,
whereby his subjects come to the knowledge thereof, and act
in conformity thereunto; but, according to our method of judging
concerning it, we must first know that there is such a law,
and from thence we conclude, that there was a purpose relating
to it, in him that gave it; Thus we conclude, that though
the decree of God be the ground and reason of the execution
thereof, yet we know that there was such a decree by its execution,
or, at least, by some other way designed to discover
this to us.
// File: b432.png
.pn +1
These things being duly considered, may obviate an objection,
which is no other than a misrepresentation of the doctrine
we are maintaining, as though we asserted, that our conduct of
life, and the judgment we are to pass concerning ourselves, relating
to our hope of future blessedness, were to be principally,
if not altogether regulated, by God’s secret purpose or decree;
as though we were first to consider him as determining the
event, that is, as having chosen or rejected us, and, from this
supposition, to encourage ourselves to attend upon the means
of grace; or otherwise that we should take occasion to neglect
them; since it is a preposterous thing for a man, who considers
himself as reprobated, to attend on any of those means, which
are ordained to salvation.
What has been said under the foregoing heads, is sufficient
to take away the force of this objection; but this will be more
particularly considered, when we come to answer several objections
against the doctrine of election: Therefore all I shall add
at present is, that since our conduct and hope is to be governed
by the appearances of things, and not by God’s secret purpose
relating to the event thereof, we are to act as those who
have not, nor can have, any knowlege of what is decreed, with
relation thereunto, till it is evinced by the execution thereof;
or, at least, those graces wrought in us, which are the objects
of God’s purpose, as well as our future blessedness; and our
right to one is to be judged of by the other.
This leads us to consider the properties of these decrees of
God, as mentioned in the former of the answers we are now
considering; in which it is said, they are wise, free, and holy.
This is very evident, from the wisdom, sovereignty, and holiness,
which appear in the execution of them; for whatever perfections
are demonstrated in the dispensations of providence,
or grace, these God designed to glorify in his eternal purpose;
therefore if his works, in time, are wise, free, sovereign, and
holy, his decree, with respect thereunto, which is fulfilled thereby,
must be said to be so likewise. These things we shall have
occasion to speak more particularly to, under a following head,
when we consider the properties of election, and particularly
that it is wise, sovereign, and holy; I shall therefore, at present,
only add, that whatever perfections belong to the nature
of God, they are demonstrated by his works, since he cannot
act unbecoming himself; for that would give occasion to the
world to deny him to be infinitely perfect, that is, to be God.
If we pass a judgment on creatures by what they do, and so
determine him to be a wise man, who acts wisely, or a holy
man, who acts holily, or a free and sovereign agent, who acts
without constraint, certainly the same must be said of the divine
Majesty; and consequently, since whatever he does has
// File: b433.png
.pn +1
the marks of infinite wisdom, holiness, and sovereignty, impressed
upon it, it is evident that these properties, or perfections,
belong to all his purposes. If all his works are performed
in wisdom, as the Psalmist observes, Psal. civ. 24. then we
have reason to admire that wisdom which appears, from hence,
to be contained in all his purposes relating thereunto, as the
apostle doth, Rom. xi. 33. O the depth of the riches, both of the
wisdom and knowledge of God! How unsearchable are his judgments,
and his ways past finding out! If he be righteous in all
his ways, and holy in all his works, Psal. cxlv. 17. and therein
demonstrates a divine sovereignty, as acting without any obligation,
or constraint laid upon him to bestow the favours he
confers on mankind; then we must certainly conclude, that his
eternal purpose which is executed hereby, is free and sovereign.
This leads us to consider,
III. That intelligent creatures, such as angels and men, with
respect to their present or future state, are the objects of God’s
eternal decree, or purpose, which is generally called predestination.
And this, as it relates to the happiness of some, or
misery of others, is distinguished into election or reprobation,
which is a very awful subject, and ought never to be thought
of, or mentioned, but with the utmost caution and reverence,
lest we speak those things that are not right concerning God,
and thereby dishonour him, or give just occasion to any to deny
or reproach this doctrine, as though it were not founded on
scripture.
Hitherto we have considered the purpose of God, as including
in it all things future, as the objects thereof; and now we
are to speak of it in particular, as it relates to angels and men.
When we confine the objects of God’s purpose to those things
that come to pass, which have no dependence on the free-will
of angels or men, we do not meet with much opposition from
those, who are in other respects, in the contrary scheme of
doctrine; for most of them, who are masters of their own argument,
and consider what may be allowed without weakening
their cause, do not deny that God fore-ordained whatever comes
to pass, nor that he did this from all eternity, if we except what
respects the actions of free agents. Thus they will grant that
God, from all eternity, determined to create the world, and
then to govern it, and to give laws to men, as the rule of government,
and a free-will, or power to yield obedience thereunto:
but when we consider men’s free actions, as the objects
of a divine decree, and the final state of men, as being determined
by it, here we are like to meet with the greatest opposition,
and therefore must endeavour to maintain our ground in
the following part of this argument.
// File: b434.png
.pn +1
The decree of God, respecting intelligent creatures, is to be
considered as containing in it two branches, namely, election
and reprobation: the former of which is contained in those
words, that God, out of his mere love, for the praise of his
glorious grace, hath elected some to glory in Christ, and also
to the means thereof; and as for reprobation, that is described
in the following words; that according to his sovereign power,
and the unsearchable counsel of his own will, he hath passed
by, and fore-ordained the rest to dishonour and wrath, to be,
for their sin, inflicted, to the praise of the glory of his justice.
Both these are to be considered; and,
First, What respects the doctrine of election. To elect, or
choose, according to the common use, or acceptation of the
word, signifies the taking a small number out of a greater, or
a part out of the whole; and this is applied, either to things or
persons.
(1.) To things. As when a person has a great many things
to choose out of, he sets aside some of them for his own use,
and rejects the others, as refuse, that he will have nothing to
do with.
(2.) To persons. As when a king chooses, out of his subjects,
some whom he will advance to great honours; or when
a master chooses, out of a number of servants offered to him,
one, or more, whom he will employ in his service; this from the
nature of the thing, implies, that all are not chosen, but only a
part, in which there is a discrimination, or a difference put between
one and another.
But we are more particularly to consider the meaning of the
word election, as we find it in scripture, wherein it is used in
several senses.
To elect or choose, according to the acceptation of the word,
does not connote the particular thing that a person is chosen
to, but that is to be understood by what is farther added to determine
the sense thereof; as sometimes we read of persons
being chosen to partake of some privileges, short of salvation;
at other times, of their being chosen to salvation; sometimes
it is to be understood as signifying their being chosen to things
of a lower nature, at other times their being chosen to perform
those duties, and exercise those graces that accompany salvation;
and we may, very easily, understand the sense of it by
the context.
Again, it is sometimes taken for the execution of God’s purpose,
or for his actual providence, making choice of persons to
fulfil his pleasure, in their various capacities; at other times,
as we are here to understand it, for his fixing his love upon his
people, and purposing to bring them to glory, making choice
of some out of the rest of mankind, as the monuments of his
// File: b435.png
.pn +1
discriminating grace; we have instances of all these senses of
the word in scripture; and,
1. It is sometimes taken for God’s actual separation of persons,
for some peculiar instances of service, which is a branch
of his providential dispensation, in time: thus we sometimes
read in scripture, of persons being chosen, or set apart, by God,
to an office, and that either civil or sacred: thus, upon the occasion
of Saul’s being made king, by God’s special appointment,
Samuel says, See ye him whom the Lord hath chosen,
1 Sam. x. 24. so it is said elsewhere, He chose David also his
servant, and took him from the sheep-fold; from following the
ewes great with young, he brought him to feed Jacob, his people,
and Israel his inheritance. Psal. lxxviii. 70, 71.
It also signifies his actual appointment of persons to perform
some sacred office: thus it is said, concerning the Levites, that
the Lord had chosen them to carry the ark, and to minister unto
him, 1 Chron. xv. 2. and our Saviour says, to his disciples,
Have not I chosen you, namely, to be my disciples, and as such
to be employed in preaching the gospel, and one of you is a
devil, John vi. 70.
2. It is sometimes taken for God’s providential designation
of a people, to be made partakers of those external privileges
of the covenant of grace, which belong to them as a church,
which, as such, is the peculiar object of the divine regard: thus
the people of Israel are said to have been chosen, or separated,
from the world, to enjoy the external blessings of the covenant
of grace, as Moses tells them, Because the Lord loved your
fathers, therefore he chose their seed after them, Deut. iv. 37.
and elsewhere, Thou art an holy people unto the Lord thy God;
the Lord thy God hath chosen thee to be a special people unto
himself, above all people that are upon the face of the earth,
chap. vii. 6, 7. And, in many other places in the Old Testament,
the word election is taken in this sense, though something
more than this seems to be included in some particular
scriptures in the prophetic writings, in which the Jews are described,
as God’s chosen people, as we shall endeavour to shew
under a following head.
3. It also signifies God’s bestowing special grace on some,
who are highly favoured by him, above others, as having called,
or set them apart for himself, to have communion with him,
to bear a testimony to him, and to be employed in eminent service,
for his name and glory in the world. Thus it seems to be
taken, in 1 Cor. i. 26, 27. where the apostle speaks of their
calling, which imports some special privileges, that they were
made partakers of, as the objects of divine power, and grace, to
whom Christ was made wisdom, righteousness, sanctification,
and redemption; which therefore signifies the powerful, internal,
// File: b436.png
.pn +1
effectual call, and not barely the external call of the Gospel, as
appears, by the foregoing and following verses, ver. 24. compared
with 30. and they, whose calling he speaks of, are said
to be chosen: You see your calling, how that not many wise
men, &c. are called, but God hath chosen the foolish things of
this world, &c. so that to be chosen, and effectually called
there, seem to import the same thing.
And sometimes it is taken, for some peculiar excellency,
which one Christian has above another; as that hospitable, or
public-spirited person, to whom the apostle John directs his second
epistle, is called by him, The elect lady, ver. 1. as an excellent
person is sometimes styled a choice person.
But, though the word is taken, in scripture, in these various
senses above mentioned, yet it is not confined to any,
or all of them; for we shall endeavour to make it appear,
that it is often taken, in scripture, as it is expressed in this
answer; for God’s having fore-ordained particular persons,
as monuments of his special love, to be made partakers of
grace here, and glory hereafter, as it is styled, their being chosen
to eternal life, and the means thereof. This is what we shall
endeavour to prove, and accordingly shall consider the objects
thereof, namely, angels and men, and that it is only a part of
mankind that is chosen to salvation, to wit, that remnant which
shall be eventually saved; and that these are chosen to the
means thereof, as well as the end; and how this is said to be
in Christ.
The objects of election are angels and men. A few words
may be said concerning the election of angels, as being particularly
mentioned in this answer; we have not, indeed, much delivered
concerning this matter in scripture, though the apostle
calls those who remain in their state of holiness and happiness,
in which they were created, elect angels, 1 Tim. v. 21. But,
had we no mention of their election in scripture, their being
confirmed in their present state of blessedness, must, from the
foregoing method of reasoning, be supposed to be the result of
a divine purpose, or the execution of a decree relating thereunto;
though there is this difference between their election, and
that of men, in that the latter are chosen unto salvation, which
the angels are not subjects capable of, inasmuch as they were
never in a lost, undone state; neither are they said to be chosen
in Christ, as men are.
But we shall proceed, to that which more immediately concerns
us, to consider men as the objects of election. This is
variously expressed in scripture; sometimes it is called their
being appointed to attain salvation, or being ordained to eternal
life or their names being written in the book of life; and it is also
called, the purpose of God, according to election, or his having
// File: b437.png
.pn +1
loved them before the foundation of the world, or his having
predestinated them, (who have been blessed with all spiritual
blessings, in heavenly places in Christ) unto the adoption of
children, by him, according to the good pleasure of his will.
That the scriptures speak of persons as elect, and that this is
always represented as a great instance of divine favour and
goodness, is not denied: But the main thing in controversy
is, whether this relates to the purpose of God, or his providence;
and whether it respects particular persons, or the
church of God in general, as distinguished from the world;
and, if it be supposed to relate to particular persons, how these
are considered in God’s purpose, or what is the order and reason
of his determination to save them.
That election sometimes respects the disposing providence
of God, in time, has been already considered, and some particular
instances thereof, in scripture, referred to; but when they,
on the other side of the question, maintain, that this is the only,
or principal sense in which it is used therein, we must take
leave to differ from them. There is a late writer[185], who sometimes
misrepresents, and at other times, opposes this doctrine,
with more assurance and insult, than the strength of his reasoning
will well allow of; and his performance on this head, and
others, that have some affinity with it, is concluded, by many
of his admirers, to be unanswerable; and the sense that he has
given of several scriptures therein, as well as in his paraphrase
on the New Testament, in which he studiously endeavours to
explain every text, in conformity to his own scheme, has tended
to prejudice many in favour thereof; and therefore we shall
take occasion sometimes to consider what he advances against
the doctrine that we are maintaining; and particularly, as to
this head of election, he supposes, “1. That the election, mentioned,
in scripture, is not of particular persons, but only that
of churches and nations, or their being chosen to the enjoyment
of the means of grace, rather than a certainty of their
being saved by those means; that it does not contain any absolute
assurance of their salvation, or of any such grace, as
shall infallibly, and without any possibility of frustration, procure
their salvation. 2. That the election to salvation, mentioned
in scripture, is only conditional, upon our perseverance
in a life of holiness[186]; and he attempts to prove, that
election, in the Old Testament, belongs not to the righteous
and obedient persons only, but the whole nation of the Jews,
good and bad; and that, in the New Testament, it is applied
to those who embrace the Christian faith, without any regard
had to their eternal happiness.” These things, ought to be
// File: b438.png
.pn +1
particularly considered, and therefore we shall endeavour to
prove,
1. That though election oftentimes, in the Old Testament,
respects the church of the Jews, as enjoying the external means
of grace, yet it does not sufficiently appear that it is never to be
taken in any other sense; especially when, there are some of
those privileges which accompany salvation mentioned in the
context, and applied to some of them, who are thus described;
or when there are some promises made to them, which respect
more than the external means of grace; therefore if there were
but one scripture that is to be taken in this sense, it would be
a sufficient answer to the universal negative, in which it is supposed,
that the Old Testament never intends by it, any privilege,
but such as is external, and has no immediate reference
to salvation. Here I might refer to some places in the evangelical
prophecy of Isaiah, which are not foreign to our purpose;
as when it is said, Thou Israel, art my servant, Jacob,
whom I have chosen; and I have chosen thee, and not cast thee
away, Isa. xli. 8, 9. that this respects more than the continuance
of their political and religious state, as enjoying the external
means of grace, seems to be implied in those promises
that are made to them, in the following words, which not only
speak of their deliverance from captivity, after they had continued
sometime therein, but their being made partakers of
Gods special love, which had an immediate reference to their
salvation: thus it is said, in the following, Fear not, for I am
with thee; be not dismayed, for I am thy God; I will strengthen
thee, yea, I will help thee; yea, I will uphold thee with the right
hand of my righteousness; and elsewhere God, speaking to the
Jews, says, I, even I, am he that blotteth out thy transgressions for
mine own sake, and I will not remember thy sins, chap. xliii. 25.
and, Israel shall be saved in the Lord, with an everlasting salvation;
ye shall not be ashamed nor confounded, world without
end, chap. xlv. 17. There are also many other promises, which
seem to import a great deal more than the external privileges
of the covenant of grace, which many very excellent Christians
have applied to themselves, as supposing that they contain those
blessings which have a more immediate reference to salvation;
and it would detract very much from the spirituality and usefulness
of such-like scriptures, to say that they have no relation
to us, as having nothing to do with the Jewish nation, to whom
these promises were made.
Object. To this it may be objected, that these promises are
directed to the church of the Jews, as a chosen people; and
therefore to suppose that there were a number elected out of
them to eternal salvation, is to extend the sense of the word
beyond the design of the context, to destroy the determinate
sense thereof, and to suppose an election out of an election.
// File: b439.png
.pn +1
Answ. Since the word election, denotes persons being chosen
to enjoy the external means of grace, and to attain salvation by
and under them, it may, without any impropriety of expression,
be applied in these different senses, in the same text; so that
Israel may be described as a chosen people in the former sense,
and yet there might be a number elected out of them, who
were chosen to eternal life, to whom this promise of salvation
more especially belonged, who are distinguished from the general
body of the Jewish nation, who are called, in the other sense,
God’s elect; as when it is said, I will leave in the midst of thee
an afflicted and poor people, and they shall trust in the name of
the Lord; the remnant of Israel shall not do iniquity, nor speak
lies, &c. Zeph. iii. 12, 13. So that as Israel was an elect people,
chosen out of the world to enjoy the external privileges
conferred upon them, as a church, which they are supposed to
have mis-improved, for which they were to be carried captive into
Babylon; there was a remnant chosen out of them to be made
partakers of the blessings that accompany salvation, such as
are here promised; these are not considered as a church, governed
by distinct laws, from those that Israel was governed by;
and therefore not as a church selected out of that church, but
as a number of people among them whom God had kept faithful,
as having chosen them to enjoy better privileges than those
which they had as a professing people; or as a number elected
to be made partakers of special grace, out of those which had
been made partakers of common grace, which they had miserably
abused, and were punished for it.
2. Our Saviour speaking concerning the final destruction of
Jerusalem by the Roman army, and a great time of distress
that should ensue hereupon, tells them, in Matt. xxiv. 22. that
those days should be shortened for the elect’s sake, that is, those
who were chosen to eternal life, and accordingly should be converted
to the Christian faith, not from among the heathen, but
out of the Jewish nation; for it is to them that he more particularly
directs his discourse, forewarning them of this desolating
judgment; and he advises them to pray that their flight
be not on the Sabbath-day, ver. 20. intimating thereby, that that
nation deemed it unlawful to defend themselves from the assaults
of an enemy on the Sabbath-day, though their immediate
death would be the consequence thereof; therefore this advice
was suited to the temper of the Jews, and none else: No people
in the world, except them, entertained this superstitious
opinion concerning the prohibition of self-defence on the Sabbath-day;
from whence it may therefore be inferred, that our
Saviour speaks of them in particular, and not of the Christians,
which were amongst them; upon which account it seems probable,
that these are not intended by the elect, namely, that
small number for whose sake those days of distress and tribulation
// File: b440.png
.pn +1
were to be shortened;[187] therefore there were an elect
people whom God had a peculiar regard to, who should afterwards
be converted to Christianity, namely, a number elected
to eternal life out of that people, who were elected to the external
privileges of the covenant of grace. And this farther
appears from what follows, where our Saviour speaks concerning
false Christs, and false prophets, that should shew great
signs, and wonders, insomuch that, if it were possible, they
should deceive the very elect, Matt. xxiv. 24. Now it cannot be
supposed of them that are called false Christs, that they would
attempt to pervert the Christians, by pretending to be the Messiah;
for that would be impracticable, inasmuch as they did not
expect any other to come with that character since our Saviour;
whereas the Jews did, and many of them were perverted
thereby to their own ruin; but it is intimated here, that the
elect people, which was among them, should be kept from being
deceived by them, inasmuch as they were chosen to obtain
salvation, and therefore should believe in Christ by the gospel.
There is also another scripture, which seems to give countenance
hereunto, where the apostle shews, that God had not cast
away his people, Rom. xi. 2. to wit, the Jews, that is, he had
not rejected the whole nation, but had made a reserve of some
who were the objects of his special love, as chosen to salvation;
and these are called, A remnant according to the election of
grace, ver. 5. and this seems still more plain from what follows,
ver. 7. What then? Israel hath not obtained that which he seeketh
for, that is, righteousness and life, which they sought after,
as it were, by the works of the law, which, as is mentioned in
the foregoing verse, is inconsistent with the attaining it by
grace; but the election, that is, the elect among that people have
obtained it; for they sought after it in another way, and the rest
were blinded, that is, the other part of the Jewish nation, which
were not interested in this privilege, were left to the blindness
of their own minds, which was their ruin.
To this let me add one scripture more, Rom. ix. 6, 7. where
the apostle, speaking concerning the nation of the Jews, distinguishes
between the natural and spiritual seed of Abraham,
when he says, All are not Israel that are of Israel, that is, there
was a remnant according to the election of grace, who were
chosen to eternal life out of that people, who were in other respects,
chosen to be made partakers of the external privileges
that belonged to them, as God’s peculiar people. The sum of
this argument is, that though, it is true, there are some scriptures
that speak of the church of the Jews, as separated from
the world, by the peculiar hand of divine providence, and favoured
with the external means of grace, yet there are others
// File: b441.png
.pn +1
in which they are said to be chosen to partake of privileges of
an higher nature, even those which accompany salvation; therefore
election, in the Old Testament, sometimes signifies God’s
purpose, relating to the salvation of his people.
2. We shall proceed to consider how election is taken in the
New Testament, in opposition to those who suppose that it is
there used only to signify God’s bringing persons to be members
of the Christian church, as being instructed in the doctrines relating
thereunto by the apostles:[188] The principal ground of this
opinion is, because sometimes whole churches are said to be elected,
as the apostle speaks of the church at Babylon, as elected
together with them, to whom he directs his epistle, 1 Pet. i. 2.
compared with chap. v. 13. by which it is supposed that nothing
is intended, but that they were both of them Christian churches.
If this be the sense of every scripture in the New Testament,
that treats of election, then we must not pretend that the doctrine
we are maintaining is founded on it: But on the other hand,
we think we have reason to conclude, that when we meet with
the word in the New Testament, it is to be understood, in
most places, for God’s eternal purpose relating to the salvation
of his people. I will not pretend to prove an universal negative,
viz. that it is never taken otherwise, but shall refer to some
scriptures, in which it is plainly understood so, and endeavour
to defend this sense thereof.
The first scripture that we shall refer to, is in Eph. i. 4. He
hath chosen us in him before the foundation of the world, that
we should be holy, and without blame before him in love; and,
in ver. 5. he speaks of their being predestinated to the adoption
of children by Jesus Christ; that this respects not the external
dispensation of God’s providence, in constituting them a
Christian church, or giving them the knowledge of those doctrines,
on which it was founded; but their being chosen to salvation
and grace, as the means thereof, according to God’s
eternal purpose, will very evidently appear from the context,
if we consider that they who are thus chosen, are called faithful
in Christ Jesus, which implies much more than barely to
be in him by external profession: they are farther described,
as blessed with all spiritual blessings in Christ, in ver. 3. or
blessed with all those blessings which respect heavenly things;
grace, which they had in possession, and glory, which they had
in expectation; and they are farther described, as having obtained
redemption through the blood of Christ, and forgiveness of
sins; and all this is said to be done, according to the riches of
his grace, and the good pleasure of his will, who worketh all
things after the counsel thereof; and certainly all this must
contain much more than the external dispensation of providence
// File: b442.png
.pn +1
relating to this privilege, which they enjoyed as a church of
Christ.
Again, in 1 Thess. i. 4. the apostle says concerning them,
to whom he writes, that he knew their election of God. That
this is to be understood of their election to eternal life, is very
evident; and, indeed, he explains it in this sense, when he says,
God hath, from the beginning, chosen you unto salvation, through
sanctification of the Spirit, and the belief of the truth, Whereunto
he called you by our gospel, to the obtaining the glory of our
Lord Jesus Christ, 2 Thess. ii. 13, 14. the gospel is considered
as the means of their attaining that salvation, which they are
said to be chosen to; so that their election contains more than
their professed subjection thereunto as a church of Christ: Besides,
the apostle gives those marks and evidences of this matter,
which plainly discover that it is their election to salvation that
he intends; accordingly he speaks of their work of faith, labour
of love, and patience of hope, in our Lord Jesus Christ, and of
the gospel’s coming not in word only, but also in power, 1 Thess.
i. 3, 5. by which he means not the power that was exerted in
working miracles, for that would be no evidence of their being
a church, or of their adhering to the doctrines that were confirmed
thereby, since every one, who saw miracles wrought,
did not believe; therefore he means, that by the powerful internal
influence of the Holy Ghost, they were persuaded to become
followers of the apostles, and the Lord, and were ensamples
to others, and public-spirited, in endeavouring to propagate
the gospel in the world. Certainly this argues that
they were effectually called by the grace of God, and so proves
that they were chosen to be made partakers of this grace, and
of that salvation, that is the consequence thereof.
There is another scripture, in which it is very plain that the
apostle speaks of election to eternal life inasmuch as there are
several privileges connected with it, which the Christian church,
as such, cannot lay claim to: thus, in Rom. viii. 33. Who
shall lay any thing to the charge of God’s elect? It is God
that justifieth. Now if justification or freedom from condemnation,
accompanied with their being effectually called here,
which shall end in their being glorified hereafter, be the result
of their election, as. in ver. 30. then certainly this includes in
it more than the external privileges of the covenant of grace,
which all who adhere to the Christian faith are possessed of,
and consequently it is an election to salvation that the apostle
here intends.
Object. It is objected, that it is more than probable, when
we find, as we sometimes do, whole churches styled elect in the
New testament, that some among them were hypocrites; particularly
those to whom the apostle Peter writes, who were converted
// File: b443.png
.pn +1
from Judaism to Christianity, whom he calls elect, according
to the fore-knowledge of God the Father: notwithstanding
they had some in communion with them, concerning whom it
might be said, that they had only a name to live, but yet were
dead; and he advises them, to lay aside all malice, guile, and
hypocrisy, envies, and evil speaking, and, as new born babes, to
receive the word, if so be they had tasted that the Lord is gracious,
1 Pet. ii. 1. which makes it more than probable, that there were
some among them who had not, in reality, experienced the
grace of God; so when he says, that there should be false
teachers among them, whose practice should be as vile as their
doctrine, and that many amongst them should follow their pernicious
ways. 2 Pet. ii. 1, 2. it seems to argue that the whole
church he writes to, were not chosen to salvation; therefore
their election only signifies their being chosen to enjoy the privileges,
which they had, as a professing society of Christians.
Answ. It is certain that there was a very considerable number
among them who were not only Christians in name; but they
were very eminent for the exercise of those graces, which evinced
their election to eternal life; and particularly he says concerning
them, Whom having not seen, ye love; and in whom
believing, ye rejoice with joy unspeakable, and full of glory;
receiving the end of your faith, even the salvation of your souls,
1 Pet. i. 8, 9. which agrees very well with the other character
given them of their being elect, through sanctification of the
Spirit, unto obedience and sprinkling of the blood of Jesus Christ,
ver. 2. Therefore the only thing that seems to affect our argument
is, that this character did not belong to every individual.
But supposing this should be allowed, might not the church be
here described as chosen to salvation, inasmuch as the far greater
number of them were so? Nothing is more common, in scripture,
than for a whole body of men to be denominated from the
greatest part of them, whether their character be good or bad;
thus when the greatest part of the Jewish church were revolted
from God, and guilty of the most notorious crimes, they are
described as though their apostacy had been universal, They
are all grievous revolters, walking with slanders, Jer. vi. 28.
whereas it is certain, there were some who had not apostatized:
some of them were slandered and reproached for the sake of
God, and therefore were not included in the number of them
that walked with slanders, though their number were very
small; as God says by the prophet Ezekiel, I sought for a
man among them that should make up the hedge, and stand in
the gap before me for the land that I should not destroy it, but
I found none, Ezek. xxii. 30. whereas at that time, in which
the people were most degenerate, there were found some who
sighed and cryed for all the abomination that were done in the
// File: b444.png
.pn +1
midst of them, chap. ix. 4. So on the other hand, when the
greater number of them kept their integrity, and walked before
God in holiness of life, the whole church is thus characterized,
I remember the kindness of thy youth, the love of thine espousals,
when thou wentest after me in the wilderness; Israel was holiness
to the Lord, Jer. ii. 2, 3. whereas it is certain, that, at that
time, there were a great many who rebelled, murmured, and
revolted from God, and were plagued for their iniquities; yet
because the greater number of them were upright and sincere,
this character is given in general terms, as if there had been
no exception. And the prophet looked back to some age of
the church, in which a great number of them were faithful;
and therefore he speaks of the people in general, at that time,
as such, and accordingly calls them, The faithful city, Isa. i. 21.
and the prophet Jeremiah calls them, The precious sons of Zion,
comparable to fine gold, Lam. iv. 2. yet there never was a
time when there were none among them that rebelled against
God. Therefore may not this be supposed concerning the first
gospel churches that were planted by the apostles; and accordingly,
when they are styled elect, to whom the apostle Peter
writes, 1 Pet. v. 13. as well as the church at Babylon, why
may not this be supposed to signify, that the greatest part of
them were really sanctified, and therefore chosen to sanctification?
And consequently their character, as elect, does not barely signify
their being chosen to be made partakers of the external privileges
of the gospel. We might also consider, that it is very
agreeable to our common mode of speaking, to denominate a
city, or a kingdom, from the greater number thereof, whether
we call them a rich, or a wise or a valiant people, we never
suppose there are no exceptions to this character; therefore
why may we not, in this instance, conclude, that the apostle
Peter, when he describes this church as elected, intends their
election to salvation? Thus we have endeavoured to prove
that election, in scripture, is not always taken, in the Old Testament,
for the external privileges which the Jewish nation had,
as a church; nor in the New Testament for those who belonged
to the churches, namely, such as professed the Christian faith.
And probably that learned author, before mentioned, was apprehensive
that this observation of his would not hold universally
true; and therefore he has another provisionary objection against
the doctrine of particular election of persons to eternal life, and
says, as Arminius and his contemporaries before did, that all
those scriptures, which speak of this doctrine, contain nothing
more than God’s conditional purpose, that if a person believes,
he shall be saved. It is necessary for us to consider what
may be said in answer hereunto; but inasmuch as we shall have
occasion to speak to this when we consider the properties of
// File: b445.png
.pn +1
election, under a following head, we shall rather chuse to reserve
to that place, than be obliged to repeat what might be here
said concerning it.
Thus having premised something concerning election in
general, and the sense in which it is to be understood, in scripture,
we shall briefly mention a matter in dispute, among divines
relating to the objects thereof, as they are considered in God’s
eternal purpose: and here we shall take notice of some different
opinions relating thereunto, without making use of those scholastic
modes of speaking, which render this subject much more
difficult, than otherwise it would be: and shall take occasion
to avoid, and fence against those extremes, which have only
had a tendency to prejudice persons against the doctrine in general.
The object of election is variously considered by divines, who
treat of this subject.
1. There are some who, though they agree in the most
material things in their defence of this doctrine yet they are
divided in their sentiments about some nice metaphysical speculations,
relating to the manner how man is to be considered,
as the object of predestination: accordingly some, who are
generally styled Supralapsarians, seem to proceed in this way
of explaining it, namely that God from all eternity, designed
to glorify his divine perfections, in some objects out of himself,
which he could not then be said to have done, inasmuch as they
did not exist; and the perfections, which he designed to glorify,
were, more especially, his sovereignty and absolute dominion,
as having a right to do what he will with the work of his hands;
and also his goodness, whereby he would render himself the
object of their delight; and, as a means conducive to this end,
he designed to create man an intelligent creature, in whom he
might be glorified; and since a creature, as such, could not be
the object of the display of his mercy, or justice, he farther designed
to permit man to fall into a state of sin and misery, that
so, when fallen, he might recover some out of that state, and
leave others to perish in it: the former of which are said to be
loved, the other hated; and when some extend the absoluteness
of God’s purpose, not only to election but reprobation, and do
not take care to guard their modes of speaking, as they ought
to do, but conclude reprobation, at least predamnation, to be,
not an act of justice, but rather of sovereignty; they lay themselves
open to exception, and give occasion to those, who oppose
this doctrine, to conclude, that they represent God as delighting
in the misery of his creatures, and with that view giving being
to them. It is true, several, who have given into this way of
thinking, have endeavoured to extricate themselves out of this
difficulty, and denied this and other consequences of the like
nature, which many have thought to be necessary deductions
// File: b446.png
.pn +1
from this scheme; whether they have done this effectually, or
no, may be judged of by those who are conversant in their
writings[189]. I cannot but profess myself to set a very high value
on them in other respects, yet I am not bound to give into
some nice speculations, contained in their method of treating
this subject, which renders it exceptionable; particularly, I
cannot approve of any thing advanced by them, which seems
to represent God as purposing to create man, and then to suffer
him to fall, as a means by which he designed to demonstrate
the glory of his vindictive justice, which hath given occasion
to many to entertain rooted prejudices against the doctrine of
predestination, as though it necessarily involved in it this supposition,
that God made man to damn him.
There are others, who are generally styled Sublapsarians[190],
who suppose, that God considered men as made and fallen, and
then designed to glorify his grace in the recovery of those who
were chosen, by him, to eternal life; and his justice in them,
whom he designed to condemn, as a punishment for their sins,
which he foreknew that they would commit, and purposed not to
hinder; and he designed to glorify his sovereignty, in that
one should be an object of grace, rather than another, whereas
he might have left the whole world in that state of misery, into
which he foresaw they would plunge themselves.
That which is principally objected, by those who are in the
other way of thinking, against this scheme, is, that the Sublapsarians
suppose that God’s creating men, and permitting them
to fall, was not the object of his eternal purpose. But this they
universally deny, and distinguish between God’s purpose to
create and suffer men to fall; and his purposes being considered
as a means to advance his sovereignty, grace, and justice,
in which the principal difference between them consists. We
shall enter no farther into this controversy, but shall only add,
that whatever may be considered, in God’s eternal purpose, as
a means to bring about other ends; yet it seems evident, from
the nature of the thing, that God cannot be said to choose men
to salvation, without herein considering them as fallen; for
// File: b447.png
.pn +1
as no one is a subject capable of salvation, but one who is fallen
into a state of sin and misery; so when God purposed to
save such, they could not be considered as to be created, or
created and not fallen, but as sinners.
2. There are others who deny particular election of persons
to eternal life, and explain those scriptures, which speak of it,
in a very different way: these suppose, that God designed,
from all eternity, to create man, and foreknew that he would
fall, and, that, pursuant to this eternal foreknowledge, he designed
to give him sufficient means for his recovery, which, by
the use of his free will, he might improve, or not, to the best
purposes; and also, fore-knowing who would improve, and who
would reject, the means of grace, which he purposed to bestow,
he determined, as the consequence thereof, to save some,
and condemn others. This method of explaining God’s eternal
purpose is exceptionable, as will farther appear, in the
method we shall take, in prosecuting this subject, in two respects.
(1.) As they suppose that the salvation of men depends on
their own conduct, or the right use of their free will, without
giving the glory which is due to God, for that powerful, efficacious
grace, which enables them to improve the means of grace,
and brings them into a state of salvation,
(2.) As the result of the former, they suppose that nothing
absolute is contained in the decree of God, but his fore-knowledge,
which is rather an act of his understanding, than his
will; and therefore it seems to militate against his sovereignty
and grace, and, to make his decrees depend on some conditions,
founded in the free-will of man, which, according to
them, are not the object of a peremptory decree. Thus having
considered intelligent creatures, and more particularly men,
as the objects of predestination.
IV. We proceed to the farther proof and explication of this
doctrine; and, in order thereto, shall insist on the following
propositions.
1. That it is only a part of mankind that were chosen to salvation.
2. That they who were chosen to it, as the end, were also
chosen to sanctification, as the means thereof, And,
3. That they were chosen in Christ; which propositions are
contained in that part of this answer, in which it is said, that
God has chosen some men to eternal life, and the means thereof.
1. That some were chosen to salvation; not the whole race
of mankind, but only those that shall be eventually saved: that
the whole world is not the object of election appears from the
known acceptation of the word, both in scripture, and in our
// File: b448.png
.pn +1
common modes of speaking; since to choose, as has been before
observed, is to take, prefer, or esteem, one thing before
another, or to separate a part from the whole, for our own
proper use, and what remains is treated with neglect and disregard:
accordingly it is not a proper way of speaking, to say
that the whole is chosen; and therefore it follows, that if all
mankind had been fore-ordained to eternal life, which God
might have done if he had pleased, this would not have been
called a purpose, according to election.
But there are other arguments more conclusive, than what
results barely from the known sense of the word, which we
shall proceed to consider, and therein make use of the same
method of reasoning, which we observed, in proving that God
fore-ordained whatever comes to pass, with a particular application
thereof to the eternal state of believers. As we before
observed, that the decree of God is to be judged of by the
execution of it, in time; so it will appear, that those whom
God in his actual providence and grace, prepares for, and
brings to glory, he also before designed for it. Were I only
to treat of those particular points in controversy, between us
and the Pelagians, I would first consider the method which
God takes in saving his people, and prove that salvation is of
grace, or that it is the effect of the power of God, and not to
be ascribed to the free-will of man, as separate from the divine
influence; and then I would proceed to speak concerning
the decree of God relating hereunto, which might then,
without much difficulty, be proved: but being obliged to pursue
the same method in which things are laid down, in their
respective connexion, we must sometimes defer the more particular
proof of some doctrines, on which our arguments depend,
to a following head, to avoid the repetition of things;
therefore, inasmuch as the execution of God’s decree, and his
power and grace manifested therein, will be insisted on in some
following answers, we shall, at present, take this for granted,
or shall speak but very briefly to it.
(1.) It appears that it is only a part of mankind that are chosen
to be made partakers of grace and glory, inasmuch as these
invaluable privileges are conferred upon, or applied to no
more than a part of mankind: if all shall not be saved, then
all were not chosen to salvation; for we are not to suppose
that God’s purpose, relating hereunto, can be frustrated, or
not take effect; or if there be a manifest display of discriminating
grace in the execution of God’s decree relating thereunto,
there is, doubtless, a discrimination in his purpose, and that
is what we call election. This farther appears from some
scriptures, which represent those who are saved as a remnant:
thus when the apostle is speaking of God’s casting away the
// File: b449.png
.pn +1
greatest part of the Jewish nation, he says of some of them
notwithstanding, that at this present time also there is a remnant
according to the election of grace, Rom. xi. 5. that is,
there are some among them who are brought to embrace the
faith of the gospel, and to be made partakers of the privileges
that accompany salvation: these are called a remnant; as when
it is said, in Rom. ix. 27. Though the number of the children of
Israel be as the sand of the sea, it is no more than a remnant
of them that shall be saved. He doubtless speaks in this and
other scriptures, concerning the eternal salvation of those who
are described as a remnant, according to the election of grace.
Here it will be necessary for us to consider, that this remnant
signifies only a small part of the Jewish church, selected,
by divine grace, out of that nation, of whom the greater number
were rejected by God; and that the salvation, here spoken
of, is to be taken not for any temporal deliverance, but for
that salvation which the believing Jews should be made partakers
of in the gospel day, when the rejection of the others had
its full accomplishment. That this may appear, we shall not
only compare this scripture with the context, but with that in
Hosea, from whence it is taken: as to what respects the context,
the apostle, in ver. 2. expresses his great heaviness, and
continual sorrow of heart, for the rejection of that nation in
general, which they had brought upon themselves; but yet he
encourages himself, in ver. 6. with this thought, that the word
of God, that is, the promise made to Abraham relating to his
spiritual seed, who were given to expect greater blessings, than
those which were contained in the external dispensation of the
covenant of grace, should not take none effect, since, though
the whole nation of the Jews, who were of Israel, that is,
Abraham’s natural seed, did not attain those privileges; yet a
part of them, who are here called Israel, and elsewhere a remnant,
chosen out of that nation, should be made partakers
thereof; the former are called The children of the flesh, in
ver. 8. the latter, by way of eminence, The children of the
promise; these are styled, in ver. 23, 24. The vessels of mercy,
which he had afore prepared unto glory, to whom he designed
to make known the riches of his glory, namely, those whom he
had called; not of the Jews only, but also of the Gentiles,
which he intends by that remnant, which were chosen out of
each of them, for so the word properly signifies.[191] And this
sense is farther confirmed, by the quotation out of the prophecy
of Hosea, chap. i. 10. compared with another taken out of
the prophecy of Isaiah, chap. x. 22. both which speak only of
a remnant that shall be saved, when the righteous judgments
// File: b450.png
.pn +1
of God were poured forth, on that nation in general; and the
prophet Hosea adds another promise relating to them, which
the apostle takes notice of, namely, that in the place where it
was said unto them, Ye are not my people, there it shall be said
unto them, Ye are the sons of the living God, which plainly respects
this remnant; for he had before prophesied concerning
the nation in general, Ye are not, that is, ye shall not be my
people, and I will not be your God; so that here is a great salvation
foretold, which, they, among the Jews, should be made
partakers of, who were fore-ordained to eternal life, when the
rest were rejected.
Object. The prophet seems to speak, in this scripture, of a
temporal salvation, inasmuch as it is said, in the words immediately
following, Then shall the children of Judah, and the
children of Israel, be gathered together, and shall appoint themselves
one head, and they shall come up out of the land, viz. of
Babylon, for great shall be the day of Jezreel. Therefore this
remnant, here spoken of, which should be called the sons of
the living God, respects only such as should return out of captivity,
and consequently not the election of a part, to wit, the
believing Jews, to eternal life: for it is plain, that, when this
prediction was fulfilled, they were to appoint themselves one
head, or governor, namely, Zerubbabel, or some other, that
should be at the head of affairs, and help forward their flourishing
state, in, or after their return from captivity.
Answ. It seems very evident, that part of this prophecy,
viz. chap. iii. 5. respects the happiness of Israel, at that time,
when they should seek the Lord their God, and David their
King, and should fear the Lord and his goodness, in the latter
days; therefore why may not this verse also, in chap. i. in
which it is said, that they shall be called the sons of the living
God, have its accomplishment in the gospel-day, when they
should adhere to Christ, who is called, David their King?
The only difficulty which affects this sense of the text is, its
being said, that they shall return to their own land, under the
conduct of a Head, or governor, whom they should appoint
over them, which seems to favour the sense contained in the objection:
but the sense of the words would be more plain, if we
render the text, instead of [THEN] And the children of Judah,
&c. as it is rendered in most translations, and is most agreeable
to the sense of the Hebrew word.[192] According to our
translation, it seems to intimate, that the prophet is speaking
of something mentioned in the foregoing verse; and inasmuch
as the latter respects their return from the captivity, therefore
the former must do so; whereas if we put and, instead of then,
// File: b451.png
.pn +1
the meaning of both verses together is this: there are two blessings
which God promised, namely, that a part of the Jewish
nation should be made partakers of the saving blessings of the
covenant of grace, which was to have its accomplishment when
they were brought to believe in Christ, by the gospel, or when
this remnant, taken out from them, should be saved; and
there is also another blessing promised to the whole nation,
which should be conferred upon them, when they returned
from the Babylonish captivity.
If it be objected, to this sense of the text, that their return
from captivity is mentioned after that promise, of their being
called the sons of the living God, therefore it cannot be supposed
to relate to a providence that should happen before it;
I need only reply to this, that it is very usual, in scripture, for
the Holy Ghost, when speaking concerning the privileges
which the church should be made partakers of, not to lay them
down in the same order in which they were to be accomplished;
and therefore, why may we not suppose, that this rule
may be applied to this text? And accordingly the sense is
this: the prophet had been speaking, in the tenth verse, of that
great salvation, which this remnant of the Jews, converted to
Christianity, should be made partakers of in the gospel-day;
and then he obviates an objection, as though it should be said,
How can this be, since the Jews are to be carried into captivity,
and there broken, scattered, and, as it were ruined? In answer
to this, the prophet adds, that the Jews should not be
destroyed in the captivity, but should be delivered, and return
to their own land, and so should remain a people, till this
remnant was gathered out of them, who were to be made partakers
of these spiritual privileges under the gospel-dispensation,
as mentioned in the foregoing words.
Thus having endeavoured to prove, that this remnant, spoken
of in Rom. xi. are such as should be made partakers of
eternal salvation, we may now apply this to our present argument.
If that salvation, which this remnant was to be made
partakers of, be the effect of divine power, as the apostle says,
in Rom. ix. 16. It is not of him that willeth, nor of him that
runneth, but of God, that sheweth mercy; and if it be the gift
of divine grace, as he says elsewhere, in Eph. ii. 8. By grace
are ye saved, through faith, and that not of yourselves, it is the
gift of God; then it follows from hence, that God designed,
before-hand, to give them these blessings; and if he designed
them only for this remnant, then it is not all, but a part of
mankind, to wit, those that shall be eventually saved, that
were chosen to salvation.
(2.) The doctrine of election may be farther proved, from
God’s having foreknown whom he will sanctify and save. It
// File: b452.png
.pn +1
will be allowed, that God knows all things, and consequently
that he knows all things that are future, and so not only those
whom he has saved, but whom he will save. We need not
prove that God fore-knew all things, for that is not denied by
those who are on the other side of the question, or, at least, by
very few of them; and, indeed, if this were not an undoubted
truth, we could not depend on those predictions, which respect
things that shall come to pass; and these not only such
as are the effects of necessary causes, or things produced according
to the common course, or laws of nature, but those
which are contingent, or the result of the free-will of man, which
have been foretold, and consequently were fore-known by God;
and if it be allowed that he fore-knew whatever men would be,
and do, let me farther add, that this foreknowledge is not barely
an act of the divine mind, taking a fore-view of, or observing
what others will be, or do, without determining that his
actual providence should interest itself therein; therefore it follows,
that if he fore-knew the salvation of those who shall be
eventually saved, he fore-knew what he would do for them, as
a means conducive thereunto; and if so, then he determined,
before-hand, that he would bring them to glory; but this respects
only a part of mankind, who were chosen by him to
eternal life.
In this sense we are to understand those scriptures that set
forth God’s eternal purpose to save his people, as an act of
fore-knowledge: thus, in Rom. xi. 2. God hath not cast away
his people, whom he fore-knew, that is, he hath not cast them
all away, but has reserved to himself a remnant, according to
the election of grace. That he either had, or soon designed, to
cast away the greatest number of the Jewish nation, seems very
plain, from several passages in this chapter: thus, in verses 17,
19. he speaks of some of the branches being broken off, and ver.
22. of God’s severity, by which we are to understand his vindictive
justice in this dispensation: But yet we are not to suppose,
says the apostle, that God has cast them all away, as in
ver. 1. and so he mentions himself, as an instance of the contrary,
as though he should say, I am called, and sanctified, and
chosen, though I am an Israelite.
Moreover, God’s not casting away his remnant of the Israelites,
being the result of his fore-knowledge, does not barely
respect his knowing what they should be, or do, whom he had
chosen to eternal life, for it is represented as a discriminating
act of favour; whereas, in other respects, they, who are rejected
by him, are as much the objects of his knowledge, as any
others, since the omniscience of God is not the result of his
will; but it is a perfection founded in his nature, and therefore
not arbitrary, but necessary.
// File: b453.png
.pn +1
Again, the apostle, in 1 Pet. i. 2. speaks of some who were
elected, according to the foreknowledge of God the Father, unto
obedience, &c. that is, not chosen, because of any obedience performed
by them, which God foreknew; for this is considered,
as the result of his fore-knowledge, not the cause of it; and
this word is yet farther explained in another place, where
it is used, when the apostle says, in 2 Tim. ii. 19. The Lord
knoweth them that are his. He had before been speaking of
the faith of some, who professed the gospel, being overthrown;
nevertheless, says he, that foundation of hope, which God has
laid in the gospel, is not hereby shaken, but stands sure; the
faithful shall not be overthrown, for the Lord knoweth them that
are his, that is, he knows who are the objects of his love, who
shall be kept by his power, through faith, unto salvation; so
that God’s fore-knowledge, considered as a distinguishing privilege,
is not to be understood barely of his knowing how men
will behave themselves, and so, taking his measures from
thence, as though he first knew what they would do, and then
resolved to bestow his grace; but he knows whom he has set
apart for himself, or designed to save, and, with respect to
them, his providence will influence their conduct, and prevent
their apostasy.
God’s knowledge, in scripture, is sometimes taken for his
approving, or loving, those who are the objects thereof: thus
he says unto Moses, in Exod. xxxiii. 17. Thou hast found
grace in my sight, and I know thee by name, where one expression
explains the other, and so it imports a knowledge of approbation;
and, on the other hand, when our Saviour says to
some, in Matt. vii. 23. I will profess unto you, I never knew
you, it is not to be supposed that he did not know they would
behave themselves, or what they would do against his name
and interest in the world; but I never knew you, that is, I never
approved of you, and accordingly, it follows, Depart from me,
ye that work iniquity; and when it is said concerning knowledge,
as applied to man, in John xvii. 3. This is life eternal,
that they may know thee, the only true God; no one supposes
that a speculative knowledge of divine truths will give any
one ground to conclude his right to eternal life; therefore to
know God, is to love, to delight in him: and the same is applied,
by the apostle, to God’s loving man, when he says, in
1 Cor. viii. 3. If any man love God, the same is known of him,
that is, beloved by him. Now if God’s knowing his people signifies
his loving them, then his fore-knowing them must signify
his determining to do them good, and to bestow grace and glory
upon them, which is the same as to choose them to eternal life:
he fore-knew what he designed to confer upon them; for he
prepared a kingdom for them, from the foundation of the world,
// File: b454.png
.pn +1
Matt. xxv. 34. which is the same with his having, from the
beginning, chosen them to salvation.
Object. As all actions, performed by intelligent creatures, as
such, suppose knowledge, so their determinations are the result
of fore-knowledge, for the will follows the dictates of the understanding;
therefore we must suppose God’s fore-knowledge,
to be antecedent to, and the ground and reason of his
determinations. This the apostle seems to intimate, when he
says, in Rom. viii. 29. Whom he did fore-know, he did predestinate,
that is, he had a perfect knowledge of their future conduct,
and therefore determined to save them.
Answ. I do not deny that, according to the nature of things,
we first consider God as knowing, and then as willing: but this
does not hold good, with respect to his knowing all things future;
for we are not to suppose that he first knows that a thing
shall come to pass, and then wills that it shall. It is true, he
first knows what he will do, and then does it; but, to speak of
a knowledge in God, as conversant about the future state, or
actions of his people, without considering them as connected
with his power and providence, (which is the immediate cause
thereof) I cannot think consistent with the divine perfections.
As for this scripture, Whom he did fore-know, them he did
predestinate, we are not to suppose, that the meaning is, that
God fore-knew that they, whom he speaks of, would be conformed
to the image of his Son, and then as the result hereof,
determined that they should; for their being conformed to
Christ’s image, consists in their exercising those graces which
are agreeable to the temper and disposition of his children, or
brethren, as they are here called; and this conformity to his
image is certainly the result of their being called: but their
calling as well as justification and glorification, is the consequence
of their being fore-known; therefore God’s fore-knowing
here, must be taken in the same sense as it is in the scriptures,
but now referred to; for his having loved them before
the foundation of the world, or chosen them to enjoy those
privileges which are here mentioned.
(3.) It farther appears, that there is a number chosen out of
the world to eternal life, from the means which God has ordained
for the gathering a people out of it, to be made partakers
of the blessings which he has reserved for them in heaven.
This is what we generally call the means of grace; and from
hence it appears, that there is a chosen people, whose advantage
is designed hereby. For the making out of this argument,
let it be considered,
1st. That there always has been a number of persons, whom
God, by his distinguishing providence, has separated from the
world, who have enjoyed the ordinances, or means of grace,
// File: b455.png
.pn +1
and to whom the promises of eternal life have been made. We
do not say that these are all chosen to eternal life; but it appears,
from the design of providence herein, that there have
been some, among them who were ordained to eternal life. If
God gives the means of grace to the church, it is an evident
token that some are designed to have grace bestowed upon
them, and consequently brought to glory.
2dly. They who have been favoured with these means of
grace, have had some peculiar marks of the divine regard to
them. Thus we read, in the early ages of the world, of the
distinction between those, who had the special presence of God
among them, and others, who were deprived of it; as Cain is
said, to go out from the presence of the Lord, Gen. iv. 16. as
one, who, together with his posterity, was deprived of the
means of grace, and also of God’s covenant, in which he promised
to be a God to some, from which privilege others were
excluded: thus he was called the God of Shem, chap. ix. 16.
and afterwards of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, Exod. iii. 6.
whose descendants were hereby given to expect the ordinances
and means of grace, and many instances of that special grace,
which a part of them should be made partakers of: and would
he have made this provision, for a peculiar people, in so discriminating
a way, if there had not been a remnant among
them, according to the election of grace, to whom he designed
to manifest himself here, and bring to glory hereafter? No,
he would have neglected, or over-looked them as he did the
world; whereas both they and their seed had the promises of
the covenant of grace made to them which argues, that there
was a remnant among them, whom God designed hereby to
bring into a state of grace and salvation, and, in this respect,
they are said to be the objects of divine love.
This leads us to consider the meaning of that text, which is
generally insisted on, as a very plain proof of this doctrine, in
Rom. ix. 11, 12, 13. The children being not yet born, neither
having done any good or evil, that the purpose of God according
to election, might stand; not of works, but of him that calleth:
It was said unto her, the elder shall serve the younger; as it
is written, Jacob have I loved, but Esau have I hated. Here is
an express mention of the purpose of God, according to election,
and Jacob is, pursuant thereunto, said to be the object of
divine love. For the understanding of which, let us consider
the sense that is given of it, by those on the other side of the
question; and how far it may be allowed of, and what there is
in the words to prove this doctrine, and wherein our sense of
them differs from their’s.
It is supposed, by those who deny particular election, that
Jacob and Esau are not here considered in a personal capacity,
// File: b456.png
.pn +1
but that the apostle speaks of their respective descendants, as
referring to two divine predictions; in one of which, Gen. xxv.
23. God told Rebekah, before her two sons were born, that
two nations were in her womb; and the elder, that is, the posterity
of Esau, should serve the younger, namely, that of Jacob;
and in the other, Mai. i. 2, 3. he says, I loved Jacob, and hated
Esau, and laid his mountains waste; so that if, in both these
scriptures, referred to by the apostle, nothing else be intended
but the difference that should be put between them as to the
external dispensations of providence, or that Jacob’s family, in
future ages should be in a more flourishing state than that of
Esau, we must not suppose that he designed thereby to represent
them as chosen to, or excluded from eternal life.
This seems a very plausible sense of the text; but yet the
apostle’s words may very well be reconciled with those two
scriptures, cited to enervate the force of the argument taken
from it; and at the same time, it will not follow from thence,
that there is no reference had to the doctrine of eternal election
therein. Therefore,
1. We will not deny, when it is said, Jacob have I loved,
and Esau have I hated, that their respective descendants were
intended in this prediction, yet it will not follow from hence,
that Jacob and Esau, personally considered, were not also included.
Whoever reads their history, in the book of Genesis,
will evidently find in one the marks and characters of a person
chosen to eternal life; whereas, in the other, we have no account
of any regard which he expressed to God or religion,
therefore he appears to have been rejected; yet,
2. So far as it respects the posterity of Jacob and Esau we
are not to suppose that God’s having loved the one, and rejected
the other, implies nothing else, but that Jacob’s posterity had
a better country allotted for them, or exceeded Esau’s in those
secular advantages, or honours, which were conferred upon
them. This seems to be the principal sense, which they, on the
other side of the question, give of the apostle’s words; when
comparing them with those of the prophet Malachi, who,
speaking concerning Esau’s being hated, explains it, as relating
to his lands being laid waste for the dragons of the wilderness.
This had been foretold by some other prophets, Jer. xlix. 17,
18. Ezek. xxxv. 7, 9. Obed. ver. 10. and had its accomplishment
soon after the Jews were carried captive into Babylon,
from which time they ceased to be a nation; but, certainly,
though this be that particular instance of hatred, which the
prophet Malachi refers to, yet there is more contained in the
word, as applied to them by the apostle Paul. It is true, the
prophet designs, in particular to obviate an objection which the
Jews are represented as making, against the divine dispensations
// File: b457.png
.pn +1
towards them, as though they had not such an appearance
of love, as he supposes them to have had, therefore they are
brought in as speaking to this purpose: how canst thou say,
that God has loved us, who have continued seventy years captives
in Babylon, and since our return from thence, have been
exposed to many adverse dispensations of providence? The
prophet’s reply is to this effect: that, notwithstanding, they still
remained a nation, and therefore were in this respect, more the
objects of the divine regard, than the posterity of Esau were,
which is represented as hated, for they never returned unto their
former state; or what attempts soever they made to recover it,
they were all to no purpose. This the prophet alleges, as a
sufficient answer to the Jews’ objection, in the same sense in
which they understood the words, love or hatred; but, doubtless
more than this was contained in the prediction before Jacob
and Esau were born, and in the apostle’s application of it,
in the text before-mentioned. If nothing were intended but
outward prosperity, or their vying with each other in worldly
grandeur, Esau’s posterity, in this respect, might be concluded
to have been preferable to Jacob’s; thus when they are reckoned,
by their genealogies, Gen. xxxvi. they are many of them
described as dukes and kings who made a considerable figure
in the world. When Jacob’s posterity were few in number, and
bondmen in the land of Egypt, and when the Israelites were
carried captive into Babylon, the Edomites are represented by
the prophet, as looking on, and rejoicing in their destruction,
as being, at that time, in all appearance, secure, and enjoying
their former liberty.
Neither could this love or hatred signify nothing else but
the descendants of Jacob being planted in a more fruitful soil;
for there is little difference put between them, in this respect,
in the patriarchal benediction pronounced by their father, who
tells Jacob, that God would give him the dew of heaven, and
the fatness of the earth, and plenty of corn and wine; and to
Esau he says, Thy dwelling shall be the fatness of the earth,
and the dew of heaven from above, chap. xxvii. 28, compared
with 39. therefore, when one is described, in the prediction, as
loved, and the other as hated, we are not to suppose, that outward
prosperity on the one hand, or adversity on the other,
are, principally intended thereby, for that might be said of both
of them by turns; therefore let me add,
3. That God’s loving or hating, as applied to the posterity
of Jacob or Esau, principally respects his determining to give
or deny the external blessings of the covenant of grace, or the
means of grace, and therewith many special tokens of his favour.
In Jacob’s line the church was established, out of which,
as has been before observed, there was a remnant chosen, and
// File: b458.png
.pn +1
brought to eternal life; how far this may be said of Esau’s, is
hard to determine.
Object. 1. But to this it will be objected, that Job and his
friends were of Esau’s posterity, as is more than probable;
but these were far from being rejected of God.
Answ. To this it may be replied, that a few single instances
are not sufficient to overthrow the sense we have given of this
divine oracle, since the rejection of Esau’s posterity may take
its denomination from the far greater number thereof, without
including in it every individual, as it is very agreeable to the
sense of many scriptures. Moreover, we may consider, that
these lived, as we have sufficient ground to conclude, before
the seed of Jacob were increased, and advanced to be a distinct
nation, as they were after their deliverance from the
Egyptian bondage; as also before that idolatry, which first
overspread the land of Chaldea, in Abraham’s time, had universally
extended itself over the country of Idumea, where
Esau’s family was situate; so that it doth not follow from
hence, because this prediction did not take place in a very considerable
degree, in the first descendants from him, that therefore
it does not respect their rejection, as to what concerns the
spiritual privileges of that people afterwards. And, indeed,
idolatry seems to have had some footing in the country where
Job lived, even in his time, which gave him occasion to exculpate
himself from the charge thereof, when he signifies, that
he had not beheld the sun when it shineth, or the moon walking in
brightness, and his heart had not been secretly enticed, or his mouth
kissed his hand, Job xxxi. 26, 27. alluding to some modes of
worship, practised by idolaters in his day, who gave divine honour
to the sun and moon; and, soon after his time, before Israel
had taken possession of Canaan, there seems to have been
an universal defection of the Edomites from the true religion,
otherwise, doubtless, Moses might, without any difficulty, have
got leave to have passed through their country, in his way to
the land of Canaan, which he requested in a most friendly and
obliging manner, but to no purpose, Numb. xx. 14-21. especially
considering they had no reason to fear that they would
do any thing against them in a hostile manner; therefore the
unfriendly treatment they met with from them, proceeded from
the same spring with that of the Amalekites, and other bordering
nations, namely, they had all revolted from the God and
religion of their father Abraham; so that this prediction seems
to have been fulfilled, before the promise, respecting Jacob’s
posterity, in any considerable degree, began to take place.
Having briefly considered this objection, we return to the
argument, namely, that God’s loving or hating, in this scripture,
as it has a relation to the distinct nations that descended
// File: b459.png
.pn +1
from Jacob and Esau, includes in it his determining to give or
deny the external privileges of the covenant of grace, which we
generally call the ordinances, or means of grace. These were
the spiritual and more distinguishing instances of divine favour,
which Jacob was given to expect, when he obtained the blessing.
As for the double portion, or the greatest part of the paternal
estate, that descended with it, together with the honour
of having dominion over their brethren, or a right (as it is probable
they had) to act as civil magistrates in their respective
families, these were all small things, if compared with those
spiritual privileges, wherein God’s love to Jacob, and his posterity,
was principally expressed; it was this which is so often
signified by God’s being the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob:
In other respects, Esau was blessed as well as Jacob; for
the apostle, speaking concerning that part of Isaac’s prediction,
which respected the temporal advantage of their posterity, says,
that he blessed Jacob and Esau, concerning things to come, Heb.
xi. 20. yet Esau was rejected, as to what concerns the spiritual
part of the blessing, which was his birth-right, that he is said
to have despised, Gen. xxv. 34. and, for this reason, he is styled,
by the apostle, a profane person, Heb. xii. 16. If it had
been only a temporal privilege that he contemned, it might have
been a sin; but it could not then have been properly said to
have been an instance of profaneness, for that has respect only
to things sacred; therefore it evidently appears, that the blessings
which Esau despised, and God had before designed to
confer on Jacob, and his seed, as a peculiar instance of his love,
were of a spiritual nature.
Object. 2. It will be farther objected, that men’s enjoying
the external privileges of the covenant of grace, has no immediate
reference to their salvation, or election to it.
Answ. Since salvation is not to be attained, but by and under
these means of grace, we must conclude, that whenever
God bestows and continues them, to a church or nation, he has
a farther view therein, namely, the calling some, by his grace,
to partake of those privileges that accompany salvation. If there
were no such blessings to be conferred on the world, there
would be no means of grace, and consequently no external dispensation
of the covenant of grace; for it is absurd to suppose
that any thing can be called a means, where all are excluded
from the end which they refer to; therefore the sum of this
argument is, that God had a peculiar love to the posterity of
Jacob, and accordingly he designed to give them those privileges
which were denied to others, namely, the means of grace,
which he would not have done, had he not intended to make
them effectual to the salvation of some of them; and this purpose,
relating hereunto, is what is called election, which, though
// File: b460.png
.pn +1
it be not applicable to all the seed of Jacob; for all, as the apostle
says elsewhere, are not Israel who are of Israel; yet, inasmuch
as there was a remnant of them, to whom it was applied,
they are that happy seed, who are represented, by the apostle,
as the objects of God’s compassion, or vessels unto honour, in
whom he designed to make known the riches of his glory, having,
in this respect, afore prepared them unto glory, Rom. ix. 15,
21, 23.
Thus having considered that God has chosen a part of mankind
to salvation, we may, without being charged with a vain
curiosity, enquire whether this privilege belongs to the greater
or smaller part of mankind, since the scripture goes before us
in this matter. If we judge of the purpose of God by the execution
thereof, it must be observed, that hitherto the number
of those, who have been made partakers of the special privileges
of the gospel, has been comparatively small. If we look
back to those ages before our Saviour’s incarnation, what a very
inconsiderable proportion did Israel bear to the rest of the
world, who were left in darkness and ignorance! And, after
this, our Saviour observes, that many were called, in his time,
but few were chosen, Matt. xx. 16. and he advises to enter in
at the strait gate, chap. vii. 13, 14. by which he means the way
to eternal life, concerning which he says, that there are, comparatively,
few that find it. And when the gospel had a greater
spread, and wonderful success attended the preaching thereof,
by the apostles, and many nations embraced the Christian faith,
in the most flourishing ages of the church, the number of Christians,
and much more of those who were converted, and effectually
called, was comparatively small. Whether the number
of true believers shall be greater, when there is a greater spread
of the gospel, and a more plentiful effusion of the Spirit, to
render it more successful, as we hope and pray for that time, and
that not altogether without scripture-warrant; I say, whether
then the fewness of those who have hitherto been chosen and
sanctified, shall not be compensated, by a far greater number,
who shall live in that happy age of the church, it is not for us
to be over-curious in our enquiries about: However, we may
determine this from scripture, that, in the great day, when all
the elect shall be gathered together, their number shall be exceeding
great, if what the apostle says refers to this matter, as
some suppose it does, when he speaks of a great multitude,
which no man could number, of all nations, and kindreds, and
people and tongues, who stood before the throne, and before the
Lamb, clothed with white robes, and palms in their hands, Rev.
vii. 9. But these things are no farther to be searched into, than
as we may take occasion, from thence, to enquire whether we
are of that number; and, if we are, we ought to bless God for
// File: b461.png
.pn +1
his discriminating grace, which he has magnified therein. And
this leads us to consider,
2. That they who are chosen to salvation, are also chosen
to sanctification, as the means thereof: As the end and means
are not to be separated in the execution of God’s decree, so
they are not to be separated in our conception of the decree itself;
for, since God brings none to glory, but in a way of holiness,
the same he determined to do from all eternity, that is,
to make his people holy, as well as happy; or first to give them
faith and repentance, and then, the end of their faith, the salvation
of their souls.
There are many scriptures, in which the purpose of God,
relating hereunto, is plainly intended; as when it is said, He
hath chosen us that we should be holy, and without blame, before
him in love, Eph. i. 4. and elsewhere the apostle tells others,
that God had, from the beginning, chosen them unto salvation,
through sanctification of the Spirit, and belief of the truth, 2
Thes. ii. 13. and the apostle James saith, that God hath chosen
the poor of this world, rich in faith, and heirs of the kingdom,
James ii. 5. and elsewhere the apostle Paul speaks of persons
being predestinated to be conformed to the image of his Son,
which he explains of their being called, justified, and glorified,
Rom. viii. 29. and it is also said, speaking of those who were
converted under the apostle Paul’s ministry, as many as were
ordained unto eternal life believed, Acts xiii. 48. accordingly
they were ordained to one as well as the other.
The argument, which seems very plainly contained in these,
and such-like scriptures, is, that God’s eternal purpose respects
the grace that his people are made partakers of here, as well as
the glory that they expect hereafter, which are inseparably connected;
this cannot reasonably be denied by those who are not
willing to give into the doctrine of election: But if the inseparable
connexion between faith and salvation be allowed, as having
respect to the execution of God’s purpose, it will be no difficult
matter to prove that this was determined by him, or that
his purpose respects faith, as well as salvation. Therefore the
main thing in controversy between us is, whether this grace,
that accompanies salvation, is wrought by the power of God,
or whether it depends on the free-will of man. That which induces
them to deny that God has chosen persons to faith, is
this supposition; that that which is the result of man’s free-will,
cannot be the object of God’s unchangeable purpose, and
consequently that God has not chosen men to it. This is the
hinge on which the whole controversy turns, and if the doctrine
of special efficacious grace be maintained, all the prejudices
against that of election would soon be removed; but this we
must refer to its proper place, being obliged to insist on that
// File: b462.png
.pn +1
subject in some following answers;[193] and, what may be farther
considered, concerning the absoluteness of election, as one of
the properties that belong to it, under a following head, will
add some strength to our present argument. All that we shall
do, at present, shall be to defend our sense of the scriptures,
but now referred to, to prove that election respects sanctification,
as well as salvation; and that it does so, is plain from the
first of them, in Eph. i. 4. which proves that holiness is the end
of election, or the thing that persons are chosen to, as appears
from the grammatical construction of the words: It is not said
he had chosen us, considered as holy, and without blame, but
that we should be holy;[194] that which is plainly intended, as the
result of election, cannot be the cause and reason of it.
As to what the apostle says, in 2 Thess. ii. 13. God hath,
from the beginning, chosen you unto salvation, through sanctification
of the Spirit, and belief of the truth, that plainly intimates,
that sanctification is the end of election; and therefore
the principal answer that some give to it, which appears to be
an evasion, is, that the apostle does not speak of eternal election,
because God is said to have done this from the beginning,
that is, as one explains the words, from the beginning of the
apostle’s preaching to them: But if we can prove that there
is such a thing as a purpose to save, it will be no difficult matter
to prove the eternity of the divine purpose; and this is not
disagreeable to the sense, in which the words, From the beginning,
are elsewhere used.[195]
As for that other scripture, in James ii. 5. where it is said,
God hath chosen the poor of this world, rich in faith, and heirs
of the kingdom; here the words, That they may be,[196] (which
are inserted by the apostle, in the scripture but now mentioned)
may, without any strain on the sense thereof, be supplied, and
so the meaning is, God hath chosen them, that they might be
rich in faith, and heirs of the kingdom: But if it will not be
allowed, that these words ought to be supplied, the sense is the
same, as though they were these, “God has chosen the poor of
this world, who are described as rich in faith, to be heirs of
the kingdom;” and so we distinguish between election’s being
founded upon faith, and faith’s being a character by which the
elect are described; and, if faith be a character by which they
are described, then he who enabled them to believe, purposed
to give them this grace, that is, he chose them to faith, as well
as to be heirs of the kingdom.
As for that other text, in Rom. viii. 29. He hath predestinated
us to be conformed to the image of his Son; these words,
to be, are supplied by our translators, as I apprehend they ought,
// File: b463.png
.pn +1
for the reason but now mentioned, taken from the parallel scripture,
in Eph. i. 4. But, to evade the force of the argument, to
prove that we are predestinated to grace, as well as to glory,
they who deny this doctrine, give a very different turn to the
sense of this text, as though the apostle only intended hereby,
that the persons, whom he speaks of, were predestinated to an
afflicted state in this life, a state of persecution, in which they
are said to be conformed to the image of Christ;[197] But though
it is true that believers are said to be made partakers of the
sufferings of Christ, and, by consequence, are predestinated
thereunto, yet that does not appear to be the sense of this text,
as not well agreeing with the context; for the apostle had been
describing those, whom he speaks of, as loving God, and
called according to his purpose, and then considers them as
predestinated, to be conformed to the image of his Son, which
must be meant of their being made partakers of those graces,
in which their conformity to Christ consists, as well as in sufferings;
and then he considers them, in the following verse,
as called, justified, and glorified; and all this is the result of
their being predestinated.
As for that scripture, in Acts xiii. 48. As many as were ordained
to eternal life believed; their faith is here considered as
the result of their being ordained to eternal life, or they are
represented as predestinated to the means, as well as the end.
Object. 1. But it will be objected by some, that this is not
agreeable to the sense of the Greek word here used;[198] partly,
because it is not said they were fore-ordained to eternal life,
but ordained; and the genuine sense thereof is, that they were
disposed to eternal life, and consequently to faith, as the means
thereof. And this is also taken in a different sense; some
suppose that it imports a being disposed, by the providence of
God, or set in order, or prepared for eternal life; others,
agreeably to the exposition which Socinus, and some of his
followers, give of the text, (which sense a late learned writer
falls in with[199]) understand the words, as signifying their having
an internal disposition, or being well inclined, as having an
earnest desire after eternal life, for which reason they believed;
or were fitted and prepared for eternal life, by the temper
of their minds, and accordingly they believed.
Answ. 1. If the word, which we render ordained, be justly
translated, the thing which they were ordained to, being something
that was future, it is, in effect, the same, as though it
were said they were fore-ordained to it, as Beza observes.[200]
2. Suppose the word ought rather to be translated, they
were disposed unto eternal life; that seems to contain in it a
// File: b464.png
.pn +1
metaphor, taken from a general’s disposing, or ordering his
soldiers to their respective posts, or employments, to which he
appoints them, and so it is as though he should say, as many
as God had, in his providence, or antecedent purpose, intended
for salvation, believed, inasmuch as faith is the means and
way to attain it; and that amounts to the same thing with our
translation. But,
3. As to that other sense given of it, viz. their being internally
disposed for eternal life, it seems very disagreeable to
the import of the Greek word; and those texts, that are generally
brought to justify this application thereof, appear to be
very much strained and forced by them, to serve their purpose;[201]
and, indeed, if the word would bear such a sense, the
doctrine contained therein, namely, that there are some internal
dispositions in men, antecedent to the grace of God, whereby
they are fitted and prepared for it, does not well agree with
the sense of those scriptures, which set forth man’s natural opposition
to the grace of God, before he is regenerate and converted,
and his enmity against him; and others that assert the
absolute necessity of the previous work of the Spirit, to prepare
for, as well as excite the acts of faith.
Object. 2. It is farther objected, that it cannot respect their
being ordained, or chosen to eternal life, who believed, inasmuch
as none that plead for that doctrine suppose that all, who
are elected in one place, believe at the same time; had it been
said, that all, who believed at that time, were ordained to eternal
life, that would be agreeable to what is maintained by
those who defend the doctrine of election; but to say, that
all, who are elected to eternal life, in any particular city, are
persuaded to believe at the same time, this is what they will
not allow of: besides, it is not usual for God to discover this
to, or by, the inspired writers, that, in any particular place,
there are no more elected than those who are, at any one time,
converted; and, indeed, it is contrary to the method of God’s
providence, to bring in all his elect at one time, therefore we
cannot suppose that this was revealed to the inspired writer,
and consequently something else must be intended, and not
eternal election, namely, that all those that were prepared for
eternal life, or who were disposed to pursue after it, believed.[202]
// File: b465.png
.pn +1
Answ. When the apostle says, as many as were ordained to
eternal life believed, we are not hereby led into this hidden
mystery of the divine will, so as to be able to judge, whether
more than they that then believed, were ordained to it in that
place; but the meaning is, that there were many that believed,
and that all of them were ordained to eternal life; and so it is
as though he should say, that God has a people in this place,
whom he has ordained to eternal life, who were to be converted,
some at one time, others at another: some of them were
converted at this time, to wit, a part of those who were ordained
to eternal life, if more were ordained to it; so that the
objection supposes that the words, which we render, as many
as, imports the whole number of the elect in that place; whereas,
we think that the meaning is, that there were many who
believed, and these were only such who were ordained to eternal
life, of which there might be many more, who then did
not believe, but hereafter should; but this remained a secret,
which the inspired writer was not led into, nor we by him.
Object. 3. There is another objection, which the learned author,[203]
(whose paraphrase on the New Testament, and discourse
on election, I am sometimes obliged to refer to in considering
the objections that are made against this doctrine) proposes
with a great deal of warmth; and if no reply can be given
to it, it will be no wonder to find many prejudiced against
it; his words are these: “If the reason why these men believed
be only this, that they were men ordained to eternal life,
the reason why the rest believed not, can be this only, that
they were not ordained by God to eternal life: and, if so,
what necessity could there be that the word of God should be
first preached to them, as we read, ver. 46. was it only that
their damnation might be the greater? This seems to charge
that Lover of souls, whose tender mercies are over all his
works, with the greatest cruelty, seeing it makes him determine,
from all eternity, not only that so many souls as capable
of salvation as any other, shall perish everlastingly; but
also to determine, that the dispensations of his providence
shall be such towards them, as necessarily tends to the aggravation,
of their condemnation; and what could, even their
most malicious and enraged enemy, do more? What is it the
very devil aims at, by all his temptations, but this very end,
viz. the aggravation of our future punishment? And therefore
to assert that God had determined that his word should
be spoken to these Jews, for this very end, is to make God
as instrumental to their ruin, as the very devil, and seemeth
wholly irreconcileable with his declarations, that he would
// File: b466.png
.pn +1
have all men to be saved, and would not that any man should
perish.”
Answ. According to this author, we must either quit the
doctrine we are maintaining, provided it be the same as he represents
it to be, or else must be charged by all mankind, with
such horrid blasphemy, as is shocking to any one that reads it,
as charging the Lover of souls with the greatest cruelty, and
with acting in such a way, as their greatest enemy is said to
do; determining, that the dispensations of his providence should
tend to aggravate their condemnation, and that the gospel should
be preached for this end, and no other. But let the blasphemy
rest on his misrepresentation, and far be it from us to advance
any such doctrine; therefore that which may be considered, in
answer to it, is,
1. The immediate reason why men believe to eternal life,
is, because God exerts the exceeding greatness of his power,
whereby he works faith; and the reason of his exerting this
power, is, because he determined to do it, as it is the execution
of his purpose.
2. It does not follow, from hence, that the only reason why
others do not believe, is, because they were not ordained to
eternal life. It is true, indeed, that their not having been ordained
to eternal life, or God’s not having purposed to save
them, is the reason why he does not exert that power that is
necessary to work faith: and unbelief will certainly be the consequence
thereof, unless man could believe without the divine
energy; yet the immediate spring and cause of unbelief, is the
corruption and perverseness of human nature which is chargeable
on none else but man himself. We must certainly distinguish
between unbelief’s being the consequence of God’s not
working faith, whereby corrupt nature takes occasion to exert
itself, as being destitute of preventing grace; and its being the
effect hereof. Is God’s denying the revengeful person, or the
murderer, that grace, which would prevent his executing his
bloody designs, the cause thereof? Or his denying to others
the necessary supply of their present exigencies, the cause of
their making use of unlawful means, by plundering others to
subsist themselves? No more is his denying special grace,
which he was not obliged to give to any, the cause of men’s
unbelief and impenitency; for that is to be assigned only to that
wicked propensity of nature, which inclines us to sin, and not
to the divine efficiency; and how farsoever this may be the result
of God’s determining to deny his grace, it is not to be
reckoned the effect of that determination.
3. The design of the word’s being preached, is not to aggravate
the damnation of those that shall not believe, according to
this vile suggestion; but that men might be hereby led to know
// File: b467.png
.pn +1
their duty and that the sovereignty of God, and the holiness
of his law, which requires faith and repentance, as well as man’s
obligation hereunto might be made known to the world. I do
not deny, but that unbelief, and the condemnation consequent
thereupon, is aggravated by the giving of the gospel, for that
appears from many scriptures, Matt. xi. 21. Luke x. 13. as
when our Saviour upbraids Chorazin, Bethsaida, Capernaum,
and other places, amongst whom he was conversant, with their
unbelief, and represents their condemnation as greater than,
that of others, who were destitute of those privileges: But yet
it is a malicious insinuation, to suppose we conclude that the
gospel was given for this end; and we must still distinguish
between the greater aggravation of condemnation’s being the
result of giving the gospel, or the remote consequence thereof,
and its being the effect of it in those that reject the gospel, and
much less the design of God in giving it.
4. God’s denying that grace, which would have enabled men
to believe, is not to be charged as an instance of cruelty, any
more than his denying it to fallen angels, but it is rather a display
of his justice. He was not obliged to give grace to any
of the apostate race of man; shall therefore his denying the
grace of faith be reckoned an instance of cruelty, when we consider
the forfeiture that was before made thereof, and man’s
propensity to sin, which is chargeable only on himself?
5. God’s purpose to deny the grace of faith to those whom
he has not ordained to eternal life, is not inconsistent with that
scripture, 1 Tim. ii. 4. in which it is said, that he will have all
men to be saved; so that, as will be farther observed elsewhere,[204]
it respects either God’s determining that salvation should be
applied to all sorts of men, or else his declaring by his revealed
will, that it is the duty of all men to believe, and to acknowledge
the truth, as made known to them in the gospel.
6. They who are elected to salvation, are chosen in Christ:
thus it is expressly said, in Eph. i. 4. He hath chosen us in him,
before the foundations of the world. We are not to suppose that
the apostle intends hereby, that we are chosen for the sake of
Christ, as though any of his mediatorial acts were the ground
and reason thereof; for election is an act of sovereign grace,
or is resolved into the good pleasure of the will of God, and
is not to be accounted a purchased blessing; therefore when
we speak of the concern of the Mediator, with relation hereunto,
this is to be considered as a means ordained by God, to
bring his elect to salvation rather than the foundation of their
election. This proposition necessarily follows from the former;
for if they, who are chosen to the end, are chosen to the means,
then Christ’s mediatorial acts being the highest and first means
// File: b468.png
.pn +1
of salvation, God’s eternal purpose respects this, as subservient
thereunto.
There are some very considerable divines,[205] who distinguish
between our being chosen in Christ, as an Head, and being chosen
in him as a Redeemer; and accordingly, they conclude, that
there are two distinct relations, in which the elect are said to
stand to Christ, both which are mentioned by the apostle, when
he says, Christ is the Head of the church, and the Saviour of the
body, Eph. v. 23. and they are also mentioned distinctly elsewhere,
He is the Head of the body, the church, and then it follows,
that he made peace through the blood of the cross, Col. i.
18, 19, 20. and they add, that the elect are considered as his
members, without any regard had to their fallen state; and that
the blessings contained therein, are such as render their condition
more honourable and glorious, than otherwise it would
have been, had they been only considered as creatures, without
any relation to him as their Head; and this Headship of Christ
they extend not only to men, but to the holy angels, whom they
suppose to be chosen, in this respect, in Christ, as well as men,
and that it is owing hereunto that they have the grace of confirmation
conferred upon them; and it also follows, from hence,
that Christ would have been the Head of the election of grace,
though man had not fallen, and that our fallen state rendered
that other relation of Christ to his elect necessary; so that as
they are chosen to salvation, they are chosen in him as a Redeemer,
designed to bring about his great work for them, and,
for this end, set up, as it is expressed, from everlasting, Prov.
viii. 23.
This distinction of Christ’s double relation to the elect, is,
doubtless, designed by those who thus explain this doctrine to
advance his glory; notwithstanding it remains still a matter of
doubt to me, whether Christ’s Headship over his church be not
a branch of his Mediatorial glory; and, if so, it will be very
difficult to prove that a Mediator respects any other than man,
and him more particularly considered as fallen; and accordingly,
God did not design hereby to advance him to an higher
condition, than what was barely the result of his being a creature,
but to deliver him from that state of sin and misery, into
which he foresaw that he would plunge himself. Therefore, in
considering the order of God’s eternal purpose, relating to the
salvation of his people, we must suppose that he first designed
to glorify all his perfections in their redemption and salvation;
and, in order hereunto, he fore-ordained, or appointed Christ
to be their great Mediator, in whom he would be glorified, and
by whom this work was to be brought about: He appointed him
to be their Head, Surety, and Redeemer; first, to purchase
// File: b469.png
.pn +1
salvation for them; and then, to make them meet for it, in the
same order in which it is brought about by him in the execution
thereof; so that, as the glory of God, in the salvation of
the elect, was the end, Christ’s redemption was the means
more immediately conducive thereunto, and, as such, he is said
to be fore-ordained, to wit, to perform those offices that he
executes as Mediator, 1 Pet. i. 20. and as Christ, when he was
manifested in the flesh, did all things for his people, that were
necessary to bring them to glory, he is, in God’s purpose, considered
as the great Mediator, by whom he designed this work
should be brought about: thus he is set forth in the gospel, as
a propitiation for sin; and the apostle seems to speak of it,
as what was the result of God’s purpose, in Rom. iii. 25. whom
God hath set forth to be a propitiation; the Greek word[206]
properly signifies, as it is observed in the marginal reference,
fore-ordained so to be; and accordingly, we must consider him
as from all eternity in God’s purpose, appointed to be the federal
Head of those who are said to be chosen in him, and to
have all the concerns of the divine glory, relating to their salvation,
committed to his management.
V. We shall now consider the properties of election, and
how the divine perfections are displayed therein, agreeably to
what is said concerning it in scripture.
1. As it is taken for the purpose of God, relating to the
sanctification or salvation of men, as distinguished from the execution
thereof, it is eternal: This is evident, because God is
eternal, his purposes must be concluded to be of equal duration
with his existence; for we cannot suppose that an infinitely
wise and sovereign Being existed from all eternity, without any
fore-thought, or resolution what to do, for that would be to suppose
him to have been undetermined, or unresolved, when he
first gave being to all things; nor is it to be supposed that there
are any new determinations in the divine will, for that would
argue him to be imperfect, since this would be an instance of
mutability in him, as much as it would be for him to alter his
purpose; but neither of these are agreeable to the idea of an infinitely
perfect Being.
Moreover, if God’s purpose, with respect to the salvation of
men were not eternal, then it must be considered as a new after-thought
arising in the divine mind, which, as to its first rise,
is but, as it were, of yesterday, and consequently he would have
something in him that is finite. If it be contrary to his omniscience
to have new ideas of things, it is equally contrary to
the sovereignty of his will to have new determinations, therefore
all his purposes were eternal.
2. God’s purpose relating to election, is infinitely wise and
// File: b470.png
.pn +1
holy. This appears from the footsteps of infinite wisdom, and
holiness, which are visible in the execution thereof, namely, in
bringing men to grace and glory; nothing is more conspicuous
than the glory of these perfections in the work of redemption,
and the application thereof; as hereby the salvation of man is
brought about in such a way, that the glory of all the divine
perfections is secured, and the means made use of, as conducive
thereunto, the most proper that could have been used, therefore
it is a work of infinite wisdom. And inasmuch as herein God
discovers the infinite opposition of his nature to sin, and thereby
advances the glory of his holiness, it follows from hence,
that these perfections of the divine nature had their respective
concern, if we may so express it, in the purpose relating hereunto;
for whatever glory is demonstrated in the execution of
his purpose, that was certainly before included in the purpose
itself.
3. The purpose of God, relating to the final state of man, is
secret, or cannot be known, till he is pleased to discover it.
Nothing is more obvious than this; for even the purposes or
resolutions of creatures are secret, till they are made known by
them: thus the apostle says, What man knoweth the things of a
man, that is, what he designs to do, save the spirit of a man,
which is in him? and infers, in the following words, so the
things of God knoweth no man, but the Spirit of God, 1 Cor. ii.
12. and elsewhere he says, Who hath known the mind of the
Lord? or who hath been his councellor? Rom. xi. 34. And, for
this reason, it is called, The mystery of his will, Eph. i. 9. and
this also follows from its being eternal, therefore it was hid in
God, from before the foundation of the world, and consequently
would for ever have been so, had he not, by his works, or
word, made some discoveries thereof, to those whom he first
brought into being, and then gave some intimations of his purpose
to them.
Therefore it could not have been known that God had purposed
to save any, had he not revealed this in the gospel: much
less have any particular persons ground to conclude themselves
to be elected, without first observing those intimations which
God has given, whereby they may arrive at the knowledge
thereof. This head ought to be duly considered, by those who
deny, and are prejudiced against this doctrine, though it be
generally neglected in the methods they take to oppose it; for
they will not consider the distinction we make between God’s
having chosen a person to eternal life, and a person’s having a
right to conclude that he is thus chosen; but take it for granted,
that if there be such a thing as election, that we must necessarily
determine ourselves to be the objects thereof, and ought to
regulate our future conduct accordingly. It is from thence they
// File: b471.png
.pn +1
conclude, that the doctrine of election leads men to presumption,
or gives them occasion to say, that they may live as they
list; whereas we suppose that it is an instance of presumption
in any one to determine that he is elected, unless there be some
discovery hereof made to him; and this discovery cannot take
its rise from God, unless it be accompanied with that holiness,
which is, from the nature of the thing, inconsistent with our being
led hereby to licentiousness. And here we take occasion to
consider, that God does not make known his secret purpose, relating
to this matter, to any, by inspiration, especially since that
extraordinary dispensation of providence is ceased; and, indeed,
it never was his ordinary way to discover it hereby to those,
who, in other instances, were favoured with the gift of inspiration.
The means therefore by which we come to the knowledge
hereof, is, by God’s giving certain marks, or evidences of grace,
or by shewing us the effects of the divine power, in calling and
sanctifying us, whereby we have a warrant to conclude that we
were chosen to eternal life; and, whilst we make a right improvement
thereof, and conclude that our judgment, concerning
our state, is rightly founded, or not, by the holiness of our
lives, we are in no danger of abusing this great and important
doctrine, to the dishonour of God, or our own destruction.
This leads us to consider a distinction, which we are often
obliged to make use of, when we speak concerning the will of
God, as secret or revealed, by which we account for the sense
of many scriptures, and take occasion from it to answer several
objections that are brought against this doctrine. I am sensible
that there is nothing advanced in defence thereof, which they,
who are in the other way of thinking, are more prejudiced against,
than this distinction, which they suppose to contain a reproachful
idea of the divine Majesty, and is the foundation of
many popular prejudices against the doctrine we are defending,
as though we hereby intended that God has a secret meaning,
different from what he reveals; or that we are not to judge of
his intentions by those discoveries which he makes thereof,
which it would be the highest reproach to charge any creature
with, and contrary to that sincerity which he cannot be destitute
of, but he is hereby rendered the object of detestation; therefore
no one, who conceives of an holy God, in such a way as he
ought to do, can entertain a thought, as though the least appearance
thereof were applicable to him. However, this is the common
misrepresentation that is made of this distinction. Whether
it arises from its being not sufficiently explained by some;
or a fixed resolution to decry the doctrine of election, and render
it odious, as it must certainly be, if supported by a distinction,
understood in so vile a sense, I will not determine. However,
that we may remove this prejudice, and consider how it
// File: b472.png
.pn +1
is to be understood, in a sense more agreeable to the divine perfections,
we shall proceed to explain it; and here we may observe,
First, That the will of God is sometimes taken, in scripture,
for that which he has, from all eternity, determined, which is
unchangeable, and shall certainly come to pass, which is impossible
for any creature to disannul, resist, or render ineffectual;
and it is such a branch of divine sovereignty, that to deny
it, would be, in effect, to deny him to be God. This the apostle
intends, when he represents the malicious and obstinate sinner
as replying against God, and defending himself in his bold
crimes, by saying, Why doth he yet find fault; for who hath resisted
his will? Rom. ix. 19, 20, 21, 22. In answer to which, he
asserts the sovereignty of God, and that he is not accountable to
any for what he does, nor to be controuled by them; and this is
also intended in another scripture, in Eph. i. 11. where it is
said, that God worketh all things after the counsel of his own
will; and elsewhere he says, My counsel shall stand, and I will
do all my pleasure, Isa. xlvi. 10. This will of God is the rule
of his own acting, and, as it determines the event of things, it
is impossible for him to act contrary to it; and it is equally disagreeable
to his perfections, to signify to his creatures, that he
determines to do one thing, but will do another; therefore, in
this sense, we are far from asserting that there is a revealed will
of God, which contradicts his secret.
Secondly, We often read, in scripture, of the will of God, as
taken for what he has prescribed to us, as a rule of duty; and
also of our judging concerning the apparent event of things.
(1.) The will of God may be considered as a rule of duty,
which is a well-known and proper sense of his revealed will:
thus our Saviour teaches us to pray, Let thy will be done on
earth, as it is in heaven; by which he principally intends his
revealed will, or law. Enable us to yield obedience to thy law, in
our measure, as thou art perfectly obeyed in heaven. So our
Saviour says, Whosoever shall do the will of God, the same is my
brother, and my sister, and mother, Mark iii. 35. which can be
meant of no other than his revealed will, or of his law, in which
it is contained; because no one can act contrary to God’s determination,
which is that sense of his will, contained in the
foregoing head; and, consequently, a doing his will, in that
sense, would not have been laid down as a distinguishing character
of those whom Christ preferred above all, who were related
to him in the bonds of nature.
Again the apostle understands the will of God in this sense,
when he says, Thou knowest his will, Rom. ii. 18. where he
speaks to the Jews, who were instructed out of the law, in which
it is contained; and elsewhere, Eph. vi. 6. he speaks of his will,
as what is to be obeyed, and therefore gives this description of
// File: b473.png
.pn +1
faithful servants, that they do the will of God, namely, what he
has commanded, from the heart. And there are many other
scriptures thus to be understood; and this we call his revealed
will, as it is the rule of duty and obedience.
(2.) The revealed will of God may be considered as a rule
which he has given us, whereby we are to judge of the apparent
event of things. I make this a branch of God’s revealed
will, inasmuch as sometimes he condescends to discover future
events to his creatures, which otherwise they could never have
known; but yet there is a difference, as to the manner of their
judging thereof, pursuant to the intimations which he has given
them. Accordingly, when God has told us expressly, that this
or that particular thing shall come to pass, then we are infallibly
sure concerning the event, and need no other rule to judge
of it, but by considering it as revealed: As when God has said,
that there shall be a general resurrection of the dead, and that
Christ shall come to judgment, and receive his redeemed, and
sanctified ones, to heaven, to behold his glory, we are infallibly
assured of these events, because they are expressly revealed;
and, when we speak of the secret and revealed will of God, as
applicable to things of this nature, we intend nothing else hereby
but what all will allow of, viz. that what would have been
for ever a secret, had it not been discovered, is now revealed,
and therefore ceases to be so; and in that sense, the revealed
will of God, in all respects, agrees with his secret; in this case,
we suppose that God expressly revealed the event.
But there are other instances, in which the event of things is
not expressly revealed; as when God has only discovered to us
what is the rule of our duty. Nevertheless, since it is natural
for man, when any duty is commanded, to pass some judgment
concerning the event thereof; and, inasmuch as we suppose the
event not expressly revealed, it follows, that the judgment, which
we pass concerning it, is only what appears to us, or what, according
to our rule of judging, seems to be the probable event
of things. In this case we are not infallibly assured concerning
it; and when we pass a judgment relating thereunto, we may
conclude that some consequences may attend our present duty,
which, perhaps, will never come to pass. As if a general of an
army gives forth a command to his soldiers, to march towards
the enemy, they will readily conclude, that he designs, by this
command, that they should enter on some action, which, had
he expressly told them, he must either change his purpose, or
else the event must certainly happen; but, inasmuch as he has
not discovered this to them, all the judgment that they can form,
at present, concerning it, is only such, as is founded on the appearance
of things, and the event might probably afterwards
shew, without any impeachment of his veracity or conduct herein,
// File: b474.png
.pn +1
that his only design was to try whether his soldiers would
obey the word of command, or not. Or if a king should order
a number of malefactors to the place of execution, without discovering
the event thereof, the apparent event is their immediate
death; but if, pursuant to his secret purpose, he resolved,
there to give forth a pardon to them, it cannot be supposed that
he changed his purpose; but the event makes it appear, that
his purpose was not then known; whatever the apparent event
might be, his real design was to humble them for their crimes,
and afterwards to pardon them.
It is only in such-like instances as these, that we apply this
distinction to the doctrine that we are maintaining; and therefore
it must be a very great stretch, of malicious insinuation,
for any one to suppose, that hereby we charge God with insincerity
in those declarations of his revealed will, by which
we pass a probable judgment concerning the event of things.
But to apply this to particular instances. God commanded
Abraham to offer up his son Isaac, Gen. xxii. 2. whereas it
is certain, unless we suppose that he altered his purpose, that
he intended, not that he should lay his hand upon him, but,
when Isaac was upon the altar, to forbid him to do it. Here
was a great and a difficult duty, which Abraham was to perform
pursuant to God’s revealed will, which was the rule of his obedience;
had Abraham known, before this, that God designed
to hold his hand, and prevent him from striking the fatal blow,
it had been no trial of his faith; for it would have been no difficult
matter for him to have done every thing else. The holy patriarch
knew well enough that God could prevent him from doing
it; but this he had no ground to conclude, because he had no
divine intimation concerning it; therefore that which appeared
to him to be the event, was the loss of his son, and he reconciled
this with the truth of the promise before given him, that in
Isaac his seed should be called, by supposing that God, at some
time or other, would raise him from the dead, as the apostle
observes, Heb. xi. 19. therefore that which Abraham concluded
as judging, not by an express revelation, but by the voice of
providence, was, that Isaac must be slain by his hand: But
this was contrary to the real event, as is evident, from the account
thereof in scripture; and, consequently since the real
event was agreeable to the divine determination, as all events
are, it follows, that there is a difference between the will of
God, determining the event of things, which shall certainly
come to pass accordingly; and the revelation of his will, relating
to what is the creatures present duty, which may, at the same
time, appear to them, when judging only by the command,
which is the rule of duty, and some circumstances that attend
it, to be contrary to what will afterwards appear to have been
// File: b475.png
.pn +1
the real design of God therein. God’s real design was to try
Abraham’s faith, and to prevent him from slaying his son, when
he had given a proof of his readiness to obey him; but this remained,
at first, a secret to Abraham, and the apparent design
was, that he should slay him. Therefore there is a foundation
for this distinction, as thus explained, concerning the secret and
revealed will of God; the former belongs not to us, nor are we
to take our measures from it, as being unknown: and, when
the latter appears contrary to it, we must distinguish between
two things, that are contrary in the same, and different respects;
or between the judgment which we pass concerning events,
which are apparent to us, and, at most, are only probable and
conjectural, as we judge of the consequence of a duty commanded;
and those events, which, though they are infallibly certain,
yet are not revealed, nor can be known, till they come to pass.
In this sense we understand the distinction between God’s
secret and revealed will, when they seem to oppose each other;
which it was necessary for us thus to explain, inasmuch as we
shall frequently have occasion to mention, and apply it, when
we account for the difference that there seems to be, between
the purpose of God, relating to the event of things, and our
present views thereof, whereby we may understand and account
for the difficulties contained in several scriptures, which I would
have mentioned in this place, for the farther illustration hereof,
had it been necessary. But this is sufficient to explain and
vindicate it from the prejudices entertained against it, by those
who are disposed to misrepresent what is said in defence of
this doctrine.
From what has been said, concerning God’s secret and revealed
will, we may infer,
1st, That it is a great boldness, and unwarrantable instance
of presumption, for any one to enter into, or judge of God’s
secret purpose, so as peremptorily to determine, beyond the
present appearance of things, that this or that shall certainly
come to pass, till he makes them known; for secret things belong
unto the Lord our God, but those things which are revealed
belong unto us, and to our children forever, Deut. xxiv. 29.
Therefore no one ought to determine that he is elected to salvation,
before the work of grace is wrought, and, some way or
other, made visible to him; or, on the other hand, to determine
that he is rejected or reprobated, when he has no other ground
to go upon, but uncertain conjecture, which would be a means
to drive him to despair: that some are, indeed, elected, and
others rejected, is no secret because God has revealed this in
his word; so that we may assert it as a proposition, undoubtedly
true, when we do not apply it to particular persons; and
therefore this doctrine has not that pernicious tendency, which
many pretend that it has.
// File: b476.png
.pn +1
2dly, The first act of saving faith does not consist in our believing
that we are elected; neither is it the duty of unregenerate
persons, as such to apply this privilege to themselves any
more than to conclude themselves rejected: But our business,
is, so long as the purpose of God remains a secret to us, to
attend on the means of grace, hoping and waiting for the display
of divine power, in effectually calling us; and afterwards
for the Spirit’s testimony, or seal, to be set to it, whereby he
discovers his own work; and then it may, in some measure, be
reckoned a branch of his revealed will and will afford us matter
of thanksgiving and praise to him, and a foundation of peace
and comfort in our own souls. But this may be farther insisted
on, when we come to consider the improvement we ought
to make of this doctrine. We proceed to consider the next
property of election.
4. It is free, and sovereign, or absolute, and unconditional;
for that which would be a reflection on the divine perfections,
if applied to God’s method of working, is, by no means, to be
said concerning his purpose to work, or, (which is the same)
his decree of election; therefore if there are no obligations laid
on him by his creatures, to display or perform any of his works
of grace, but they are all free and sovereign, then it follows,
that the fore-sight of any thing that shall be done by them, in
time, could not be the motive, or reason of his purpose, or
decree, to save them, or of his choosing them to salvation.
This may be farther argued, from the independence of the
divine nature: if his nature and perfections are independent,
his will must be so. But more particularly,
(1.) The displays of God’s grace, in time, are expressly resolved
into his sovereign pleasure, in scripture, in Rom. ix. 15.
He saith to Moses, I will have mercy on whom I will have
mercy; and I will have compassion on whom I will have compassion.
And there are many other scriptures, which might
be referred to, where all merit, or motives, taken from the
creature, which might be supposed to induce him to bestow
spiritual and saving blessings, are entirely excluded, and the
whole is resolved in to the glory of his own name, and in particular,
of those perfections which he designed herein to illustrate.
This is applied, even to the common blessings of providence;
Nevertheless, he saved them for his name’s sake, that
he might make his mighty power to be known, Psal. cvi. 8. and
it is also applied to sparing mercy, or the exercise of God’s
patience, For my name’s sake will I defer mine anger, and for
my praise will I refrain for thee, that I cut thee not off, Isa.
xlviii. 9. and to pardoning mercy, For thy name’s sake, O Lord,
pardon mine iniquity, for it is great, Psal. xxv. 11. And when
he is represented as doing great things for his people, he puts
// File: b477.png
.pn +1
them in mind, at the same time, of their own vileness and unworthiness,
that the freeness and sovereignty of his grace, to
them, might be more conspicuous: Thus, when he tells them
how he delivered Israel out of Egypt, he puts them in mind
of their idolatry in that land; therefore no motive could be
taken, from their behaviour towards him, which could induce
him to do this for them; as it is said, But they rebelled against
me, and would not hearken unto me; they did not every man
cast away the abominations of their eyes, neither did they forsake
the idols of Egypt; then I said, I will pour out my fury upon
them, to accomplish my anger against them, in the midst of the
land of Egypt. But I wrought, for my name’s sake, that it
should not be polluted before the heathen, among whom they
were, in whose sight I made myself known unto them, in bringing
them forth out of the land of Egypt, Ezek. xx. 8, 9.
(2.) If the grace of God, and consequently his purpose relating
thereunto, were not absolute, free, and sovereign, then all
the glory thereof could not be attributed to him, neither would
boasting be excluded; but as the creature might be said to be
a worker together with God, so he would lay claim to a share,
if not to the greatest part of the honour, that will redound to
him from it; which is directly contrary to the divine perfections,
and the great design of the gospel. This will farther appear,
if we consider,
1st. That a conditional purpose to bestow a benefit, cannot
take effect till the condition be performed, and accordingly it
is said to depend on it. This is obvious, from the known idea
affixed to the word condition, and the common signification
thereof; it follows therefore,
2dly. That the performance of the condition is the next, or
immediate cause of a conditional purpose’s taking effect; and,
to apply this to the case before us,
3dly. If, on our performing the condition of God’s purpose
to save us, it be rendered effectual, which otherwise it would
not have been, (agreeably to the nature of a conditional purpose)
then we are more beholden to our own conduct, than the
divine purpose, and so the glory thereof will be due to ourselves;
which would not only cast the highest dishonour on
the divine perfections, but it is contrary to the design of the
gospel, which is to stain the pride of all flesh, and take away
all occasions of glorying, from the creature. Thus the prophet
Isaiah, fore-telling the glory of the gospel-state, considers its
tendency to humble the pride of man, when he says, The loftiness
of man shall be bowed down, and the haughtiness of men
shall be made low, and the Lord alone shall be exalted in that
day, Isa. ii. 17. and the apostle, describing the nature of faith,
considers its tendency to exclude boasting; Rom. iii. 27. and
// File: b478.png
.pn +1
our Saviour, speaking concerning the discriminating grace of
God, that appears in election, either in his purpose relating to
it, or in the execution thereof, says, Ye have not chosen me, but
I have chosen you, John xv. 16. that is, you have done nothing
that has laid any obligation on me to choose you by that act of
faith, whereby you are inclined to prefer me to all others; for
this is the consequence and result of my discriminating grace.
We shall now proceed to consider those arguments, which
are generally made use of by those, who are in the other way
of thinking, to support the conditionality of God’s purpose, as
well as of his works of grace, in opposition to what has been
said concerning the freeness and sovereignty thereof. They
generally allege those scriptures for that purpose, that are laid
down in a conditional form; as when the apostle speaks of such
a confession of Christ with the mouth, as is attended with believing
in the heart, that God raised him from the dead, and
calling on the name of the Lord, as connected with salvation,
Rom. x. 9, 13. and our Saviour says, that whosoever believeth
on him should not perish, but have everlasting life, John iii. 15.
and that he that believeth shall be saved, Mark xvi. 16. and
elsewhere, Except ye repent, ye shall all likewise perish, Luke
xiii. 3. and many other scriptures of the like nature; from
whence they argue, that since the dispensations of God’s providence,
the gifts of his grace, and the execution of his purpose
are all conditional, the purpose itself must be so. Were
it but allowed that election is conditional whether it respects
the purpose or providence of God, we should meet with no opposition
from those who are on the other side of the question;
but as such a purpose to save, as is not absolute, peremptory,
or independent on the will of man, has many absurd consequences
attending it, which are derogatory to the glory of the
divine sovereignty, as has been already considered; so this cannot
be the sense of those scriptures, that are laid down in a
conditional form, as those and such-like are, that we have but
now mentioned; for no sense of scripture can be true or just,
that has the least tendency to militate against any of the divine
perfections; so that there may without any strain or violence
offered to the sense of words, be another sense put upon these,
and all other scriptures, in which we have the like mode of
speaking, whereby they may be explained, agreeably to the
analogy of faith; therefore let us consider,
1. That all such scriptures are to be understood as importing
the necessary connexion of things, so that one shall not be
brought about without the other; accordingly, repentance, faith,
and all other graces, are herein no otherwise considered, than
as inseparably connected with salvation; which depends upon
one of those propositions, which was before laid down, viz. that
// File: b479.png
.pn +1
God having chosen to the end has also chosen to the means.
We are far from denying that faith and repentance are necessary
to salvation, as God never gives one without the other,
and consequently they are inseparably connected in his eternal
purpose relating thereunto. If nothing else were intended by
a conditional purpose than this, we would not offer any thing
against it; but certainly this would be to use words without
their known or proper ideas; and the word condition, as applicable
to other things, is never to be understood in this sense.
There is a necessary connection between God’s creating the
world, and his upholding it, or between his creating an intelligent
creature, and his giving laws to him; but none ever supposed
one to be properly a condition of the other: so a king’s
determining to pardon a malefactor, is inseparably connected
with his pardoning him, and his pardon given forth, with his
having a right to his forfeited life; but it is not proper to say,
one is a condition of the other; so a person’s seeing is inseparably
connected with his opening his eyes; and speaking, with
the motion of his lips; but we do not say, when he determines
to do both of them, that one is a condition of the other. A condition,
properly speaking is that which is not only connected
with the privilege that follows upon the performance thereof,
but it must be performed by a subject acting independently on
him who made the conditional overture, or promise.
If it be said, that a duty, which we are enabled to perform
by God, who promised the blessing connected with it, is properly
a condition, we will not contend about the propriety, or
impropriety, of the word; but inasmuch as it is taken by many,
when applied to divine things, in the same sense as in matters
of a lower nature, and so used to signify the dependence of the
blessings promised, or the efficacy of the divine purpose, relating
thereunto, on our performance of the condition, which is
supposed to be in our own power, whereby we come to have a
right and title to eternal life; it is this that we principally militate
against, when we assert the absoluteness of God’s purpose.
2. Whatever ideas there may be contained in those scriptures,
which are brought to support the doctrine we are opposing,
that contain in them the nature of a condition, nothing
more is intended thereby, but that what is connected with salvation
is a condition of our claim to it, or expectation of it: In
this sense, we will not deny faith and repentance to be conditions
of salvation, inasmuch as it would be an unwarrantable
instance of presumption, for impenitent and unbelieving sinners,
to pretend that they have a right to it, or to expect the
end without the means, since these are inseparably connected
in God’s purpose, as well as in all his dispensations of grace.
This being laid down, as a general rule for our understanding
// File: b480.png
.pn +1
all those scriptures, which are usually brought to prove that
God’s purposes are sometimes conditional, we shall farther illustrate
it, by applying it to three or four other scriptures, that
are often brought in defence thereof, which we shall endeavour
to explain, consistently with the doctrine we are maintaining.
One is taken from Gen. xix. 22. where the angel bade Lot
escape to Zoar, telling him, that he could not do any thing till
he came thither. If we suppose this to have been a created angel,
as most divines do, yet he must be considered as fulfilling
the purpose of God, or acting pursuant to his commission; and
therefore it is all one, to our present argument, as though God
had told Lot, that he could do nothing till he was gone from
that place. It is plain, that he had given him to understand,
that he should be preserved from the flames of Sodom, and that,
in order thereunto, he must flee for his life; and adds, that he
could do nothing, that is, he could not destroy Sodom, consistently
with the divine purpose to save him, till he was escaped
out of the place; for God did not design to preserve him alive
(as he did the three Hebrew captives, in Daniel) in the fire, but
by his escaping from it; one was as much fore-ordained as the
other, or was designed as a means conducive to it; and therefore
the meaning of the text is, not that God’s purpose, relating
to Sodom’s destruction, was founded on Lot’s escape, as an uncertain
and dubious condition, depending on his own will, abstracted
from the divine determination relating to it; but he
designed that those two things should be connected together,
and that one should be antecedent to the other; and both of
them, as well as their respective connection, were the object of
God’s absolute and peremptory determination.
There is another scripture, sometimes brought to the same
purpose, in Gen. xxxii. 26. where the angel says to Jacob, Let
me go, for the day breaketh; and Jacob replies, I will not let
thee go, except thou bless me, which does not infer, that God’s
determinations were dependent on Jacob’s endeavour to detain
him, or his willingness to let him depart; but we must consider
Jacob as an humble, yet importunate suppliant, as it is said
elsewhere, Weeping and making supplication, Hos. xii. 4. Let
me go, says God, appearing in the form of an angel, and speaking
after the manner of men, that he might give occasion to Jacob
to express a more ardent desire of his presence and blessing,
as well as to signify how unworthy he was of it; not as
though he was undetermined before-hand what to do, but
since the grace which Jacob exercised, as well as the blessing
which he received, was God’s gift, and both were connected in
the execution of his purpose, we must conclude that the purpose
itself was free, sovereign, and unconditional.
Again, there is another scripture, in which God condescends
// File: b481.png
.pn +1
to use a mode of speaking, not much unlike to the other, in
which he says to Moses, speaking concerning Israel, in Exod.
xxxii. 10. This is a stiff-necked people; now therefore let me
alone, that my wrath may wax hot against them, and that I may
consume them; we are not to suppose that the whole event was
to turn upon Moses’s prayer, as though God’s purposing to save
his people were dependent on it; or that that grace, which inclined
him to be importunate with God, did not take its rise
from him. Moses, indeed, when first he began to plead with
God, knew not whether his prayer would be prevalent or no;
however, he addresses himself, with an uncommon degree of
importunity, for sparing mercy; and, when God says, Let me
alone, it signifies, that his people were unworthy that any one
should plead their cause; and, if God should mark iniquity,
then Moses’s intercession would be altogether in vain, and so
he might as well let him alone, in that respect, as ask for his
mercy. He does not, indeed, at first, tell him what he designed
to do, that he might aggravate their crime, but afterwards he
answers his prayer in Israel’s favour, and signifies that he
would work, not for their sakes, but for his own name’s sake;
so that he takes occasion, on the one hand, to set forth the people’s
desert of punishment; and, on the other, the freeness of
his own grace.
There is but one scripture more that I shall mention, among
many that might have been brought, and that is what is said
concerning our Saviour, in Matt. xiii. 58. that he could not do
many mighty works there, at that time, in his own country, because
of their unbelief? where he speaks either of their not
having a faith of miracles that was sometimes required, in those
for whom they were wrought: or else of the unaccountable
stupidity of that people, who were not convinced, by many
others that he had wrought before them; therefore he resolves
to put a stop to his hand, and not, for the present, to work so
many miracles amongst them, as otherways might have been
expected: If we suppose that their want of faith prevented his
working them, this is not to be considered as an unforeseen
event. And as he had determined not to confer this privilege
upon them, or to continue to work miracles amongst them, if
those, which he had already wrought, were disregarded and
despised by their unbelief, we must conclude that he had a perfect
knowledge of this before-hand, and that his determinations
were not dependent on uncertain conditions, though he had resolved
to act in such a way, as was most for his own glory;
and that there should be an inseparable connexion between that
faith, which was their duty, and his continuing to exert divine
power, as an ordinance adapted to excite it.
5. God’s purpose concerning election is unchangeable; this
// File: b482.png
.pn +1
is the result of his being infinitely perfect. Mutability is an
imperfection that belongs only to creatures: As it would be an
instance of imperfection, if there were the least change in God’s
understanding, so as to know more or less than he did from all
eternity; the same must be said with respect to his will, which
cannot admit of any new determinations. There are, indeed,
many changes in the external dispensations of his providence,
which are the result of his will, as well as the effects of his power;
yet there is not the least appearance of mutability in his
purpose. We have before considered, in speaking concerning
the immutability of the divine nature[207], that whatever may be
a reason obliging men to alter their purposes, it cannot, in the
least, take place, so that God hereby should be obliged to alter
his: No unforeseen occurrence can render it expedient for him
to change his mind, nor can any superior power oblige him to
do it; nor can any defect of power, to bring about what he had
designed, induce him to alter his purpose.
If it be objected to this, that the obstinacy of man’s will may
do it; that is to suppose his will exempted from the governing
influence of divine providence, and the contrary force, that offers
resistance, superior to it, which cannot be supposed, without
detracting from the glory of the divine perfections. It would
be a very unworthy thought for any one to conclude that God
is one day of one mind, and another day forced to be of the
contrary; how far this is a necessary consequence from that
scheme of doctrine that we are opposing, let any one judge. It
will be very hard to clear it of this entanglement, which they
are obliged to do, or else all the absurdities that they fasten on
the doctrine of election, which are far from being unanswerable,
will not be sufficient to justify their prejudices against it.
They who are on the other side of the question, are sensible
that they have one difficulty to conflict with, namely, the inconsistency
of God’s infallible knowledge of future events, with a
mutability of will relating thereunto; or how the independency
of the divine fore-knowledge is consistent with the dependence
and mutability of his will. To fence against this, some have
ventured to deny the divine prescience; but that is to split against
one rock, whilst endeavouring to avoid another. Therefore
others distinguish concerning the objects of the divine prescience,
and consider them, either as they are necessary or contingent,
and accordingly suppose that God has a certain foreknowledge
of the former; but his knowledge of the latter, (from
the nature of the things known) is uncertain, and consequently
the determination of his will is not unalterable. But this is to
set bounds to the fore-knowledge of God, with respect to its
object, and, indeed, to exclude the free actions of the creature
// File: b483.png
.pn +1
from being the objects thereof, which is a limiting and lessening
of this perfection, and is directly contrary to the idea of
omniscience; and therefore we must insist on their proving this
to be consistent with the infinite perfection of God, which they
will find it very difficult to do; and to suppose, on the other
hand, that any thing is the object of God’s certain fore-knowledge,
about which his will is no way conversant, or only so,
in such a way, as that it is subject to change, according to the
mutability of things, is altogether as indefensible, and equally
subversive of the independency, wisdom, and sovereignty
thereof.
Object. The most material objection against this doctrine, is
take from some scriptures, which seem to represent God as repenting,
and therein, as it is supposed, changing his purpose.
Thus he is sometimes said to repent, that he had bestowed some
blessings upon men, when he perceives how they have been
abused by them, and accordingly he purposes to bring evil on
them; as we read, in Gen. vi. 6, 7. It repented the Lord that
he had made man, and it grieved him at his heart; and the Lord
said, I will destroy man, whom I have created; and, at other
times he is said to repent of the evil that he designed to bring
upon them, and alter his purpose in their favour; thus it is said,
in Deut. xxxii. 36. The Lord shall judge his people, and repent
himself for his servants; when he seeth that their power is gone,
and there is none shut up, or left; and in Joel ii. 13. Rend your
hearts, and not your garments, and turn unto the Lord your
God; for he is gracious and merciful, slow to anger, and of
great kindness, and repenteth him of the evil; and in Psal. xc.
13, Return, O Lord, how long? and let it repent thee concerning
thy servants; and in Jer. xviii. 8. If that nation, against
whom I have pronounced, turn from their evil, I will repent of
the evil that I have thought to do unto them. And we have a
very remarkable instance of this, in God’s sparing Nineveh, on
their repentance, after he had threatened, by the prophet Jonah,
that within forty days they should be destroyed.
Answ. It is true, there are many scriptures, in which repentance
is ascribed to God, which, if we consider nothing else
but the grammatical sense of the words, seem to favour the objection;
but we are bound to conclude, that such a sense of repentance,
as that on which it is founded, is inconsistent with
the divine perfections, and therefore those scriptures, referred
to therein, cannot imply a change in God’s purpose. And, indeed,
there are other scriptures, which assert what is directly
contrary thereunto; as when it is said, in Numb, xxiii. 19.
God is not a man, that he should lye, neither the son of man, that
he should repent; hath he said, and shall he not do it? or hath
he spoken, and shall he not make it good? And elsewhere, in 1
// File: b484.png
.pn +1
Sam. xv. 29. it is said, The strength of Israel will not lye, nor
repent; for he is not a man that he should repent.
But we must have recourse to some methods to reconcile
this seeming contradiction, and so consider the sense thereof,
in different respects, as applicable to them both; in some scriptures,
God is said to repent; in others, it is said that he cannot
repent. That these may not appear inconsistent with one
another, nor either of them infer any imperfection in God, let
it be considered, that God is sometimes represented, in scripture,
in condescension to our common mode of speaking, as
though he had human passions, as in others, he is described,
as though he had a body, or bodily parts: But such expressions
are always to be taken in a metaphorical sense, without the
least supposition, that he is subject to any such imperfections;
and particularly we must not conclude, that repentance is ever
ascribed to God in the same sense as it is to men, viz. as implying
a change in his purpose, occasioned by an unforeseen
occurrence, which is the sense contained in the objection. Such
a repentance, as this, is a passion peculiarly belonging to the
creature, and therefore in this sense we must understand those
words; God is not a man, that he should lye, nor the son of man,
that he should repent; accordingly, he is said to repent, not by
changing his purpose, but by changing his work. Thus when
it is said, that he repented that he had made man, nothing is
meant by it, but that he determined to destroy him, as he did
afterwards by the flood. And this was no new determination
arising from any thing in the creature, which God did not foresee;
he knew before-hand that all flesh would corrupt their way,
and therefore his determination to punish them for it, was not
a new resolve of the divine will, after the sin was committed;
but God determined things in their respective order, first to
permit sin, and then knowing what would be the consequence
thereof, namely, that they would rebel against him, he determined
to punish it, or to destroy the old world, which is, in
effect, the same, as though he had repented that he made it.
He cannot be said to repent as we do, by wishing that he had
not done that which he is said to repent of, but by denying us
the advantage, which we might have otherwise expected from
it. In this sense we are to understand all those scriptures that
speak of God, as repenting of the good that he had bestowed
on man.
And, on the other hand, when he is said to repent of the evil
which he threatened to bring on men, as in the case of Nineveh,
this does not argue any change in his purpose; for he determined
that Nineveh should be destroyed, provided they did
not repent, and it was not uncertain to him whether they would
repent or no; for, at the same time, he determined to give them
// File: b485.png
.pn +1
repentance, as appears by the event, and so not to inflict the
judgment threatened; and therefore when Jonah was sent to
make a public proclamation to the people, that in forty days
they should be destroyed, it is plain that they understood the
threatening in this sense, that they had no ground to expect any
thing else, except they repented, which accordingly they did,
and so were spared, without having any reason to conclude that
God changed his purpose relating thereunto.
If it be objected hereunto, that this is nothing less than to
establish a conditional purpose in God, and so overthrows the
argument that we are maintaining; the reply that may be made
to it, is, that we distinguish between a conditional purpose, in
God’s secret will, and a conditional proposition, which was to
be the subject of the prophet’s ministry: The prophet, it is
plain, was not told, when he received his commission to go to
Nineveh, that God would give them repentance, but only, that,
without repentance, they should be destroyed; whereas God,
as the event makes it appear, determined that they should repent,
and therefore that they should not be destroyed; and, consequently,
we must not suppose, that, when God sent him, he
was undetermined, in his own purpose, whether to destroy them
or not, or that there was any thing conditional in the divine
mind, that rendered the event uncertain to God, though there
was a condition contained in the subject-matter of the prophet’s
message, which the Ninevites very well understood, namely,
that they had no ground to expect deliverance without repentance,
and therefore they repented, in hope of obtaining mercy,
which they supposed would be connected with their repentance;
and it is evident, that Jonah himself suspected that this might
be the event, though God had not told him that it would be so,
and therefore says, in chap. iv. 2. For I knew that thou art a
gracious God, and merciful, slow to anger, and of great kindness,
and repentest thee of the evil.
6. The purpose of God, in choosing men to eternal life, renders
their salvation necessary; so that nothing shall defeat, or
disannul it. What God says concerning Israel’s deliverance
from the Babylonish captivity, may be applied to all his other
determinations, and particularly to what relates to the eternal
salvation of his people; My counsel shall stand, and I will do all
my pleasure; yea, I have spoken it, I will also bring it to pass;
I have purposed it, I will also do it, Isa. xlvi. 10, 11. The purposes
of God, indeed, are distinguished from his bringing them
to pass; it is one thing to design to bring his people to glory,
and another thing to bring them to it. It is not to be supposed
that the decree of God has, in itself, a proper efficiency to produce
the thing decreed:[208] for then there would be no difference
// File: b486.png
.pn +1
between an eternal decree, and an eternal production of things;
whereas the apostle plainly distinguishes between man’s being
predestinated to glory, and brought to it, when he says, Those
whom he predestinated, them he glorified, Rom. viii. 30.
The purpose of God, is, indeed, the internal moving cause,
or the first ground and reason of the salvation of those who are
elected to it; but his power is the more immediate cause of it,
so that his purpose is the reason of his exerting this power,
and both concurring to the salvation of men, render it certain
and necessary. Therefore some distinguish, for the explaining
of this, between the determining and powerful will of God; the
latter of which, is sometimes called the word of his power, and
renders the former effectual; this it must certainly do, otherwise
God would be said to will the existence of things, that
shall never have a being. In this respect, the purpose of God
renders things necessary, which are in themselves contingent,
or arbitrary, and would otherwise never come to pass.[209]
This is a great encouragement to those who are enabled to
make their calling and election sure; for their perseverance in
grace, notwithstanding all the opposition that they meet with,
is the necessary consequence of their election to eternal life.
Thus, as we before distinguished predestination into election
and reprobation, we have considered the former of these, and
we proceed,
Secondly, To speak concerning the doctrine of reprobation;[210]
which is become obnoxious to those on the other side
of the question, almost to a proverb; so that if any doctrine is
considered as shocking, and to be answered no otherwise than
by testifying their abhorrence of it, it is compared to this of
reprobation; and, indeed, if it were not a consequence from the
doctrine of election to eternal life, that doctrine would not be
so much opposed by them. How far some unguarded expressions,
or exceptionable methods of explication, may have given
// File: b487.png
.pn +1
occasion for this prejudice, it is not to our present purpose to
enquire; but we shall take occasion, from thence, to explain it
in such a way, as that a fair and unprejudiced disputant will
not see just reason to except against it, at least to reproach it,
as though it were a doctrine subversive of the divine glory,
and to be defended by none but those who seem to have a design
to raise prejudices, in the minds of men, against religion
in general.
And here we shall take occasion to consider the meaning of
the word, as it is contained in, or deduced from scripture, where
the same word that is used to signify the execution of this decree,
may be applied to express the decree itself. Thus we read
of God’s rejecting, or disregarding men, as a punishment of
their rebellion against him: and these are compared by the
prophet Jeremiah, chap. vi. 30. To reprobate silver, because the
Lord hath rejected them; or, as it is in the margin, The refuse
of silver; and, in the New Testament, the same word[212] is sometimes
translated reprobates; at other times, disapproved or rejected,
1 Cor. iv. 27. 2 Cor. xiii. 5. Heb. vi. 8. and when this
disapprobation, or rejection, respects not only their actions, as
contrary to the holy nature of God, but their persons, as
punished for their iniquities; and when this punishment is considered
as what respects their eternal state, as the objects of
vindictive justice, the purpose of God, relating hereunto, is
what we call reprobation.
But, that we may more particularly consider the sense of the
word, it seems, in scripture, to contain in it two ideas.
1. God’s determining to leave a part of the world in that
state of sin and misery, which he from all eternity, fore-knew
that they would bring themselves into, or his decreeing not to
save them; and, since all will allow that a part of mankind
shall not be saved, it cannot reasonably be denied that this was
determined by him before-hand; and this is what divines generally
call preterition.
2. There is another idea in the word reprobation, which is
also contained in scripture, or deducible from it, and that respects
the purpose of God to punish those for their iniquities,
whom he will not save. Not to be saved, is the same as to be
punished with everlasting destruction, from the presence of the
Lord, and the glory of his power. And God’s purpose, relating
hereunto, is expressed in scripture by his appointing them to
wrath, 1 Thess. v. 9. for those sins which he fore-saw they
would commit. This is what some call pre-damnation, as taken
from that expression of the apostle, Jude, ver. 4, 13. concerning
some who had crept into the church unawares, whom he
describes as ungodly men, that is, notoriously so, who turned
// File: b488.png
.pn +1
the grace of God into lasciviousness, for whom is reserved the
blackness of darkness forever; of these he says, that they were
before of old, ordained to this condemnation, where God is represented
as punishing sinners, in proportion to their crimes;
and this is considered as the result of that eternal purpose,
which was founded on his fore-sight of their contracting that
guilt whereby they would render themselves liable to it.
If this doctrine be thus explained, it will appear agreeable,
not only to scripture, but to the divine perfections, and therefore
too great a truth to be treated with that abhorrence, with
which it generally is, without explaining, distinguishing or fairly
entering into the merits of the cause. It is a very easy matter
to render any doctrine odious, by misrepresentation, as they
on the other side of the question, have done this of reprobation,
which we shall briefly consider, and therein take leave to explain
it in a different manner, whereby it will appear not only
worthy to be defended, as redounding to the glory of God, but
a plain and evident truth, founded on scripture.
If this doctrine were to be considered no otherwise, than as
it is often represented by them, we should dislike it, as much as
they do; for when they pretend that we herein suppose God to
be severe and cruel to his creatures, delighting himself in, and
triumphing over them, in their misery: and that he decreed,
from all eternity, to damn the greatest part of mankind, without
any consideration of their sin, as the result of his arbitrary
will, or dominion, as he has a right to dispose of his creatures,
according to his pleasure, and that as a means to attain this end,
as though it were in itself desirable, he leaves them to themselves,
blinds their minds, and hardens their hearts, and offers
these occasions of, and inducements to sin, which are as stumbling-blocks
in their way, and that he determined that his providence
should be so conversant about the will of man, as that
it should be under a natural necessity, or kind of compulsion,
to what is evil, without considering the corruption and depravity
of nature, as a vicious habit, which they had contracted;
and that all this is done in pursuance of this decree of reprobation.
It is very probable that many who give this account of this
doctrine, have no other foundation for it, but the popular outcry
of those who are not apprised of the methods that are generally
taken to explain and defend it; or else they suppose that
it cannot be defended, without being exposed to those exceptions
which are contained in the account they give of it. But
we shall take no farther notice of this, but proceed to explain
and defend it another way. And,
1. As to the former branch thereof, namely, preterition, or
God’s passing by, or rejecting those whom he hath not chosen
// File: b489.png
.pn +1
to salvation, let it be premised; that God, in his eternal purpose,
considered all mankind as fallen, which must be supposed
to have been foreknown by him, otherwise he would not be said
to be omniscient, and the result of his fore-knowledge is his determining
to leave a part of them in their fallen state, in which
he might have left the whole world to perish without being liable
to the least charge of injustice. This is what we call his
rejecting them, and accordingly it is opposed to his having chosen
the rest to eternal life. These terms of opposition are plainly
contained in scripture: thus it is said, The election hath obtained
it, and the rest were blinded, Rom. xi. 7. not by God’s
leading them into mistakes, or giving them false ideas of things,
but they were left to the blindness of their minds, which was the
result of their apostasy from God; and elsewhere our Saviour
says, Thou hast hid these things from the wise and prudent, and
hast revealed them unto babes, Matt. xi. 25. Thou hast hid, that
is, not revealed them; and that either objectively, as respecting
those who are destitute of the light of the gospel; or subjectively,
as he did not effectually, or savingly enlighten them with
the light of life, by revealing Christ in them, as the apostle calls
it, Gal. i. 16. and therefore it is as though he had said, thou hast
determined not to give to some the means of grace, nor to others
the saving efficacy thereof, such as they are partakers of, who
are chosen to salvation. Accordingly, he is said to have suffered
all nations to walk in their own ways, Acts xiv. 16. that
is, not to restrain or prevent the breaking forth of corruption,
as he might have done; and elsewhere, to have winked at, chap.
xvii. 30. that is, as it may be rendered, over-looked the greatest
part of the world, which is no other than his rejecting or passing
them by; and in this sense we are to understand that difficult
mode of speaking used by the apostle, Whom he will he
hardeneth, Rom. ix. 18. by which nothing else is intended but
his purposing to leave many to the hardness of their own hearts.
God forbid that any one should think that there is a positive act
contained in those words, as though God infused hardness into
the hearts of any; for the meaning is only this, that he determined
to deny heart-softening grace to that part of mankind,
whom he had not fore-ordained to eternal life. That there was
such a purpose relating hereunto, is evident, because whatever
God does in the methods of his providence, is the result of an
eternal purpose. This no one, who observes the dispensations
of God’s providence, and allows as every one must do, that all
that he does was pre-concerted by him, can justly deny.
But that which must be farther enquired into, as to this matter,
is, whether God’s determining to pass by a part of mankind,
be an act of sovereignty or of justice. And this may also be
judged of, by the external dispensation of his providence; so
// File: b490.png
.pn +1
far as there is sovereignty, or justice, visible in them, we are
to conclude that this purpose, relating thereunto, was the result
of one or other of these perfections. In some respects it is an
act of sovereignty: As, for instance, that God should give one
nation the gospel, or the means of grace, and deny it to another;
it is not because he sees any thing in one part of the world,
that obliges him thereunto, more than in the other; but the
reason is, as was observed in the scripture but now mentioned,
because it seemed good in his sight, Matt. xi. 26. Moreover,
his giving special grace, whereby some are effectually called
and sanctified; and denying it to others, is an act of sovereign
pleasure.
But on the other hand, God is said sometimes, in the external
dispensations of his providence, to leave men to themselves,
to give them up to their own hearts lust, in a judicial way,
which supposes not only the commission of sin, but persons
being obstinate and resolutely determined to continue in it.
Thus God saith concerning his people; Israel would none of
me; so I gave them up to their own hearts’ lusts, and they walked
in their own counsels, Psal. lxxxi. 11, 12. and the Psalmist
says elsewhere, Add iniquity to their iniquity, Psal. lxix. 27.
which words I would rather consider as a prediction than a
prayer, or as an expression of the church’s acquiescence in
God’s righteous judgments, which they had ground to conclude,
that he would inflict on an impenitent, incorrigible people;
these are expressed, by adding iniquity to iniquity, not as
though he designed to infuse any habit of sin into them, for
that is inconsistent with the holiness of his nature; but that he
would reject, and leave them to themselves, in a judicial way,
as a punishment inflicted on them for their iniquities, the consequence
whereof would be their own adding iniquity to iniquity.
Thus, in different respects, the purpose of God, in passing
by a part of mankind, may be considered, either as the result
of his sovereign pleasure, or as an act of justice.
2. We shall now proceed to consider the other branch of reprobation,
which some call pre-damnation, or (to use the scripture-expression
before referred to) God’s fore-ordaining those
who shall not be saved, to that condemnation, which they shall
fall under, as exposing themselves to it by their own wickedness;
which is nothing else but his determining, from all eternity,
to punish those, as a judge, who should, by their own
crimes, deserve it, and thereby to vindicate the holiness of his
nature and law. Here let it be observed, that when this doctrine
is reproached or misrepresented, it is described as an act
of divine sovereignty, but that we are as ready to deny and oppose
as they are, since, according to the description we have
given of it, it can be no other than an act of justice; for, if to
// File: b491.png
.pn +1
condemn, or punish, be an act of justice, then the decree, relating
hereunto, must be equally so, for one is to be judged of
by the other. If God cannot punish creatures as such, but as
criminals and rebels, then he must be supposed to have considered
them as such, when, in his eternal purpose, he determined
to punish them. No man can style this an act of cruelty, or
severity in God, but those who reckon the punishing of sin to
be so, and are disposed to charge the Judge of all with not doing
right, or offering an injury to his creatures, when he pours
forth the vials of his wrath on them, who, by their bold and
wilful crimes, render themselves obnoxious thereunto.
Here let it be considered, that God, in his actual providence,
is not the author of sin, though he suffer it to be committed in
the world. And, since his permitting, or not hindering it, cannot
be said to be the cause of its being committed, there being
no cause thereof, but the will of man; it follows, from hence,
that God’s punishing sin, is not to be resolved into his permission
of it, as the cause thereof, but into the rebellion of man’s
will, as refusing to be subject to the divine law; and thus God
considered men, when, in his eternal purpose, he determined
to condemn those, whose desert of this punishment was foreseen,
by him, from all eternity. And is this a doctrine to be
so much decried?
I cannot but wonder the learned author, whom I have before
referred to, as opposing this doctrine,[213] should so far give into
the common and popular way of misrepresenting it, unless he
designed, by this way of opposing it to render it detested; when
he speaks concerning them, mentioned in Jude, ver. 4. who
were before, of old, ordained to this condemnation, he says,
“This cannot be meant of any divine ordination, or appointment
of them, to eternal condemnation, because it cannot be
thought, without horror, that God doth thus ordain men to
perdition, before they had a being.” If he had expressed his
horror and resentment against God’s ordaining men to perdition,
as creatures, it had been just; but to express this detestation
against God’s ordaining men to perdition, who are described
as these are, is to expose this doctrine without reason;
and it is still more strange that he should cast this censure upon
it, when he owns in his farther explication of this text, “That
God ordaineth none to punishment but sinners, and ungodly
men, as these persons here are styled, and that these were
men of whom it was before written, or prophesied, that they
should be condemned for their wickedness;” since there is
not much difference in the method of reasoning, between saying
that the condemnation of sinners, for their wickedness, was
before written, or prophesied, and saying, that God fore-ordained
them to eternal punishment.
// File: b492.png
.pn +1
I am sensible that many are led into this mistake, by supposing
that we give a very injurious and perverse sense of that
text, in which the doctrine of reprobation is contained, which,
it may be, has occasioned this reproach to be cast upon it. For
when the apostle says, in Rom. ix. 22. What if God willing to
shew his wrath, and to make his power known, endured with
much long-suffering, the vessels of wrath fitted to destruction,
some suppose that we understand this text, as though these
vessels of wrath were, from all eternity, prepared for destruction
by God, and that his eternal purpose, is his fitting them
for it, as intending to bring about that end, viz. his destroying
them. But if any have expressed themselves in such a way, as
is equivalent thereunto, let them be accountable for their own
sense of the text; though this I may say, that some, even of
them, who give into the Supralapsarian way of explaining the
doctrine of predestination, have not understood it in this sense;[214]
and the sense which I would give of it is this, that those, whom
the apostle speaks of as vessels of wrath, are persons whom
God had rejected, and from the foresight of the sins which
they would commit, he had appointed them to wrath, which is
an expression the apostle uses elsewhere, 1 Thess. v. 9. but
they were appointed to wrath, not as creatures, but as sinners;
they are described as fitted to destruction, not by God’s act,
but their own, and that is the reason of their being fore-ordained
to it.[215]
There is another scripture, which is generally cited by those
who treat on this subject, that we are to use the utmost caution
in explaining, lest we give just occasion, to those who oppose it,
to express their abhorrence of it, as inconsistent with the divine
perfections, namely, what the apostle says concerning those that
were not elected, whom he calls the rest of the Jewish nation,
in Rom. xi. 7-10. that they were blinded, and that God had
given them the spirit of slumber, eyes that they should not see,
and ears that they should not hear; and he speaks of their table
// File: b493.png
.pn +1
being made a snare, and a trap and a stumbling-block, and a
recompense to them; let their eyes be darkened, that they may
not see, and bow down their back always. The sense which they,
who misrepresent this doctrine, suppose that we put upon this
scripture, is, that they, who are reprobated, have, as a consequence
thereof, occasions of sin laid in their way, some things
designed to blind their minds, cast a mist before their eyes, and
so lead them out of the way, and other things, that prove a snare
to them, a trap, and occasion of sin, and all this with a design to
bring about that damnation which God had ordained for them,
in this decree of reprobation; which sense of this scripture
never was, nor could be given, by any one, who has a due regard
to the divine perfections.
And shall this doctrine be judged of hereby, when it is very
hard to find any, how unguarded soever they are in their modes
of speaking, that understand this text as they represent it? We
shall therefore consider what is probably the meaning of this
scripture, with which the doctrine we have laid down is very
consistent. It is not to be understood as though God were the
author of these sins, which they are said to be charged with;
but this blindness and stupidity, which is called, A spirit of
slumber as it is connected with the idea of their being rejected
of God, and his determining not to give them the contrary graces,
is considered, as the consequence, not the effect thereof,
and that not the immediate, but the remote consequence thereof,
in the same sense as stealing is the consequence of poverty,
in those who have a vicious inclination thereunto. Thus when
a person, who has contracted those habits of sin, that tend to
turn men aside from God, is destitute of preventing and restraining
grace, the consequence thereof, is, that these corruptions
will break forth with greater violence; and God is not
obliged to give this grace to an apostate, fallen creature, much
less to one who has misimproved the means of grace, by which
a multitude of sins might have been prevented; so that nothing
is intended hereby but this, that they are left to themselves, and
permitted to stumble and fall, and to commit those abominations,
which, if they had not been thus judicially left, would
have been prevented, and as the consequence thereof, they run
into many sins, which they might have avoided; for though we
suppose that it is not in a man’s own power, as destitute of the
grace of God, to bring himself into a regenerate or converted
state, (as will be farther considered, in its proper place) nevertheless,
we do not deny but that men might, in the right use of
the gifts of nature, avoid many sins, which they, who are said
to be thus blinded, and hardened, run into, and so increase their
guilt and misery, especially where they are not prevented by
the grace of God, which he may, without any impeachment of
// File: b494.png
.pn +1
his providence, deny to those whom he has not chosen to eternal
life, as he might, had he pleased, have denied it to the whole
world, and much more to those who have not improved the
common grace, which they received, but have, through the
wickedness of their nature, proceeded from one degree of sin
unto another.
There is another scripture, which, some suppose we understand
in such a sense, as gives the like occasion of prejudice
to many against this doctrine, in 2 Thess. ii. 11, 12. For this
cause God shall send them strong delusion, that they should believe
a lie, that they all might be damned who believed not the
truth, but had pleasure in unrighteousness; the meaning whereof
is this, that God suffered them to be deluded, who, in the
following verse, are represented as not receiving the love of the
truth; not that God was the author of these delusions, or deceived
them by a false representation of things to them, or by
exciting or inclining them to adhere to the suggestions of those
who lie in wait to deceive; but, since he did not design to give
them grace under the means of grace, or to enable them to receive
the truth in the love thereof, which he was not obliged to
do to any, much less to those who rebelled against the light
that had been already given them; hereupon, through the blindness
of their own minds, they became an easy prey to those
who endeavoured to ensnare or delude them; so that the decree
of God only respects his denying preventing grace to those,
who, through the corruption of their own nature, took occasion,
from thence, to run greater lengths in their apostasy from, and
rebellion against God. And as for that mode of speaking here
used, that God shall send them strong delusions, that only respects
his will to permit it, and not his design to delude them.
There is another scripture to the same purpose, in Psal.
lxxxi. 12. So I gave them up unto their own heart’s lust, and
they walked in their own counsels; the meaning of which is,
that God left them to themselves, and then lust, or the corrupt
habits of sin, which they had acquired, conceived, and, as the
apostle James speaks, brought forth sin, chap i. 15. or greater
acts of sin, which exposed them to a greater degree of condemnation;
and all this is to be resolved into God’s permissive
will, or purpose, to leave man, in his fallen state, to himself,
which he might do, without giving occasion to any to say,
on the one hand, that he is the author of sin; or, on the other,
that he deals injuriously with the sinful creature.
And to this we may add our Saviour’s words concerning the
Jews, in John xii. 39, 40. Therefore they could not believe, because
that Esaias said again, He hath blinded their eyes, and
hardened their heart; that they should not see with their eyes,
nor understand with their heart, and be converted, and I should
// File: b495.png
.pn +1
heal them. The sense which they, who misrepresent this doctrine,
suppose we put upon them, and conclude, that no other
is consistent with the argument we are maintaining, is, that the
unbelief, which the Jews are charged with, was principally, if
not altogether, resolved into God’s eternal purpose, to blind
their eyes, and harden their hearts, namely, by some positive
act, as a cause producing this effect, with this view, that they
should not be converted, and saved, that thereby his decree to
condemn them, might take effect. It is no wonder to find persons
prejudiced against this doctrine, when set in such a light;
but as this is very remote from the explication we have given
thereof, so our Saviour’s design, in this text, is to give an account
why those miracles, which he wrought before the Jews,
were ineffectual for their conviction; the more immediate cause
whereof was the blindness of their mind, and the hardness of
their hearts, inasmuch as they had shut their eyes against the
light, and, through the corruption of their nature, had hardened
their own hearts. As to what God is said to have done, in
a judicial way, agreeable to the mode of speaking here used,
when it is said, He hath hardened their hearts, it imports nothing
else but his leaving them to the hardness of their own
hearts, or denying them heart-softening grace, which would
have been an effectual remedy against it. And may not God
deny his grace to sinners, without being charged as the author
of sin, or the blame thereof devolved on him, and not themselves?
And, since this judicial act of providence cannot but
be the result of an eternal purpose, is there any thing, in this
decree, that reflects on his perfections, any more than there is
in the execution thereof?
There is another scripture, in Prov. xvi. 4. The Lord hath
made all things for himself; yea, even the wicked for the day of
evil; from whence they infer, that the doctrine of reprobation,
which they suppose to be founded on a perverse sense given
of it, includes in it the divine purpose to make man to damn
him; for they conclude that we understand it in that sense;
and they proceed a little farther than this, and pretend that we
infer from it, that God made men wicked, or that he made
them wicked for his glory, as if he had need of sinful man for
that end. I should never have thought that so vile a consequence
could be drawn from this doctrine, if the learned writer,
before mentioned, had not told the world that we infer this
from it;[216] and, to give countenance to this suggestion, he quotes
a passage out of Dr. Twiss;[217] his words are these: “That all,
besides the elect, God hath ordained to bring them forth into
the world in their corrupt mass, and to permit them to themselves,
// File: b496.png
.pn +1
to go on in their own ways, and so finally to persevere
in sin; and, lastly, to damn them for their sin, for the
manifestation of the glory of his justice on them.”
I am not ashamed to own my very great esteem of this excellently
learned and pious writer, who was as considerable for
that part of learning, which his works discover him to have
been conversant in, as most in his day; though I cannot think
myself obliged, in every respect, to explain this doctrine as he
does; and Dr. Whitby knew very well, that if such an inference,
as what we have been speaking of, were to be deduced
from the writings of any, who maintain the doctrine of
reprobation, it must be from one who gives into the Supralapsarian
way of explaining it; and this expression, which, it may
be, was a little unguarded, seems to bid as fair for it as any
other he could have found out: But any one that reads it,
without prejudice, and especially that compares it with what is
connected therewith, would not suppose that any thing is intended
hereby, that gives the least ground to conclude that God
made men wicked for the manifestation of his justice. The
most obnoxious part of this quotation, is, God ordained to bring
forth into the world the non-elect, in their corrupt mass, that is,
that persons, who are every day born into the world, are the
seed of corrupt and fallen man, and so have the habits of sin
propagated with their nature, which many other divines have
endeavoured to maintain. What my sentiments are concerning
this matter, I shall rather choose to insist on, under a following
answer, in which we shall be lead to speak of the doctrine
of original sin, and of that corruption of nature, which is
the consequence of it; therefore, passing this by, there is nothing,
in what remains of this quotation, but what is very defensible,
and far from making God the author of sin; for we
may observe, that all he says, concerning the providence of God
relating to this matter, is only, that he permits, or leaves them
to themselves, and he supposes them finally to persevere in sin,
without which they cannot be liable to damnation, or the display
of the justice of God therein; and if the author, who brings
this quotation, had duly considered the words immediately before,
he might have seen the reason to have saved himself the
trouble of making this reflection upon it; for Dr. Twiss, who,
though a Supralapsarian, says, “That he reckons that controversy,
relating to the order of God’s decrees, to be merely
Apex Logicus, as he calls it, a logical nicety;” and adds,
“That his opinion about it is well known, namely, that God
doth not ordain any man to damnation, before the consideration
of sin;” and, a few lines after, he says, “That God, of
his mere pleasure, created all, but, of his mere pleasure, he
damneth none; but every one that is damned, is damned for
his sin, and that wilfully committed, and contumaciously
// File: b497.png
.pn +1
continued in by them that come to ripe years.” And if nothing
more than this is intended by the doctrine of reprobation,
it ought not to be so misrepresented, with a design to cast an
odium upon it.
But to return to the scripture but now mentioned: When
God is said to have made the wicked for the day of evil, the
meaning is not that man’s damnation was the end designed by
God, in creating him, for there are some other ideas that intervene
between God’s purpose to create and condemn him; he
must be considered not barely as a creature, but as a sinner;
now, as God did not create man that he might sin, he could
not be said to create him, that he might condemn him. Accordingly,
the sense which some give of this text, is, that God is
said to have made all things for himself, to wit, for his own glory.
And inasmuch as some will be ready to object, that God
will have no glory from the wicked, who oppose his name and
interest in the world; the answer to this is, that in them, from
whom he shall have no glory, as a Saviour, he will, notwithstanding,
be glorified as a Judge; which judicial act, though it
be deferred for a time, while his long-suffering waits upon
them, yet it shall fall heavily on them, in the day of evil:
which is very remote from that supposition, that God made
man to damn him. And there is a sense given of it by some,
who are on the other side of the question, which seems equally
probable, or agreeable to the mind of the Holy Ghost, and
is not in the least subversive of the doctrine we are maintaining,
namely, “That the Lord disposeth all things throughout
the world, to serve such ends as he thinks fit to design, which
they cannot refuse to comply withal; for if any man be so
wicked as to oppose his will, he will not lose their service;
but when he brings a public calamity upon a country, employ
them to be the executioners of his wrath: Of this there was
a remarkable instance in the destruction of Jerusalem, by the
Roman soldiers, whom our Saviour used, to punish his crucifiers,
not that they undertook that war out of any design or
desire to do our blessed Saviour right, but out of an ambition
to enslave the world; yet God made use of them for another
design, as public executioners, by whom he punished the ungodly[218].”
So the Assyrian is said, in Isa. x. 5, 6. to be the
rod of God’s anger, and to be sent against the people of Israel,
and to lead them captive, and therein to tread them down, like
the mire in the streets[219]. And as to what concerns the purpose
// File: b498.png
.pn +1
of God, on which these judicial proceedings depend, this is to
be judged of by the execution thereof, as is evidently to be inferred
from thence. And this is the sense in which we understand
the doctrine of reprobation, as in the foregoing argument.
Thus we have endeavoured to prove the doctrine of election
and reprobation, and defend it from the reproaches and misrepresentations
cast upon it by considering it, not only as agreeable
to the divine perfections, but as founded on scripture. We
shall therefore proceed,
VI. To enquire, whether the contrary doctrine as defended
by some, be not derogatory to the divine perfections, and therefore
does not contain greater absurdities; or, if expressions of
detestation were a sufficient argument to set it aside, whether
we have not as much reason to testify our dislike that way, as
they have against the doctrine we are maintaining? As to that
part of the charge brought against us, as though we represented
God as severe and cruel to his creatures; or that it is inconsistent
with his goodness to suppose that he leaves any to themselves
in their fallen state, so as not to give them the means of
grace, when he knew that being destitute thereof, they could
not believe, and so would fall short of salvation, pursuant to his
eternal purpose relating thereunto: can this be said to be inconsistent
with his goodness, any more than all his other displays
of vindictive justice? If they suppose that it is, we might
easily retort the argument upon them since they will not assert,
that the whole race of fallen man shall be saved; and, if so,
must we not suppose that God certainly fore-knew this, otherwise
where is his infinite understanding? And if he knew that
this would be the consequence of their being born, and living
in the world, where is his goodness in bringing them into it?
If it be said that they have a free-will to choose what is good,
and so had a power to attain salvation; therefore their not attaining
it, is wholly owing to themselves. Suppose this were
taken for granted, without entering on that subject at present;
yet it must be farther enquired whether they will allow that
God fore-know that they would abuse this freedom of will, or
power to make themselves holy or happy; and, if so, could he
not have prevented this? Did he make a will that he could not
govern or restrain? Could he not have prevented the sin that he
knew they would commit? And, if he could, why did he not
do it, and thereby prevent their ruin, which he knew would be
the consequence hereof? So that if men are disposed to find
fault with the divine dispensation, it is no difficult matter to invent
some methods of reasoning to give umbrage to it; and,
indeed this objection is not so much against God’s fore-ordaining
what comes to pass, as it is a spurning at his judicial hand,
and finding fault with the equity of his proceedings, when he
// File: b499.png
.pn +1
takes vengeance on sinners for their iniquities; or charging
severity on God, because all mankind are not the objects of
his goodness, and consequently not elected to eternal life.
But passing by this, we shall proceed to consider how, in
several instances, the methods used to oppose the doctrine, which
we are maintaining, are attended with many absurd consequences,
derogatory to the divine perfections; which farther
discovers the unreasonableness of their opposition to it; particularly,
1. It represents God as indeterminate, or unresolved what
to do, which is the plain sense of their asserting that he has
not fore-ordained whatever comes to pass. To suppose him
destitute of any determination, is directly contrary to his wisdom
and sovereignty, and it would argue that there are some
excellencies and perfections belonging to intelligent creatures,
which are to be denied to him, who is a God of infinite perfection:
but if, on the other hand, they suppose that every thing,
which comes to pass, is determined by him; nevertheless, that
his determinations, as they respect the actions of intelligent
creatures, are not certain and peremptory, but such as may be
disannulled, or rendered ineffectual as taking his measures from
the uncertain determinations of man’s will; this is, in effect to
say, that they are not determined by God; for an uncertain determination,
or a conditional purpose, cannot properly be called
a determination. Thus for God to determine, that he that believes
shall be saved, without resolving to give that faith which
is necessary to salvation, is, in effect, not to determine that any
shall be saved; for, since they suppose that it is left to man’s
free-will to believe or not, and liberty is generally explained
by them, as implying that a person might, had he pleased, have
done the contrary to that which he is said to do freely; it follows
that all mankind might not have believed, and repented,
and consequently that they might have missed of salvation, and
then the purpose of God, relating thereunto, is the same as
though he had been indeterminate, as to that matter. But, if,
on the other hand, they suppose that to prevent this disappointment,
God over-rules the free actions of men, in order to the
accomplishment of his own purpose, then they give up their
own cause, and allow us all that we contend for; but this they
are not disposed to do; therefore we cannot see how the independency
of the divine will can be defended by them, consistently
with their method of opposing this doctrine.
Again, if it be supposed, as an expedient to fence against
this absurd consequence, that God fore-knew what his creatures
would do, and that his determinations were the result thereof,
and, consequently, that the event is as certain as the divine
fore-knowledge, this is what is not universally allowed of by
// File: b500.png
.pn +1
them; for many are sensible that it is as hard to prove, that
God fore-knew what must certainly come to pass, without inferring
the inevitable necessity of things, as it is to assert that,
he willed or determined them, whereby they are rendered
eventually necessary. And if they suppose that God fore-knew
what his creatures would do, and, particularly, that they would
convert themselves, and improve the liberty of their will, so as
to render themselves objects fit for divine grace, without supposing
that he determined to exert that power and grace, which
was necessary thereunto; this is to exclude his providence
from having a hand in the government of the world, or to assert
that his determinations rather respect what others will do, than
what he will enable them to do, which farther appears to be
inconsistent with the divine perfections.
2. There are some things, in their method of reasoning, which
seem to infer a mutability in God’s purpose which is all one as
to suppose, that he had no purpose at all relating to the event
of things: Thus, in opposing the doctrine of election, they refer
to such-like scriptures as these, namely, that God will have
all men to be saved, and come to the knowledge of the truth, 1
Tim. ii. 4. applying this act of the divine will to every individual,
even to those who shall not be saved, or come to the knowledge
of the truth; and they understand our Saviour’s words, How
often would I have gathered thy children together as a hen gathereth
her chickens under her wings, and ye would not? Behold
your house is left unto you desolate, Mat. xxiii. 37, 38. as
implying, that God purposed to save them, but was obliged afterwards,
by the perverseness of their actions, to change his
purpose. What is this, but to assert him to be dependent and
mutable?
3. They, who suppose that salvation is not to be resolved
into the power and will of God, must ascribe it to the will of
man, by which we determine ourselves to perform those duties,
which render us the objects of divine mercy; and then
what the apostle says, It is not of him that willeth, nor of him
that runneth, but of God that sheweth mercy, Rom. ix. 16. would
hardly be intelligible, or a defensible proposition; and when
it is said, We love him, because he first loved us, 1 John iv. 19.
the proposition ought to be inverted, and it should rather be
said, He loved us, because we first loved him; and that humbling
question, which the apostle proposes, Who maketh thee to
differ, 1 Cor. iv. 7. should be answered, as one proudly did,
I make myself to differ.
4. As to what concerns the doctrine of discriminating grace,
which cannot well be maintained, without asserting a discrimination
in God’s purpose relating thereunto, which is what
we call election; if this be denied, there would not be so
// File: b501.png
.pn +1
great a foundation for admiration, or thankfulness, as there
is, or for any to say, as one of Christ’s disciples did, speaking
the sense of all the rest, Lord, how is it, that thou wilt
manifest thyself unto us, and not unto the world, John xiv. 22.
Nor is there so great an inducement to humility, as what will
arise from the firm belief, that, when no eye pitied the poor
helpless and miserable sinner, he was singled out of a ruined
and undone world, among that remnant whom God first designed
for, and then brought to glory.
VII. We shall now consider those methods of reasoning, by
which the contrary doctrine is defended, and enquire into the
sense of those scriptures, which are generally brought for that
purpose; and shall endeavour to make it appear, that they may
be explained, in a different way, more consistently with the divine
perfections. It is plain that the main design of those,
who oppose the doctrine of election, is to advance the goodness
of God; and, since all mankind cannot be said to be equally
partakers of the effects of this goodness, inasmuch as all shall
not be saved, they suppose that God has put all mankind into
a salvable state; and, accordingly, as the gospel-overture is
universal, so God’s purpose to save, includes all to whom it is
made; but the event, and consequently the efficacy of the divine
purpose relating hereunto, depends on the will of man;
and, that there may be no obstruction which may hinder this
design from taking effect, God has given him a power to yield
obedience to his law, which, though it be not altogether so perfect
as it was at first, but is somewhat weakened by the fall;
yet it is sufficient to answer the end and design of the gospel,
that is to bring him to salvation if he will, and the event of
things is wholly put on this issue; so that, though there be not
an universal salvation, there is a determination in God to save
all upon this condition. How far this is inconsistent with the
divine perfections has been already considered; and we are
farther to enquire, whether there be any foundation for it in
scripture, and what is the sense of some texts, which are often
brought in defence thereof.
One text referred to, is, those words of the apostle, in 1
Tim. ii. 4. Who will have all men to be saved, and come to the
knowledge of the truth; and another scripture, to the same purpose,
in 2 Pet. iii. 9. The Lord is not willing that any should
perish, but that all should come to repentance; and several others,
from whence they argue the universality of the divine purpose
relating to the salvation of mankind, or that none are rejected,
or excluded from it, by any act of God’s will, and consequently
that the doctrine of election and reprobation is to be exploded,
as contrary hereunto.
That the sense of these scriptures cannot be, that God designed
// File: b502.png
.pn +1
that all men should be eventually saved, or come to the
knowledge of the truth, so that none of them should perish, is
evident, from many other scriptures, that speak of the destruction
of ungodly men, which, doubtless, will be allowed by all;
therefore it follows, that the meaning of these two scriptures,
is not that God purposed, or determined, what shall never come
to pass, which is inconsistent with the glory of his wisdom and
sovereignty, as has been before observed; but they are to
be understood with those limitations, which the word all, which
refers to the persons mentioned, as designed to be saved, is
subject to in other scriptures; as will be more particularly considered,
when we treat of universal and particular redemption,
under a following answer[220]. And therefore, at present, we
need only observe, that these scriptures may be set in a true
light, that the word all is oftentimes taken for all sorts of men,
or things; as when it is said, that of every thing that creepeth
upon the earth, there went in two and two unto Noah into the
ark, Gen. vii. 8, 9. that is all the species of living creatures,
not every individual; so, Acts x. 12. in the vision that Peter
saw of the sheet let down from heaven, in which there were all
manner of four-footed beasts[221], &c. and it is said concerning
our Saviour, that he went about, healing all manner of sickness,
and all manner of diseases among the people[222]; and elsewhere
God promises, that he will pour out his Spirit on all flesh, Acts
ii. 17. that is, persons of all ages and conditions, young and old.
There are many instances of the like nature in scripture,
which justify this sense of the word all; and it seems plain,
from the context, that it is to be so taken in the former of the
scriptures, but now referred to, when it is said, God will have
all men to be saved; for he exhorts, in ver. 1. that prayer and
supplication should be made for all men, that is, for men of all
characters and conditions in the world, and, in particular, for
kings, and all that are in authority, and thereby he takes occasion
to resolve a matter in dispute among them, whether those
kings that were tyrants and oppressors, ought to be prayed for,
when he tells them, that all sorts of men are to be prayed for;
and the reason of this is assigned, namely, because God will
have all men, that is, all sorts of men, to be saved.
Moreover, they whom God will save, are said to be such as
shall come, that is, as he will bring to the knowledge of the truth.
Now it is certain, that God never designed to bring every
individual to the knowledge of the truth; for, if he did,
his purpose is not fulfilled, or his providence runs counter to
// File: b503.png
.pn +1
it, for every individual of mankind have not the gospel; therefore
it follows, that since God did not purpose that all men
should come to the knowledge of the truth, the foregoing words,
Who will have all men to be saved, are not to be understood
in any other sense, but as signifying all sorts of men. Neither
can it well be proved, whatever may be attempted in order
thereto, that the following words, which speak of Christ’s being
a Mediator between God and men, intend, that he performs
this office for every individual man, even for those that shall
not be saved; for then it would be executed in vain for a great
part of them, as will be farther considered in its proper place;
therefore we must conclude, that, in the former of these scriptures,
nothing else is intended, but that God determined to
give saving grace to all sorts of men.
And as for the latter, in which the apostle Peter says, that
God is not willing that any should perish, but that all should
come to repentance; there the word all is expressly limited, in
the context, as referring only to those who are elect and faithful;
and therefore he says, including himself among them,
that the Lord is long-suffering to us-ward. Now if we observe
the character which he gives of the church, to which he writes,
in the beginning of both his epistles, (which, as he says, in ver.
1. of this chapter, were directed to the same persons) it is as
great as is given of any in scripture; and they are distinguished
from those profane scoffers, who walked after their own
lusts, and other ungodly men, whose perdition he speaks of, as
what would befal them in the dissolution of the world, by fire,
in the day of Judgment; and they are described not only as
elect unto obedience, and as having obtained like precious faith
with the apostles, but they were such as God would keep,
through faith, unto salvation; therefore the apostle might well
say, concerning them, that God determined that none of them
should perish, without advancing any thing that militates against
the doctrine we are maintaining.
Object. The apostle, in this verse, speaks of God, as willing
that all should come to repentance; therefore they are distinguished
from that part of the church, who had obtained like
precious faith, and were included in the character that he gives
of some of them, in both his epistles, which infers their being
then in a state of salvation; therefore the word, all, in this
text, is not subject to the limitation before mentioned, but must
be applied to all the world, and consequently the meaning is,
that God is not willing that any of mankind should perish, but
that all should come to repentance.
Answ. The apostle, in this text, speaks of God’s deferring
the day of judgment, and perdition of ungodly men, and so
exercising his long-suffering towards the world in general; not
// File: b504.png
.pn +1
that he designed to bring them all to repentance hereby, for
that would be to intend a thing which he knew should never
come to pass: But the end of his patience, to the world in
general, is, that all whom he designed to bring to repentance,
or who were chosen to it, as well as to obedience, and sprinkling
of the blood of Jesus, should be brought to it.
There are other arguments, which they bring in defence of
their sense of the doctrine of election, as supposing that it is
not peremptory, determinate, or unchangeable, and such as infers
the salvation of those who are the objects thereof, taken
from those scriptures, which, as they apprehend, ascribe a kind
of disappointment to God; as when he says, in Isa. v. 4. concerning
his vineyard, to wit, the church of the Jews, Wherefore,
when I looked that it should bring forth grapes, brought
it forth wild grapes? and our Saviour’s words, in Luke xiii.
6. that he sought fruit on the fig-tree, meaning the church of
the Jews in his day, but found none; and, speaking concerning
Jerusalem, he says, in Matth. xxiii. 37, 38. How often would
I have gathered thy children together, even as a hen gathereth
her chickens under her wings, and ye would not! Behold, your
house is left unto you desolate; therefore they conclude, that
God’s purpose, or design of grace, may be defeated; so that
these, and many other scriptures, not unlike to them, are inconsistent
with the doctrine of election, as ascertaining the event,
to wit, the salvation of those who are chosen to eternal life;
which leads us, particularly to consider the sense thereof.
As to the first of them, in which God says, by the prophet,
What could have been done more to my vineyard, that I have
not done in it? Wherefore, when I looked that it should bring
forth grapes, brought it forth wild grapes? He condescends
therein to speak of himself after the manner of men, as he often
does in scripture, and is said to look for what might reasonably
have been expected, as the consequence of all the
means of grace, which he had vouchsafed to them; the reasonableness
of the thing is called his looking for it, as though he
should say, it might have been expected, from the nature of
the thing, that they, who had been laid under such obligations,
should express some gratitude for them, and so have brought
forth some fruit, to the glory of God. And those words, which
seem to attribute disappointment to him, when it is said, I
looked, &c. signifying nothing else but the ingratitude of the
people, that they did not walk agreeably to the obligations they
were under; not that God was really disappointed, for that
would militate against his omniscience. He knew, before he
laid these obligations on them, what their behaviour would be;
therefore, had he eyes of flesh, or seen as man seeth, their behaviour
would have tended to disappoint him; but there is no
// File: b505.png
.pn +1
disappointment in the divine mind, though the sin reproved in
the people be the same as though it had had a tendency to defeat
the divine purpose, or disappoint his expectation.
As for that other scripture, in which it is said, that he sought
fruit on the fig-tree, but found none, that is to be explained in
the same way, he sought fruit, that is, it might reasonably
have been expected, but he found none, that is, they did not
act agreeably to the means of grace which they enjoyed.
Therefore neither this, nor the other scripture, does in the least
argue, that the purpose of God was not concerned about the
event, or that he did not know what it would be; for, as his
providential dispensation gives us ground to conclude, that he
determined to leave them to themselves, so he knew beforehand
that this, through the corruption of their nature, would
issue in their unfruitfulness, otherwise he is not omniscient.
Therefore it follows, that neither of these scriptures have the
least tendency to overthrow the doctrine of the certainty and
peremptoriness of the divine purpose.
As to what our Saviour says, relating to his willingness, to
have gathered Jerusalem, as a hen gathereth her chickens under
her wings, but they would not, it may be taken, without the
least absurdity attending the sense thereof, as referring to the
end and design of his ministry among them; and it is as though
he should say, your nation shall be broken, and you scattered,
as a punishment inflicted on you for your iniquities, and this
destruction would have been prevented, had you believed in
me; so that all that can be inferred from hence, is, that Christ’s
ministry and doctrine were attended with that convincing evidence,
being confirmed by so many undoubted miracles, that
their unbelief was not only charged on them as a crime, but
was the occasion of their ruin; or (as it is said in the following
words) of their houses being left unto them desolate. And this
might have been prevented, by their making a right improvement
of that common grace, which they had; for though it be
not in man’s power,[223] without the special influence of divine
grace, to believe to the saving of the soul; yet I know no one
who denies that it is in his power to do more good, and avoid
more evil, than he does, or so far to attend to the preaching of
the gospel, as not to oppose it with that malice and envy as
the Jews did; and, had they paid such a deference to Christ’s
ministry, as this amounted to, they would not have been exposed
to those judgments which afterwards befel them; for it
is one thing to say, that men, by improving common grace, can
attain salvation, and another thing to conclude, that they might
have escaped temporal judgments thereby.
// File: b506.png
.pn +1
Therefore, if it be enquired, what was God’s intention in
giving them the gospel? the answer is very plain: It was not
that hereby he might bring them all into a state of salvation,
for then it would have taken effect; but it was, as appears by
the event, to bring those, that should be saved among them, to
that salvation, and to let others know, whether they would hear,
or whether they would forbear, that God had a right to their
obedience, and therefore that the message which the Redeemer
brought to them, ought to have met with better entertainment
from them, than it did. And if it be farther enquired, whether,
provided they had believed, their ruin would have been prevented?
This is an undoubted consequence, from our Saviour’s
words; but yet it does not follow, from hence, that it was a
matter of uncertainty with God, whether they should believe
or no; for it is one thing to say, that he would not have punished
them, unless they rejected our Saviour; and another thing
to suppose that he could not well determine whether they
would reject him or no. So that the purpose of God must
be considered, as agreeing with the event of things, and the
design of Christ’s ministry, as being what it really was; yet he
might, notwithstanding, take occasion to charge the Jews’ destruction
upon their own obstinacy.
There are many other scriptures, which they bring to the
like purpose, which I pass over, because the sense they give of
them differs not much from that, in which they understand the
scriptures before-mentioned, and their reasoning from them, in
opposition to this doctrine is the same, and the same answer
may be given to it.
However, I cannot but observe, that as, from some scriptures,
they attribute disappointment to God, they represent
him, from others, as wishing, but in vain, that it had happened
otherwise, and as being grieved at the disappointment; so they
understand those words, in Psal. lxxxi. 13, 14. Oh! that my
people had hearkened unto me, and Israel had walked in my ways!
I should soon have subdued their enemies, and turned my hand
against their adversaries; and that, in Luke xix. 42. If, or,
Oh! that thou hadst known, even thou at least, in this thy day,
the things which belong unto thy peace! but now they are hid
from thine eyes.
As for the sense of these, and such-like scriptures, it is no
more than this, that the thing which they refused to perform,
was, in itself, most desirable, or a matter to be wished for, and
not that God can be said to wish for a thing that cannot be attained.
And when our Saviour laments over Jerusalem, as
apprehending their destruction near at hand, whether the words
are to be considered in the form of a wish, that it had been
otherwise, or an intimation, that if they had known the things
of their peace, their destruction would not have ensued, it is
// File: b507.png
.pn +1
only to be understood as a representation of the deplorableness
of their condition, which, with a tenderness of human compassion,
he could not speak of, without tears: Yet we are not to
suppose that this mode of expression is applicable to the divine
will; so that, when the misery of that people is hereby set
forth, we are not to strain the sense of words, taken from human
modes of speaking, so far, as to suppose that the judicial
acts of God, in punishing a sinful people, are not the execution
of his purpose relating thereunto.
Again, when the Spirit is said to be grieved, Eph. iv. 30. or
resisted, Acts vii. 15. nothing else is intended hereby, but that
men act in such a way, as that, had the Spirit of God been
subject to human passions, it would have been matter of grief
to him. But far be it from us to suppose that the divine nature
is liable hereunto, or that any disappointment can attend
his purposes, which has a tendency to excite this passion in
men. And when he is said to be resisted, it is not meant as
though his will, or design, could be rendered ineffectual, but it
only implies, that men oppose what the Spirit communicated by
the prophets, or in his word. This a person may do, and yet it
may be truly said, that the counsel of the Lord standeth for ever,
the thoughts of his heart to all generations, Psal. xxxiii. 11.
VIII. We shall proceed to consider several objections that
are made against the doctrine we have endeavoured to maintain,
and what reply may be given to them. Some have been occasionally
mentioned under several foregoing heads, and there
are others which require a distinct reply.
Object. 1. That the doctrine of absolute Election and Reprobation
was altogether unknown by the Fathers in the three
first centuries, and that it was first brought into the Christian
world by Augustin; before whose time, the only account we
have of it, is, that God foreknowing who would live piously,
or believe and persevere to the end, accordingly predestinated
them to eternal life, or determined to pass them by, and so is
said to have rejected them.[224]
Answ. This objection, were it literally true, cannot have any
tendency to overthrow this doctrine, in the opinion of those,
who depend not on the credit of Augustin, as defending it, on
the one hand, nor are staggered by the opposition made to it
by some of the Fathers, who lived before his time, on the other;
and therefore we might have passed it by, without making any
reply to it. However, since it contains a kind of insult, or
boast, which will have its weight with some, it may be expected
that a few things should be said, in answer to it.
We will not deny but that the Fathers, before the Pelagian
heresy was broached in the world; expressed themselves, in
many parts of their writings, in so lax and unguarded a manner
// File: b508.png
.pn +1
concerning the doctrines of predestination, free-will, and grace,
that, had they lived after those doctrines began to be publickly
contested, one would have thought that they had verged too
much towards Pelagius’s side; but, since they were not the
subject-matter of controversy in those ages, it is no wonder to
find them less cautious in their modes of expressing themselves,
than they might otherwise have been; and therefore it is a just
observation, which one[225] makes of this matter, that they had
to do with the Manichees, and some of the heathen, who supposed
that men sinned by a fatal necessity of nature, as though
there were no wicked action committed in the world, but some
would be ready to excuse it, from the impotency or propensity
of human nature to sin, which rendered it, as they supposed,
unavoidable; and others took occasion, from hence, to charge
God with being the author of sin. It is very probable the Fathers,
in those ages, were afraid of giving countenance to this
vile opinion, and therefore they were less on their guard, in
some respects, than they would have been, had they been to
encounter with Pelagius, or his followers.
And indeed, Augustin himself, before he took occasion to
enquire more diligently into the state of this controversy, gave
into the same way of expressing his sentiments about the power
of nature, or the grace of God, as some others of the Fathers
had done, and concluded that faith was in our power, as well
a duty incumbent on us, but afterwards retracted such modes
of speaking as the result of more mature deliberation.[226] But
notwithstanding though he expressed himself in a different way
from them, yet he often takes occasion, from some passages
which he purposely refers to in their writings, to vindicate them
as holding the same faith, though not always using the same
phrases. And, after he had thus defended Cyprian and Ambrose,
in that respect, he puts a very charitable construction
on their unguarded way of expressing themselves, and says,
that this arose from their not having any occasion to engage in
that controversy, which was on foot in his day.[227] The same
might be said to Gregory Nazianzen, Basil, Chrysostom, and
several others, whom some modern writers defend from the
charge of favouring the Pelagian scheme, by referring to some
places in their writings, in which they acknowledge, that the
// File: b509.png
.pn +1
salvation of men is owing to the grace of God, whereby all occasions
of glorying are taken away from the creature,[228] or expressions
used by them to the like purpose. And the learned
Vossius, though he acknowledges, that the Fathers, before Augustin,
expressed themselves in such a way, as is represented
in the objection, yet he vindicates them from the charge of
verging towards the Pelagian, or Semi-Pelagian heresy; inasmuch
as he concludes, that when they speak of God’s predestinating
men to eternal life, on the foresight of good works,
they only intend those good works, which God would enable
them to perform; and this will clear many of those expressions
which they use, from this imputation.[229] But if all these endeavours
to establish our claim to those Fathers, who lived
before Augustin, as not being opposers of this doctrine, appear
to be to no purpose, yet this will not weaken the truth
thereof; for we suppose it to be founded on scripture, and
several consequences plainly deduced from it, and therefore it
doth not want the suffrage of human testimony to support it.
But if it be said, that this is a very desirable thing as doubtless
it is, we might consider this doctrine, as obtaining very
much in, and after Augustin’s time, being examined and defended
by very considerable numbers of men, who have transmitted
it down to posterity, throughout the various ages of the
church. Notwithstanding, by whomsoever it is defended, or
opposed, we lay no great stress on human authority, as a judicious
divine well observes[230]. We shall therefore proceed to
consider some other objections, which it will be more necessary
for us to give a particular answer to.
Object. 2. To the doctrine of God’s purpose’s ascertaining
all events, it is objected that he has not determined the bounds
of the life of man, but that it may be lengthened, or shortened,
by the intervention of second causes. This is nothing else but
the applying one branch of this controversy, relating to the decrees
of God, to a particular instance. And it was very warmly
debated in the Netherlands, towards the beginning of the last
century.[231] This objection is managed in a popular way, and
is principally adapted to give prejudice to those who are disposed
to pass over, or set aside, these necessary distinctions,
which, if duly considered, would not only shorten the debate,
but set the matter in a clearer light, which we shall endeavour
to do; but shall first consider their method of reasoning on
// File: b510.png
.pn +1
this subject, and the sense they give of some scriptures, which
as they suppose, give countenance to this objection.
They therefore thus argue, that if the term of life be immoveably
fixed by God, then it is a vain thing for any one to
use those means that are necessary to preserve it, and the skill
of the physician, as well as the virtue of medicine, is altogether
needless; and the good advice which is often given to persons,
to take heed that they do not shorten their lives by intemperance,
will be to no purpose; for they have a reply ready at
hand, namely, that they shall live their appointed time, do what
they will. And that, which is still more absurd, is, that if a
person attempts to lay violent hands upon himself, it will be to
no purpose, if God has determined that he shall live longer;
or if he has determined that he shall die, then he is guilty of
no crime, for he only fulfils the divine purpose.
They add, moreover, that this not only renders all our supplications
to God to preserve our lives, or to restore us from
sickness, when we are in danger of death, needless; but our
conduct herein is a practical denial of the argument we maintain;
for what is this, but to suppose that the bounds of life
are unalterably fixed.
As to what concerns the countenance, which they suppose,
scripture gives to this objection, they refer us to those places
in which the life of man is said to be lengthened or shortened;
accordingly, there are promises of long life given to the righteous
who love God, and keep his commandments, Exod. xx. 12.
Deut. iv. 40. 1 Kings iii. 14. and Solomon says expressly, The
fear of the Lord prolongeth days; but the years of the wicked
shall be shortened, Prov. x. 27. and elsewhere he speaks of the
wicked’s dying before their time, Eccl. vii. 17. and the Psalmist
says, that bloody and deceitful men shall not live out half their
days, Psal. lv. 23.
They also refer to that scripture in which Martha tells our
Saviour, that if he had been with her brother Lazarus, before
his death, he had not died, John xi. 21. which either contradicts
the argument we are maintaining, or else Martha was
mistaken; which, had she been, our Saviour would have reproved
her, for asserting that which was false.
Moreover, they add, that when the old world was destroyed
in the deluge, and so died before their time, they might have
prolonged their lives, had they repented in that space of time,
wherein Noah as a preacher of righteousness, gave them warning
of this desolating judgment, and Christ, by his Spirit, in
him, preached to them, as the apostle says, 1 Pet. iii. 20. which,
doubtless, was with a design to bring them to repentance, and
save them from this destruction.
And when Abraham pleaded with God in the behalf of Sodom,
// File: b511.png
.pn +1
God tells him, that if he found but ten righteous persons
in the city, he would spare it for their sake, Gen. xviii. 32.
which is inconsistent with his determination, that they should
all die by an untimely death, if the bounds of their lives had
been fixed.
And lastly, they refer to that scripture, in which God first
told Hezekiah, that he should die, and not live, and afterwards,
that he would add to his days fifteen years, Isa. xxxviii. 1.
compared with 5.
Answ. To prepare our way for a reply to this objection, let
us consider that the contrary side of the question, which we
are maintaining, is equally supported by express texts of scripture:
thus it is said His days are determined, the number of his
months are with thee; thou hast appointed him bounds that he
cannot pass, Job xiv. 5. than which, nothing can be more express,
where he speaks concerning that decree of God, which
respects all mankind, without exception, and sets forth his absolute
sovereignty, and the irreversibleness of his purpose herein;
and the apostle Paul, in reasoning with the Athenians concerning
the decree and providence of God in whom we live,
move, and have our being says, that he hath determined the
times before appointed, and fixed the bounds of their habitation,
Acts xvii. 26. As he has placed men upon the earth, by his
decree and providence, so he has determined not only the place
where they should live, but the time of their continuance in
the world. This was no new doctrine; for the heathen had
been instructed in it by their own philosophers and therefore
the apostle speaks their sense, especially that of the stoicks,
about this matter.[232] When he mentions the times are determined,
it is not to be understood of the seasons of the year,
which God has fixed to return in their certain courses, but the
seasons appointed for every work, or for every occurrence of
life; and, among the rest, the time of life, and of serving our
generation therein, as Solomon expressly says, in Eccl. iii. 1, 2.
To every thing there is a season, and a time to every purpose;
a time to be born, and a time to die. Several other scriptures
might be brought to the same purpose, as a farther proof hereof,
namely, those in which God has foretold the death of particular
persons, 2 Sam. xii. 14. 1 Kings xiv. 12. chap. xxii. 28.
Moreover, if the providence of God is conversant about all
the actions of men, and the hairs of their head are all numbered,
Matt. x. 30. so that the smallest changes in life do not come
by chance, but are subject thereto; then certainly the time of
// File: b512.png
.pn +1
life must be subjected to his providence, who is styled, Our life,
and the length of our days, Deut. xxx. 20. He must therefore
certainly be considered as the sovereign Arbiter thereof, which
doctrine none that own a providence, can, with any shadow of
reason, gainsay; so that this doctrine is agreeable not only to
several scriptures, but to the very nature and perfections of
God.
This being premised we return to the arguments laid down
against it, and the scriptures cited to give countenance to them.
It is certain, that two contradictory propositions cannot be both
true in the same sense; and the scriptures, which are exactly
harmonious, as well as infallibly true, no where contradict
themselves. Therefore we must consider what answer may be
given to the objections before-mentioned; and, that our work
herein may be shortened, we may observe, that the bounds of
life are twofold; either such as men might have lived to, according
to the common course of nature if nothing had intervened
to ruin the constitution, or no disease, or violent death,
had broken the thread of life before; or that time which God
has ordained that men shall live, whether it be longer or shorter:
the former of these respects the lengthening or shortening
of life, by the influence of second causes; and, in this respect,
we do not suppose that the terms of life are immoveably fixed,
but that in some, it is longer, and, in others shorter; for it is
certain, that by intemperance, or other methods, men may
shorten their days; or, by laying violent hands on themselves,
not live the time that otherwise they would have done. But if
we consider the over-ruling, or disposing providence of God,
as conversant about this matter, there is nothing happens without
the concurrence thereof. Therefore persons, who shorten
their days by intemperance, do this by the permissive providence
of God; though he be not the author of their intemperance,
which is sinful, yet he permits, or determines not to
hinder it, and consequently though he has fixed the bounds of
life, which can neither be lengthened or shortened, yet knowing
what men will do, in a natural way, to shorten them, he determines
that this shall put an end to their lives.[233] And when
we read, in scripture, of God’s delivering him, who dies a violent
death, into his hands, who is the immediate cause of it,
Exod. xxi. 13. God is not the author of the sin of the murderer;
yet providence is not wholly to be exempted from that
action, so far as it is not sinful, but purely natural, or the effect
of power; and, when this is said to have a tendency to shorten
the life of man, it does not detract from the time that he had
// File: b513.png
.pn +1
in his own purpose affixed to it. We must also consider, that
his decree and providence respects the means, as well as the
end, which are always inseparably connected, and equally subject
thereunto.
These things being premised, we proceed more particularly
to answer the arguments brought against this doctrine. And,
1. When it is said, that God’s fixing the bounds of life, renders
all means for the preservation thereof unnecessary, that
depends upon a false supposition, namely, that God does not
ordain the means as well as the end. If God had determined
that persons shall live, he has determined to give them the supports
of life, and to prevent every thing that might tend to destroy
it; so, on the other hand, when he takes them away, by
a disease, this is ordained by him, as a means conducive thereunto.
If health is to be supported, or recovered, by means,
and thereby life preserved, God has ordained that these means
shall be used, as well as the end attained.
2. As to persons shortening their lives by intemperance, this
has a natural tendency to do it; so that, though God be not
the author of the sin, he certainly knows, before-hand, what
methods the sinner will take to hasten his end, and leaves him
to himself; so that, though the sin be not from God, the punishment,
which is the consequence thereof, may truly be said to
be from him, and therefore this was determined by him.
And when it is farther objected, that they, who destroy their
health, or lay violent hands on themselves, cannot be said to
sin in so doing, because they do that which tends to fulfil the
divine will, provided God has determined the fatal event; herein
they oppose this doctrine, without taking the words in the
same sense in which it is maintained; for it is well known, that
the will of God is sometimes taken for that prescribed rule that
he has given us, which is the matter of our duty, in which
sense we readily allow, that he that fulfils it, cannot be said to
sin. But, besides this, it is sometimes taken for his purpose to
permit sin; or, to give the sinner up to his own heart’s lusts,
to act that which he hates, and is resolved to punish. In this
sense, the sinner is said to do that which God would not have
suffered him to do, had he willed the contrary; but it is a very
groundless insinuation, to suppose that this exempts him from
the guilt of sin.
3. To say, that God’s fixing the bounds of life, is inconsistent
with our praying, that our lives may be prolonged, or that
we may be delivered from sickness, or death, when we are apprehensive
that we are drawing nigh to it, is no just consequence;
for as we do not pray that God would alter his purpose,
when we desire any blessing of him, but suppose this to be hid
from us, and expect not to know it any otherwise than by the
// File: b514.png
.pn +1
event; so a person, who prays to be delivered from sickness,
or death, is not to address the divine Majesty, as one who presumptuously,
and without ground, supposes that God has decreed
that he shall immediately die, but as one who hopes, or
who has no ground to conclude otherwise, but that he will make
it appear, by answering his prayer, that he has determined to
spare his life. For the secret purpose of God, relating to the
event of things, is no more to be a rule of duty, inasmuch as
it is secret, than if there had been no purpose relating thereunto;
but yet it does not follow from hence, that this matter is
not determined by him.
4. As to those scriptures, that seem to give countenance to
this objection, they may, without the least absurdity, be understood
consistently with other scriptures, which have been before
produced, whereby it is proved, that God has fixed, or determined
the bounds of life. As for those promises, which God
has made of a long life, to those that love him, and keep his
commandments, the meaning thereof is this, that he will certainly
bestow this blessing, either in kind or value, on those whose
conversation is such as is therein described; this none can deny,
who rightly understand the meaning of that scripture, in
which it is said, that godliness hath the promise of the life that
now is, as well as of that which is to come, 1 Tim. iv. 8. But,
so far as it affects the argument we are maintaining, we must
consider, that that efficacious grace, whereby we are enabled
to love God, and keep his commandments, is as much his gift,
and consequently the result of his purpose, as the blessing connected
with it; therefore if he has determined that we shall enjoy
a long and happy life in this world, and to enable us to live
a holy life therein; if both the end and the means are connected
together, and are equally the objects of God’s purpose,
then it cannot justly be inferred from hence, that the event, relating
to the lengthening or shortening our lives, is not determined
by him.
As for those scriptures that speak of the wicked’s dying before
their time, or not living half their days, these are to be understood
agreeably to that distinction before-mentioned, between
men’s dying sooner, than they would have done according
to the course of nature, or the concurrence of second causes
thereunto, in which sense it is literally true, that many do not
live out half their days; and their dying sooner than God had
before determined. May not the sovereign Disposer of all
things inflict a sudden and immediate death, as the punishment
of sin, without giving us reason to conclude that this was not
pre-concerted, if we may so express it, or determined beforehand?
As for that other scripture, referred to in the objection, in
which Martha tells our Saviour, that if he had been with Lazarus,
// File: b515.png
.pn +1
when sick, he had not died, she does not suppose Christ’s
being there, would have frustrated the divine purpose, for then,
he would, doubtless, have reproved her for it; whereas, in
reality, he did not come to visit him, because he knew that God
had purposed that he should die, and be afterwards raised from
the dead; so that this does not argue that he has not fixed the
bounds, or term of life.
Again, as for that argument, to support this objection, taken
from the destruction of the world in the flood, or that of Sodom,
by fire from heaven, that they might have prolonged their lives,
had they repented, we do not deny but that this would have
been the consequence thereof, but then their repentance would
have been as much determined by God, as their deliverance
from that untimely death, which befel them.
The last scripture mentioned, in which God, by the prophet
Isaiah, tells Hezekiah, that he should die, and not live; notwithstanding
which, fifteen years were added to his life, which
is very frequently insisted on, by those who deny the unalterable
decree of God, relating to life and death, as that which
they apprehend to be an unanswerable argument to support it:
to this it may be replied, that when God says, Set thine house
in order, for thou shalt die, and not live, he gave Hezekiah to
understand, that his disease was what we call mortal, namely,
such as no skill of the physician, or natural virtue of medicine,
could cure, and therefore that he must expect to die, unless
God recovered him by a miracle; and Hezekiah, doubtless,
took the warning in this sense, otherwise it would have been
a preposterous thing for him to have prayed for life, as it would
have been an affront to God, to have desired to have changed
his purpose. But God, on the other hand, designed, by this
warning, to put him upon importunate prayer for life; therefore
when he says, I will add to thy days fifteen years, the
meaning is only this, though thou mightest before have expected
death, my design in giving thee that intimation, was,
that thou shouldest pray for life, which might be given thee by
a miracle, and now I will work a miracle, and fulfil, in this respect,
what I before purposed in adding to thy life fifteen years.
Object. 3. It is farther objected, against the doctrine of election
and reprobation, and particularly the immutability of God’s
purpose therein, that it tends to establish a fatal necessity of
things, and overthrow that known distinction that there is between
things, as necessary, or contingent, as though nothing in
the whole series of causes and effects could happen otherwise
than it does, and God himself were confined to such a method
of acting, that it was impossible for him to have done the contrary;
which is nothing else but the Stoical doctrine of fate
applied to, and defended by some scriptures, though it be contrary
to others, which speak of the uncertainty of future events.
// File: b516.png
.pn +1
Thus God speaks of the Jews, turning from their iniquities,
and his bestowing pardoning mercy, as the result thereof, as
an uncertain event, when he says, in Jer. xxxvi. 3. It may be
that the house of Judah will hear all the evil, which I purpose
to do unto them, that they may return every man from his evil
way, that I may forgive their iniquity and their sin. So when
God gave the Jews a sign, immediately before the captivity,
taken from the prophet Ezekiel’s personating one that was removing
his stuff, or household-goods, as signifying, that the
nation in general should soon remove to other habitations, when
carried captive into Babylon, he adds, upon this occasion, It
may be they will consider, though they be a rebellious house,
Ezek. xii. 3. And the prophet Zephaniah exhorts the people
to seek righteousness and meekness, and, as the consequence
thereof, says, It may be ye shall be hid in the day of the Lord’s
anger, Zeph. ii. 3. And the apostle speaks of the uncertainty
of the divine dispensations of grace, when he advises Timothy,
in meekness, to instruct those that oppose themselves, if God, peradventure,
will give them repentance, to the acknowledging of
the truth, 2 Tim. ii. 25. which is directly contrary to the unalterable
necessity of events, depending upon the divine purpose,
according to the doctrine of election.
Answ. 1. As to the former part of this objection, in which
this doctrine is pretended to have taken its rise from, and to
be agreeable to, that of the Stoics, concerning fate and destiny,
it will not be much to our purpose to enquire what was the
opinion of that sect of philosophers concerning it; and, indeed,
it will be difficult to fix on a just sense thereof, in which they
all agree. Some are of opinion, that many of them intended
nothing else thereby, but the immutability of God’s purposes,
but the dispensation of his providence, being a necessary
execution thereof; and when he is said to be bound by the
laws of fate, they mean, that he cannot act contrary to what
himself has determined.[234] And, had it been universally explained
by them in this sense, it would not have done them
much service, who oppose the doctrine of election, to have
compared it therewith; for it would only have proved the
agreeableness of the doctrine of the immutability of God’s
purpose, relating to all events, to the light of nature, as some
of the heathen were thereby instructed in it. But since this
does not appear to be the sense of all the Stoicks about the
doctrine of fate, but some of them understood it in the same
sense as it is represented in the objection, this we cannot but
militate against, and assert the doctrine of election to be very
remote from it.
Therefore we need only, in answer to this part of the objection,
// File: b517.png
.pn +1
explain what we mean, when we maintain the necessity of
events, as founded on the will of God. We are far from asserting
that there is a necessary connexion between second causes,
and their respective effects, in which some are produced arbitrarily,
by the will of intelligent creatures; and when we call
any thing a necessary cause, producing effects, according to its
own nature, we suppose that this is agreeable to the order, or
course of nature, which was fixed by God. All that we pretend
to prove, is the dependence of things on the divine will,
and the necessity of God’s purposes taking effect; so that that
which is arbitrary or contingent, which might be, or not be, as
depending on, or relating to second causes, is eventually necessary,
as it is an accomplishment of the divine purpose.
Therefore we always distinguish between things being contingent,
with respect to us, and their being so, with respect to
God; and, consequently, though it may be, or peradventure,
may be applied to the apparent event of things, these words can
never be applied to the fulfilling of the divine will; and this
leads us to consider the latter part of the objection; therefore,
2. As to the scripture’s speaking concerning the uncertainty
of future events, in those places mentioned in the objection,
these, and all others of the like nature, in which such a mode
of speaking is used, may be explained, by distinguishing between
what might reasonably have been expected to be the
event of things, supposing men had not been given up to the
blindness of their mind, and hearts, to act below the dictates of
reason, without consulting their own safety and happiness, or
expressing their gratitude to God; and what would be the real
event of things, which God was not pleased to reveal, and
therefore was unknown to them. Thus, when the prophets
Jeremiah and Ezekiel represented the repentance and reformation
of Israel as an uncertain event, as well as their forgiveness,
and deliverance from the captivity, connected with it, in
such dubious terms, It may be they will consider and return,
every man from his evil way; it implies, that this was what
might have been reasonably expected by men, though it was
no matter of uncertainty to the heart-searching God, who
knoweth the end from the beginning, and perfectly foresees
what will be the event of things, which, in various respects,
are under the direction of his providence. Though it could
hardly be thought, by men, that such an admonition should be
treated with such contempt, yet God knew how they would
behave themselves; there was no peradventure with respect to
his judgment thereof; he knew that they would not repent,
otherwise he would have inclined their wills, and effectually
have persuaded them to exercise this grace, and thereby have
prevented his expectation, or determination, from being disappointed,
or frustrated.
// File: b518.png
.pn +1
If it be objected, that, according to this sense of the text, the
prophet’s message to the people would have been to no purpose,
and his ministry, among them, exercised in vain; or that it
was contrary to the wisdom and goodness of God to make this
overture to them, when he knew it would not be complied
with.
To this it may be replied, that the great God is not bound
to decline the asserting his right to man’s obedience, or requiring
that which is a just debt to him, though he knew that they
would not comply with his demand thereof; and, indeed, this
objection cannot be maintained, without supposing, that, when
the gospel is preached to man, the glory of the divine wisdom
and goodness therein cannot be secured, unless we conclude
either that God doth not know whether man will embrace it,
or no, which is contrary to his omniscience; or that he determines,
that all, to whom the gospel is preached, shall embrace
it, which is contrary to matter of fact. But there may be a
medium between both these, which vindicates the divine perfections,
in ordering that the gospel should be preached, and
thereby asserting his sovereignty, and unalienable right to their
obedience; accordingly, there might be a small remnant among
them, in whom God designed that this message should take
effect. And will any one say, that because the goodness of God
was not herein demonstrated to all, that therefore no glory was
brought to that perfection?
And if it be farther said, that supposing there were some
who turned from their evil ways, the captivity, which was
threatened, was not hereby prevented, and therefore the promise,
relating thereunto, did not take place; to this it may be
replied; that as God did not give them ground to expect this
blessing, unless this repentance should be more universal, than
it really was, so he had various ways to testify his regard to
those who should receive advantage by this message, for whose
sake it was principally intended.
As for that other scripture, in which God advises his people
to seek righteousness and meekness, and, as the consequence
hereof, says, it may be ye may be hid in the day of the Lord’s
fierce anger; the meaning is, that they, who were enabled to
exercise these graces, should either have some instances of
temporal deliverance vouchsafed to them; or if not, that they
should have no reason to complain that the exercise thereof
was altogether in vain.
As for that scripture, in which the apostle bids Timothy to
exhort those that oppose the gospel, if, peradventure, God would
give them repentance to the acknowledging of the truth; the
meaning is, that it was uncertain to Timothy whether God
would give this grace or no; and therefore he must preach the
// File: b519.png
.pn +1
gospel, whatever were the event thereof: Nevertheless, it was
no matter of uncertainty, with respect to God, who must be
supposed to know what grace he designs to bestow, and therefore
the event of things may be dubious to us, and yet be certain
with respect to him.
Object. 4. Another objection, against the doctrine of election
and reprobation, is, that it is altogether inconsistent with the
preaching of the gospel; for if God has determined the final
state of man, so that his purpose cannot be altered, then it is a
preposterous thing, not to say illusory, for grace to be offered
to the chief of sinners, which must certainly argue, that it is
impossible to be attained by them; and, since the overture is
universal, we must conclude that God has put all mankind into
a salvable state, and consequently not excluded any from salvation
by his peremptory and unchangeable decree. To what
purpose are the promises of the gospel held forth, to all that
sit under the sound thereof, if it be impossible for them to attain
the blessings promised therein? Or what regard could men
be supposed to have to the promises, if they were not a declaration
of God’s purpose? And, on the other hand, the threatnings
denounced would be as little regarded, as an expedient
to deter men from sinning, if their state were unalterably fixed
by God, according to this doctrine of election, as it has been
before considered.
Answ. That we may proceed with greater clearness in answering
this objection, we shall first shew what we mean by
preaching the gospel, which is nothing else but a declaration of
God’s revealed will, and our duty pursuant thereunto, which
is to be made known, particularly what is contained in the
word of God, relating to the salvation of men, and the way
which he has ordained in order to their attaining it. Therefore,
1. When this salvation is said to be offered in the gospel, we
intend nothing else thereby, but that a declaration is made to
sinners, that there are many invaluable privileges which Christ
has purchased for, and will, in his own time and way, apply to
all those whom God has purposed to save; and, since we cannot
describe them by name, and no unregenerate person has
ground to conclude that he is of that number, therefore there
is a farther declaration to be made, namely, that God has inseparably
connected this salvation, which he has chosen them
to, with faith and repentance, and the exercise of all other graces,
which, as they are God’s gift, and to be prayed for, and
expected, in a diligent attendance on all his ordinances; so they
are to be considered as the mark and evidences of their being
chosen to salvation, without which, it is certainly a vain and
presumptuous thing for any one to pretend that he has a right
to it, as the object of God’s eternal election.
// File: b520.png
.pn +1
2. No one, who preaches the gospel, has any warrant from
God to tell any individual person that whether he repents and
believes, or no, he shall be saved; or, to direct his discourse
to him, as one that is chosen thereunto, much less to give the
impenitent sinner occasion to conclude, that, though he obstinately,
and finally, remain in a state of rebellion against God,
notwithstanding he may hope to be saved, because there is a
number of mankind chosen to salvation; for this is not to declare
God’s revealed will, but that which is directly contrary to
it, and therefore not to preach the gospel. Therefore,
3. All, who sit under the sound of the gospel, ought to look
upon it as a declaration of God’s design to save a part of mankind,
under the preaching thereof, and among them the chief
of sinners, which they have a sufficient ground to conclude
themselves to be; but yet a door of hope is so far opened hereby,
that they have no reason to conclude that they are rejected,
any more than that they are elected; and, while they wait on
God’s instituted means of grace, they have, at least, this encouragement,
that, peradventure, they may be of the number of
God’s elect; and, when they find in themselves that faith,
which is the evidence thereof, then they may determine their
interest in, and lay claim to this privilege, when they are enabled
to make their calling, and thereby their election sure.
And as for the promises and threatnings, these are to be considered
by unregenerate persons, without determining their
right to the one, or falling under the other, as elected or rejected;
for that is still supposed to be a secret; therefore they
are to regard the promise, as a declaration of God’s purpose,
relating to the connexion that there is between faith and salvation,
as an inducement to perform the one, in expectation of
the other. And as for the threatnings, though they determine
the present state of impenitent sinners to be such, in which they
are undone and miserable, yet they are not to be extended to
those events, which are hid in the purpose of God, so as to
give any one ground to conclude that he is thereby finally excluded
from salvation, since such an exclusion as this is inseparably
connected with final impenitency and unbelief.
Object. 5. It is farther objected, that this doctrine is, in many
instances subversive of practical religion. And,
1. That it is inconsistent with the duty of prayer; for if God
has determined to save a person, what need has he to ask a
blessing, which is already granted? and, if he has determined
to reject him, his prayer will be in vain.
2. It is farther supposed, that it leads to presumption, on the
one hand, or despair, on the other; election, to presumption;
reprobation, to despair. And,
3. They add, that it leads to licentiousness, as it is inconsistent
// File: b521.png
.pn +1
with our using endeavours that we may be saved: for
to what purpose is it for persons to strive to enter in at the
strait gate, when all their endeavours will be ineffectual, if they
are not elected? or to what purpose is it for persons to use any
endeavours to escape the wrath of God, due to sin, if they are
appointed to wrath, and so must necessarily perish?
Answ. This objection is, beyond measure, shocking; and it
is no wonder, that a doctrine, that is supposed to have such
consequences attending it, is treated with the utmost degree of
detestation: but as the greatest part of the objections against it,
are no other than misrepresentations thereof, so it is no difficult
matter to reply to them, to the conviction of those who are disposed
to judge impartially of the matter in controversy between
us. We shall therefore proceed to reply to the several branches
of this objection. And,
1. As to what concerns the duty of prayer; when we are
engaged in it, we are not to suppose that we are to deal with
God, in such a way, as when we have to do with men, whom
we suppose to be undetermined, and that they are to be moved,
by intreaties, to alter their present resolutions, and to give us
what we ask for; for that is to conceive of him as altogether
such an one as ourselves; accordingly, we are not to conclude,
that he has not determined to grant the thing that we are to
pray to him for; for that would be presumptuously to enter into
his secret purpose, since he has no where told us we shall be
denied the blessings we want; but rather that there is forgiveness
with him, and mercy for the chief of sinners, as an encouragement
to this duty; and, besides this, has given us farther
ground to hope for a gracious answer of prayer, where he
gives a heart to seek him. Therefore we are to behave ourselves,
in this duty, as those who pretend not to know God’s
secret purpose, but rather desire to wait for some gracious intimation
or token for good, that he will hear and answer our
prayer; therefore his secret purpose is no more inconsistent
with this duty, than if, with those that deny the doctrine we are
maintaining, we should conclude that this matter is not determined
by him.
2. As to this doctrine’s leading to presumption, or despair,
there is no ground to conclude that it has a tendency to either
of them. It cannot lead to presumption, inasmuch as election
is not discovered to any one till he believes; therefore an unconverted
person has no ground to presume and conclude, that
all is well with him, because he is elected; for that is boldly to
determine a thing that he knows nothing of; the objection
therefore, with respect to such, supposes that to be known, which
remains a secret. And, on the other hand, they have no ground
to despair, on a supposition that they are finally rejected; for
// File: b522.png
.pn +1
it is one thing to be the object of the decree of reprobation,
which no one can, or ought to determine, concerning himself,
so long as he is in this world, much more if we consider him
as enjoying the means of grace, and a door of hope is open to
him therein; and God has pleased to declare, in the gospel,
that he will receive sinners that repent and believe in him, how
unworthy soever they are; therefore such are not to conclude
that their state is desperate, though it be exceeding dangerous,
but to wait for the efficacy of the means of grace, and those
blessings that accompany salvation.
And as for those that are in a converted state, this doctrine
is far from having a tendency, either to lead them to presumption,
or despair; but, on the other hand, to thankfulness to God,
for his discriminating grace, which, when persons experience,
they are not only encouraged to hope for farther blessings, but
to perform those duties whereby they may express their gratitude
to him. As for presumption, which is the only thing that
election is pretended to lead them to, that cannot be the natural
consequence or tendency thereof; for if they presume that
they shall be saved, this is not to be reckoned a crime in them;
for that presumption which is supposed to be so in the objection
consists in a person’s expecting a blessing without reason;
but this is contrary to the supposition that he is a believer; and
it would be a strange method of reasoning to infer, that he,
who has ground to conclude that he has a right to eternal life,
from those marks and evidences of grace, which he finds in
himself, is guilty of a sinful presumption, when he is induced
hereby to lay claim to it; and therefore the sense of the objection,
must be this, that a believer having been once enabled to
conclude himself elected, may, from hence, take occasion, supposing
that his work is done, and his end answered, to return
to his former wicked life, and yet still presume that he shall be
saved; whereas that would be a certain indication that he had
no ground to conclude this, but was mistaken, when he thought
that he had; so that this doctrine cannot lead a believer, as
such, to presumption, and consequently the objection, in which
it is supposed that it does, is founded on one of these two mistakes,
viz. that every one, who is elected to salvation, knows
his interest in this privilege, as though it were immediately revealed
to him, without inferring it from any marks and evidences
of grace that he finds in himself; or else, that it is impossible
for any one, who thinks that he believes, and, from thence,
concludes that he is elected, to appear afterwards to have been
mistaken in the judgment, which he then passed upon himself;
but either of these contain a misrepresentation of the consequences
of the doctrine of election; neither is there any regard had
to that necessary distinction that there is, between a person’s
// File: b523.png
.pn +1
being chosen to eternal life, and his being able to determine
himself to be interested in this privilege; and it is contrary to
what we have before considered, that whenever God chooses
to the end, he chooses to the means, which are inseparably connected
with it, which is the only rule whereby we are warranted,
when applying it to ourselves, to conclude that we shall be
saved.
3. It cannot, in the least, be proved that this doctrine has
any tendency to lead persons to licentiousness; nor is it inconsistent
with our using the utmost endeavours to attain salvation.
If it be said, that many vile persons take occasion, from hence,
to give the reins to their corruption; that is not the natural, or
necessary consequence thereof; since there is no truth but what
may be abused. The apostle Paul did not think the doctrine
of the grace of God, which he so strenuously maintained, was
less true, Or glorious, because some drew this vile consequence
from it, Let us continue in sin, that grace may abound, Rom. vi. 1.
And as for those means, which God has ordained to bring
about the salvation of his people, we are obliged to attend upon
them, though we know not, before-hand, what will certainly be
the event thereof; and if through the blessing of God accompanying
them, we are effectually called and sanctified, and thereby
enabled to know our election, this will (agreeably to the experience
of all true believers,) have a tendency to promote holiness.
Object. 6. It is farther objected, that more especially against
the doctrine of reprobation, that it argues God to be the
author of sin; and particularly in such instances as these, viz.
with respect to the first entrance of sin into the world, and in
God’s imputing the sin of our first parents to all their posterity,
and afterwards suffering it to make such a progress as it has done
ever since; and, most of all, when it is supposed that this is not
only the result of the divine purpose, but that it also respects
the blinding men’s minds, and hardening their hearts, and so
rendering their final impenitency and perdition unavoidable.
Answ. To this it may be answered,
1. As to what concerns the first entrance of sin into the
world, it cannot reasonably be denied, that the purpose of God
was concerned about it, before it was committed, in the same
sense as his actual providence was afterwards, namely, in permitting,
though not effecting it; notwithstanding this was not
the cause of the committing it, since a bare permission has no
positive efficiency in order thereunto; the not hindering, or restraining
a wicked action, does not render him the author of it.
It is true, God knew how man would behave, and particularly,
that he would mis-improve and forfeit that original righteousness,
in which he was created, and that, by this means, he
// File: b524.png
.pn +1
would contract that guilt, which was the consequence thereof,
and thereby render himself liable to his just displeasure; to
deny this, would be to deny that he foreknew that, from eternity,
which he knew in time. And, so far as the actual providence
of God was conversant about what was natural therein,
so far his purpose determined that it should be; but neither
does this argue him to be the author of sin. But this will be
farther considered, when we speak concerning the actual providence
of God under a following answer.[235]
2. As to that part of the objection, which respects the imputing
the sin of our first parents to all their posterity, that is
more frequently brought against this doctrine than any other;
and it is generally represented in the most indefensible terms,
without making any abatements as to the degree of punishment
that was due to it; and, accordingly, they think that we can
hardly have the front to affirm, that our arguments, in defence
hereof, are agreeable to the divine perfections, as we pretend
those others are, which have been brought in defence of this
doctrine. But, I hope, we shall be able to maintain the doctrine
of original sin, in consistency with the divine perfections,
as well as scripture, in its proper place, to which we shall refer
it.[236] Therefore all that I shall add, at present, is, that if the
doctrine of original sin be so explained, as that it does not render
God the author of sin, his purpose relating thereunto,
which must be supposed, in all respects, to correspond with it,
does not argue him to be the author of it.
3. As to the progress of sin in the world, and the proneness
of all mankind to rebel against God; this, as before was observed,
concerning sin in general, is the object of his permissive,
but not his effective will; though there is this difference
between God’s suffering sin to enter into the world at first, and
his suffering the continuance, or increase of it therein, that, at
first, he dealt with man as an innocent creature, and only left
him to the mutability of his own will, having before given him
a power to retain his integrity. But the fallen creature is become
weak, and unable to do any thing that is good in all its
circumstances, and afterwards is more and more inclined to
sin, by contracting vicious habits, and persisting therein. Now,
though God’s leaving man to himself at first, when there was
no forfeiture made of his preventing grace, must be reckoned
an act of mere sovereignty, his leaving sinners to themselves
may be reckoned an act of justice, as a punishment of sin before
committed, and neither of these argue him to be the author
of it; neither does the purpose of God, relating thereunto,
give the least occasion for such an inference.
// File: b525.png
.pn +1
Again, we must distinguish between the occasion and the
cause of sin. God’s providential dispensations, though unexceptionably
holy and righteous, are often-times the occasion
thereof: thus his afflictive hand sometimes occasions the corruptions
of men to break forth, in repining at, and quarrelling
with his providence; and his giving outward blessings to one,
which he withholds from another, gives occasion, to some, to
complain of the injustice of his dealings with them; and the
strictness, and holiness of his law, and gives occasion, to corrupt
nature to discover itself in the blackest colours; the apostle
plainly evinces this truth, when he says, Sin taking occasion
by the commandment, wrought in me all manner of concupiscence,
Rom. vii. 8. and, indeed, there is nothing in the whole
compass of providence, or in the methods of the divine government
therein, but what may be, and often is, an occasion of sin,
in wicked men. But certainly it is not the cause of it; even as
the clemency of a prince may occasion a rebellion among his
subjects; but it is the vile ingratitude, and wickedness of their
nature, that is the spring and cause thereof; so the providence,
and consequently the purpose of God, which is executed thereby,
may be the occasion of sin, and yet the charge brought in
this objection, as though God hereby was argued to be the author
of sin, is altogether groundless.
4. As to what is farther objected, relating to the purpose of
God, to blind the minds, and harden the hearts of men, and
that final impenitency, which is the consequence thereof, God
forbid that we should assert that this is a positive act in him;
and, so far as it contains nothing else but his determining to
deny that grace, which would have had the contrary effect, or
his providence relating thereunto, this does not give any countenance
to the objection, or weaken the force of the arguments
that we have before laid down, which is very consistent therewith.
Object. 7. There is another objection, which is generally laid
down in so moving a way, that, whether the argument be just
or no, the style is adapted to affect the minds of men with prejudice
against this doctrine, and that is taken from the inconsistency
thereof with God’s judicial proceedings against the
wicked in the day of judgment, and that it will afford the sinner
a plea, in which he may say to this effect: Lord, I sinned
by a fatal necessity; it was impossible for me to avoid that
which thou art now offended with me for; it was what thou
didst decree should come to pass. I have been told, that thy
decrees are unalterable, and that it is as impossible to change
the course of nature, or to remove the mountains, which thou
hast fixed with thy hand, as to alter thy purpose; wilt thou then
condemn one, who sinned and fell pursuant to thy will? Dost
// File: b526.png
.pn +1
thou will that men should sin and perish, and then lay the blame
at their door, as though they were culpable for doing what thou
hast determined should be done?
Answ. This objection supposes that the decree of God lays
a necessary constraint on, and enforces the will of man to sin;
which, if they could make it appear that it does, no reply could
be made to it. But this is to represent the argument we are
maintaining in such a way, in which no one, who has just ideas
of this doctrine, would ever understand it, and it is directly
contrary to the foregoing method of explaining it. We have
already proved, in our answer to the third objection, that sin
is not necessary in that sense, in which they suppose it to be,
or that, though the decree of God renders events necessary,
yet it does not take away the efficiency of second causes, and
therefore the purpose of God, relating thereunto, is not to be
pleaded, as an excuse for it, or as a ground of exemption from
punishment. We read of the Jews, that, with wicked hands,
they crucified our Saviour; the crime was their own; but this
is expressly said to have been done by, or, in pursuance of,
the determinate counsel and fore-knowledge of God, Acts ii. 23.
He fore-knew what they would do, and purposed not to prevent
it; but yet he did not force their will to commit it. And
elsewhere God says, concerning Israel, Thou heardest not; yea,
thou knewest not; from that time thine ear was not opened; and
then he adds, I knew that thou wouldest deal very treacherously,
Isa. xlviii. 8. Israel might as well have pleaded, that God
knew, before-hand, how they would behave themselves, and so
have thrown the blame on him, for not preventing this foreseen
event, but suffering them to go on in this destructive way,
with as much reason, as the sinner is supposed, in the objection,
to have, when taking occasion so to plead, as he is represented,
as having ground to do, in the day of judgment, as a
consequence from the doctrine we are maintaining.
Again, whatever has been said concerning the immutability
of the divine purpose, yet this does not give the least countenance
to any one’s charging his sin on God; as we have, in
answer to the last objection, proved that it does not render him
the author of sin; and therefore man’s destruction must lie at
his own door. It is one thing to say, that it is in the sinner’s
power to save himself, and another thing to say, that the sin
he commits is not wilful, and therefore that guilt is not contracted
thereby; and, if so, then this affords no matter of excuse
to the sinner, according to the import of the objection.
IX. We are now to consider some things that may be inferred
from the doctrine we have been insisting on, and how it
is to be practically improved by us, to the glory of God, and
our spiritual advantage. And,
// File: b527.png
.pn +1
1. From the methods taken to oppose and decry it, by misrepresentations,
which contain little less than blasphemy, we
infer, that however unjust consequences deduced from a doctrine
may be an hindrance to its obtaining in the world; yet
this method of opposition will not render it less true, or defensible;
nor ought it to prejudice the minds of men against
the sacred writings, or religion in general. We cannot but observe,
that while several scriptures are produced in defence of
this doctrine and others in opposition to it, and the utmost
cautions have not been used to reconcile the sense given thereof
with the natural ideas which we have of the divine perfections;
and many, in defending one side of the question have
made use of unguarded expressions, or called that a scripture-doctrine
which is remote from it; and others, in opposition
hereunto, have, with too much assurance, charged the defenders
thereof with those consequences, which are neither avowed by
them, nor justly deduced from their method of reasoning; the
unthinking and irreligious part of mankind have taken occasion,
from hence, with the Deists, to set themselves against revealed
religion, or to give way to scepticism, as though there were
nothing certain, or defensible, in religion; and take occasion
to make it the subject of satire and ridicule. But, passing this
by, though it is a matter very much to be lamented we will consider
this doctrine as rendered less exceptionable, or more justly
represented; and, accordingly,
2. We may infer from it, that as it is agreeable to the divine
perfections, so it has the greatest tendency to promote
practical godliness. For,
(1.) Since God has fore-ordained whatever comes to pass;
this should lead us to an humble submission to his will, in all
the dispensations of his providence. When we consider that
nothing, in this respect comes by chance; this should have a
tendency to quiet our minds, and silence all our murmuring and
uneasy thoughts, whatever afflictions we are exposed to. We
are too apt to complain sometimes of second causes, as though
all our miseries took their rise from thence; and, at other times,
to afflict ourselves beyond measure, as apprehending that those
proper means have not been used, which might have prevented
them; as Martha tells our Saviour, If thou hadst been here,
my brother had not died, John xi. 21. whereas we ought rather
to consider, that all this befalls us in pursuance of God’s purpose:
had he designed to have prevented the affliction, he
would have directed to other means conducive to that end, or
would have attended those that have been used, with their desired
success. We use the means as not knowing what are the
secret purposes of God, with respect to the event of things;
// File: b528.png
.pn +1
but, when this is made known to us, it should teach us to acquiesce
in, and be entirely resigned to the divine will.
(2.) When we cannot see the reason, or understand the
meaning of the dispensations of divine providence, and are not
able to pass a judgment concerning future events, whether relating
unto ourselves, or others; and, when all things look with
a very dismal aspect, as to what concerns the interest and
church of God in the world, we must be content to wait till he
is pleased to discover them to us; what he oftentimes does, we
know not now, but shall know hereafter, as our Saviour said to
one of his disciples, John xiii. 7. It is no wonder that we are
at a loss, as to God’s purposes, since secret things belong to
him; and therefore all that we are to do, in such a case, is, to
rest satisfied, that all these things shall, in the end, appear to
have a tendency to advance his own perfections, and bring
about the salvation of his people.
(3.) Since the purpose of God respects the means, as well
as the end, this should put us upon the use of those proper
means, in which we may hope to obtain grace and glory; and
therefore this doctrine does not lead us to sloth, and indifference
in religion; for that is to suppose, that the ends and means are
separated in God’s purpose: and when, through his blessing
attending them, the ordinances, or means of grace, are made
effectual for the working of faith, and all other graces, these
being connected, in God’s purpose, with glory, it ought to encourage
our hope relating to the end of faith, even the salvation
of our souls.
(4.) Let us take heed that we do not peremptorily, without
ground conclude ourselves elected unto eternal life, on the one
hand, or rejected on the other. To determine that we are chosen
to salvation, before we are effectually called, is presumptuously
to enter into God’s secret counsels, which we cannot,
at present, have a certain and determinate knowledge of; but
to lay this as a foundation, as to what concerns the conduct of
our lives, is oftentimes of a very pernicious tendency. If, as
the result of this conclusion made, we take encouragement to
go on in sin, this will cut the sinews of all religion, and expose
us to blindness of mind, and hardness of heart, and a greater
degree of impenitency and unbelief, as the consequence of this
bold presumption and affront to the divine Majesty.
Neither, on the other hand, are we to conclude that we are
not elected; for though we may be in suspense about the event
of things, and not know whether we are elected or rejected,
this is not inconsistent with our using endeavours to attain a
good hope, through grace; yet to determine that we are not
elected, is to conclude, against ourselves that all endeavours
will be to no purpose; which we have no ground to do, since
// File: b529.png
.pn +1
it is one thing to conclude that we are in a state of unregeneracy,
and another thing to determine that we are not elected.
The consequence of our concluding that we are in an unconverted
state, ought to be our praying, waiting, and hoping for
the efficacy of divine grace, which extends itself to the chief of
sinners, as a relief against despair, though such can have no
ground to say, they are elected; therefore the safest way, and
that which is most conducive to the ends of religion, is to be
firmly persuaded, that though the final state of man be certainly
determined by God, yet this is to be no rule for an unregenerate
person to take his measures from, any more than if it
were a matter of uncertainty, and, in all respects, undetermined
by him.
(5.) Let us, according to the apostle’s advice, Give diligence
to make our calling and election sure, 2 Pet. i. 10. It is certainly
a very great privilege for us, not barely to know, that some
were chosen to eternal life, but to be able to conclude that we
are of that happy number; and, in order hereunto, we must
not expect to have an extraordinary revelation thereof, or to
find ourselves described by name in scripture, as though this
were the way to attain it; for the rule by which we are to judge
of this matter, is, our enquiring whether we have those marks,
or evidences thereof, which are contained therein; and therefore
we are, by a diligent and impartial self-examination, to
endeavour to know whether we are called, or enabled, to perform
the obedience of faith, which God is said to elect his people
to; or whether we are holy, and without blame, before him
in love? whether we have the temper and disposition of the
children of God, as an evidence of our being chosen to the adoption
of children, and as such, are conformed to the image of
Christ?
(6.) If we have ground to conclude that we are chosen to
eternal life, this ought to be improved to the glory of God, and
our own spiritual advantage; it ought to put us upon admiring
and adoring the riches of discriminating grace, which is herein
eminently illustrated; and such are under the highest obligation
to walk humbly with God, as well as thankfully; for it is
owing to his grace, not only that they are chosen to eternal life,
but that they are enabled to discern their interest in this privilege.[237]
.fn 183
“Certainly, it is not to be understood, in a literal or strict sense, that He
does, all that is done. ‘Far be it from God,’ says Elihu, ‘that he should do
wickedness: and from the Almighty, that he should commit iniquity.’ Doing
wickedness, and committing iniquity, are synonymous phrases: but to impute to
the Most High, any thing like what is commonly meant by either of these phrases,
is evident blasphemy.
“Nor are we to imagine, certainly, that God makes his creatures do, whatever is
done by them, in any such manner as is inconsistent with their own proper agency.
Rational creatures certainly act; and act as freely, as if there were no being
above them to direct their steps, or to govern their actions. When God works
in men, to will and to do that which is good; they, nevertheless will and do it
themselves; and are really praise-worthy. And he does not, surely, so influence
any to evil, as to render them unactive, involuntary, or undeserving of blame.
“Nor do I believe it true, literally and strictly speaking, that God creates, whatsoever
comes to pass; particularly darkness, and moral evil.
“But this must not be taken for granted, nor hastily passed over: because,
however indisputable, it is disputed. There are some among us, and some who
are deservedly in reputation for wisdom, and general soundness in the faith; who
appear to be of opinion, that God is the direct Author—the immediate Cause—the
proper Creator, of all evil, as well as of all good—of all sin, as well as holiness,
in heart and life—in thought, word, and deed.
“This opinion, however, notwithstanding my high esteem and particular friendship
for some of the holders of it, I am not yet ready to adopt, for several reasons.
“1. To suppose that the actions of men, whether virtuous or vicious, are created,
seems to confound all distinction between creation and Providence; or rather,
wholly to exclude the latter.
“The work of creation, we used to think, was God’s making creatures and
things, at first; or giving the beginning of existence to matter and minds, with
their various properties, instincts and organizations. And that God’s works of
Providence, were his preserving things already made, and governing all their
operations. But according to this new philosophy, creation is all; Providence
is nothing. For what preserving and governing of creatures or actions can there
be, when every creature and every action, is every moment created anew? An
action, a thought, or volition, whether good or evil, is a new and strange kind of
creature, or created thing. But, in a theological view, the question before us is
of chief importance, as it respects moral evil. I add, therefore;
“2. It appears to me, that to suppose God the Creator of sin, whether in principle
or action, is hardly reconcilable with his perfect holiness. ‘Doth a fountain
send forth, at the same place, sweet waters and bitter?’ Can darkness proceed
from Him, as its proper source, in whom there is no darkness at all?
“It is true, God has created many things which are of a different nature from
himself; as the bodies of men and beasts, and all parts of the world of matter:
but nothing, I conceive, directly opposite to his own nature; as is sin. The sun
is the immediate cause of the growth of vegetables; though these are essentially
different from the sun itself: but it is not thus the cause of ice and darkness;
which are no more of a contrary nature to it, than sin is to the nature of God.[184]
“I am sensible it has been said, there is no more inconsistency with the holiness
of God, in supposing him the efficient, immediate cause of sin, for necessary good
purposes; than in supposing he only permits it, for wise ends, and so orders things
that he knows it will be committed.
“But these two ways of accounting for the existence of moral evil, appear to me
materially different. There are supposable cases in which it would be right for
a man, not to hinder another from sinning, when he could hinder him; and also
to place him in circumstances of temptation, expecting that he would sin. For
instance, a parent may leave money in the way of a child suspected of being given
to theft; and may conceal himself and let the child steal it; with a view to correct
him, in order to reclaim him, or as a warning to his other children. All this
might be perfectly right in the parent; however certainly he might know, that
the child would be guilty of the expected crime. But I question whether any
case can be supposed in which it would not be wrong, directly to influence another
to do evil, that good might come. Exciting one to sin by power or persuasion;
and placing one in circumstances of trial, wherein he would be tempted to
sin, without restraining him from it, are surely different things, although the certainty
of his sinning may be the same.
“3. I dare not think that God creates sin, and all kinds of evil, because this seems
plainly contrary to the general current of the holy scriptures.
“In the first chapter of Genesis, it is said, ‘God saw every thing that he had
made, and, behold, it was very good.’ Of his making two great lights, we are
told; and that he made the stars also: but no account is there given of his creating
darkness. Respecting our own species, the inspired historian particularly
informs us, that ‘God created man in his own image: in the image of God created
he him: male and female created he them.’ Nor do we find in that book, or
in all the Bible, that he hath since ever created them otherwise. Solomon three
thousand years after the fall, having made diligent search among men and women,
to find out their true character, and the cause of their so universal depravity,
says; ‘Lo, this only have I found, that God made man upright; but they
have sought out many inventions.’ Wicked practices, and deceitful inventions
to conceal their criminality, are ever ascribed in scripture to mankind themselves,
or to other fallen creatures, and never to God, as their efficient cause.
“In the New-Testament, christians are said to be ‘created unto good works:’
and we read of ‘the new man, which after God, is created in righteousness and
true holiness’. But no where do we read of any one that was created unto evil
works; or after Satan in unrighteousness and sin. It is written, 1 Cor. xiv. 33,
‘God is not the author of confusion, but of peace.’ And James i. 13-17, ‘Let
no man say, when he is tempted, I am tempted of God: for God cannot be tempted
with evil, neither tempteth he any man: but every man is tempted when he
is led away of his own lust and enticed.—Do not err, my beloved brethren. Every
good gift and every perfect gift is from above, and cometh down from the Father
of lights.’ Can any thing be more express to teach us, that a distinction
ought carefully to be made between the origin of good and evil; and that we
should not conceive them both alike to come from God?
“For scripture proof that God is not the efficient author of sin, I will only add,
that the fruits of the Spirit, and works of the flesh, are set in contrast and spoken
of as diametrical opposites: whereas, did God create sinful propensities in men,
or directly influence them to evil actions, the works of the flesh would be as real
and immediate fruits of the divine Spirit, as the holiest exercises of the best saints.
“4. I see no occasion for the supposition of God’s being thus the author of all
evil: nor any good ends that it can answer.
“Could it be seen how evils might be accounted for, without supposing them
any part of the creation of God; and how God might have an absolute dominion
over all events, without being the immediate cause of bad things; no good man,
I conclude, would wish to conceive of Him as being thus the proper source of
darkness and evil. And indeed, were it so, that our weak minds were unable to
comprehend how God can work all things after the counsel of his own will, or
how natural and moral evil could ever have been, without believing that God is
as much, and as immediately, the cause of evil as of good; yet it might be more
modest, and more wise, to leave these among other incomprehensibles, than to
have recourse to so bold an hypothesis for the solution of them. But, I apprehend,
there is no need of this hypothesis in order to account for the existence of
evil, or in order to an understanding belief of the universal government of the
Most High.
“Evils, of most if not all kinds, are such negative things—such mere defects, in
their origin at least, as do not need creation, or require a positive omnipotent
cause. This is the case, evidently, with respect to natural darkness: it is only
the want of light. This is the case, also, with respect to natural death: it is only
the cessation, the loss, the want of life. And this may be the case, with respect
to spiritual darkness, and spiritual death. It has heretofore been the orthodox
opinion, that all moral evil consists radically in privation; or, that unholiness,
at bottom, is the mere want of holiness. And, notwithstanding all the
floods of light, from various quarters, which have come into the world in this age
of new discoveries, possibly this one old opinion may yet be true. ‘God made
man upright.’ That is, He formed him with a disposition impartially just and
good: He created in him a principle of universal righteousness. When man fell,
by eating the forbidding fruit, this principle had not been preserved in perfect
strength and exercise. In consequence of that disobedience, the divine internal
influence was so withdrawn, that this principle was entirely lost. But we are
not told, nor need it be supposed, that any opposite principle was then created in
him. Our first parents had, I believe, in their original formation, all the radical
instincts of nature which they had after the fall; or which any of their posterity
now have. Such as a principle of self-preservation, a desire of self-promotion,
and a propensity to increase and multiply; together with all the more particular
appetites and passions, subservient to these purposes. All these are innocent
in themselves, though not in themselves virtuous. But these private instincts,
when left to operate alone, without the governing influence of a public spirit, or
a just regard for other beings, will naturally lead to all manner of iniquity, in
heart and life. To avarice and ambition; to envy and malice; to intemperance
and lewdness; to frauds and oppressions; to wars and fightings.
“There is no need of supposing any other divine agency, than only to uphold
in existence creatures that have lost their virtue, amidst surrounding temptations,
in order to account for all the evil affections which we ever feel, and for
all the external wickedness that is ever committed. Nor, in order to the holiest
creatures losing their virtue, need any thing more be supposed on God’s
part, than only his leaving them to themselves; or not upholding in them, and
constantly invigorating, a virtuous disposition.
“And as, in this way, we can account for the existence of all manner of evil;
so we can thus understand how it is possible for God to bring about whatsoever
comes to pass, without his being the actor, or maker, or instigator, of any
thing that is not perfectly good. When He does not cause light, there will be
darkness. When He does not make peace, there will be evil. The darkness
takes place according to his appointment, with the same exactness and certainty,
as if He actually created it; and so does evil of every kind. What He determines
to permit, knowing perfectly the circumstances and dispositions of every
agent concerned, will as infallibly come to pass, as what he determines to do
himself, or to effect by his own positive influence. The king’s heart, and the
rivers of water; the waves of the sea, and the tumults of the people, are in the
hand of the Lord, to all important intents and purposes, if it be only true that
He restrains them, or lets them run; stilleth them, or suffereth them to rage,
just as he sees fit.
“In this sense, I conceive, it is to be understood, that God forms the light, and
creates darkness; makes peace, and creates evil. He has the absolute government—the
perfect control—the entire superintendency, of all these things.
“When any folly has been committed or any mischief has been done, some are
ready to say, It was so ordered; as if therefore nobody was to be blamed. But
this is a false inference, from just premises. True, it was so ordered of God;
and ordered righteously and wisely: but it was so ordered by the doer of the
mischief also; and ordered carelessly, perhaps, or wickedly. You will say, It
must have been so, and the actor could not have done otherwise: but, I say, he
might have done otherwise, if he would. It is true, there is a kind of necessity
in the actions of men. They necessarily act according to their own choice; and
they necessarily choose to act according to their own disposition. Under this
kind of necessity God himself acts. It is impossible for him to do, because it is
impossible for him to will that which is contrary to his own nature. He necessarily
wills and does, what is agreeable to his moral perfections. But such a
necessity as this, is so far from being inconsistent with freedom, that it is essential
to all free agency. Actions which can and do take place, contrary to the
inclination of the agent, are not his actions. He has no command over them;
and therefore can deserve no praise or blame for them.
“The necessity of acting according to our own minds, is all the necessity which
need be supposed, when we suppose that all our actions were decreed, and are
ordered of God. A creature that acts according to any laws of nature, and not
at perfect random, without any self-government, acts in such a manner that He
who knows what is in him, may fore-know all his actions; and in such a manner
that He in whose hand his times are, may govern all his volitions. Men follow
their several courses, as freely as the rivers of water, and with a higher kind of
freedom; yet, since they run agreeably to their own inclination, and cannot do
otherwise, a Being omniscient and omnipotent, can calculate before hand all
their motions; can keep them in the channels decreed for them, and can turn
them whithersoever he will. If any do not comprehend this, yet let them not
think they so fully comprehend the contrary, as to feel certain, that either man
cannot be free, or God cannot govern the world. Certainly the providential
government of God, over the hearts and ways of men, though most absolute, is
not such but that, if they do well, they are praise-worthy; and if they do not
well, the sin lieth at their own door.
“Neither let it be imagined that the criminality of a bad action is taken away,
or at all extenuated, because it will be over-ruled for good. Actions are good or
evil, according to the nature of them, and the intention of the agent, and not according
to undesigned consequences. When we act wickedly, and with a wicked
mind, its being productive of happy effects, alters nothing in regard to our
blame-worthiness. In the divine decrees, and in the divine providence, ‘Whatever
is, is right:’ but in the conduct of creatures, many things that are, are not
at all the less wrong. God’s governing all things, so as to make them subserve
his wise and holy designs, should not lead us to think any more favourably of
our own, or of our neighbour’s foolish and sinful actions.”
Smalley’s Sermons.
.fn-
.fn 184
“There is a vast difference between the sun’s being the cause of the lightsomeness and
warmth of the atmosphere, and of the brightness of gold and diamonds, by its presence and
positive influence; and its being the occasion of darkness and frost in the night, by its motion
whereby it descends below the horizon. The motion of the sun is the occasion of the latter kind
of events; but not the proper cause, efficient, or producer of them.—No more is any action of
the divine Being, the cause of the evil of men’s wills. If the sun were the proper cause of cold
and darkness, it would be the fountain of these things, as it is the fountain of light and heat: and
then something might be argued from the nature of cold and darkness, to a likeness of nature in
the sun; and it might be justly inferred that the sun itself is dark and cold: but from its being
the cause of these, no otherwise than by its absence, no such thing can be inferred, but the contrary.
It may justly be argued that the sun is a bright and hot body, if cold and darkness
are found to be the consequence of its withdrawment; and the more constantly and necessarily
these effects are connected with and confined to its absence, the more strongly does it argue the
sun to be the fountain of light and heat. So, in as much as sin is not the fruit of any positive influence
of the Most High, but on the contrary, arises from the withdrawment of his action and
energy, and under certain circumstances, necessarily follows on the want of his influence, this is
no argument that he is sinful, or his operation evil; but on the contrary, that he and his agency
are altogether holy, and that he is the fountain of all holiness. It would be strange arguing indeed,
because men never commit sin, but only when God leaves them to themselves; and necessarily
sin when he does so, that therefore their sin is not from themselves, but from God: as
strange as it would be to argue, because it is always dark when the sun is gone, and never dark
when he is present, that therefore darkness is from the sun, and that his disk and beams must be
black.”
Edwards on the Will.
Page 259. Boston Ed. 1754.
.fn-
.fn 185
Dr. Whitby, in his discourse of election, &c.
.fn-
.fn 186
See his discourse concerning election, page 36. 37. &c.
.fn-
.fn 187
See the contrary opinion defended by Whitby in loc.
.fn-
.fn 188
See Whitby’s discourse, &c. page 40, & seq.
.fn-
.fn 189
See Twiss. Vind. Grat. & de Prædest. and his riches of God’s love, against
Hord; and also that part of the writings of some others, in which they treat of predestination,
viz. Beza, Gomarus, Piscator, Maccovius, Rutherford, Whitaker, and
Perkins.
.fn-
.fn 190
Among these were bishop Davenant, and other divines, who met in the synod
of Dort; also Calvin, P. Du Moulin, Turrettin, and, indeed, the greater number
of those who have defended the doctrine of predestination; and there are many others,
who, when they treat of it, seem to wave the particular matter in controversy,
as thinking it of no great importance or that this doctrine may be as well defended,
without confining themselves to certain modes of speaking, which have been the
ground of many prejudices against it, whose prudence and conduct herein cannot be
justly blamed.
.fn-
.fn 191
Ου μονον εξ Ιουδαιων. non solum ex Judæis; that is, those who are called from
among the Jews, as distinguished from the rest of them that were rejected.
.fn-
.fn 192
זגקבצו
.fn-
.fn 193
See Questions lxvii, lxviii, lxxii, lxxv, lxxvi.
.fn-
.fn 194
ειναι ἡμας ἁγιους.
.fn-
.fn 195
See Prov. viii. 23.
.fn-
.fn 196
ειναι.
.fn-
.fn 197
Vid. Grot. in loc.
.fn-
.fn 198
Τεταγμενοι.
.fn-
.fn 199
Vid. Whitby in loc.
.fn-
.fn 200
Vid. Beza in loc.
.fn-
.fn 201
The principal text that Dr. Whitby refers to, as justifying his sense of the
word, is in Acts xx. 13. We went to Assos, there intending to take in Paul, for
so had he appointed, minding himself to go afoot; the words are, ουτω γαρ ην
διατεταγμενος μελλων αυτος πεζευειν; which he understands as though the meaning
was, that the apostle was disposed, in his own mind, to go afoot; but that sense is
not agreeable to the scope of the text, for the meaning of it seems to be this: That
it was determined, ordered, or preconcerted by them, before they set sail; that Paul
should be taken in at Assos, since he was to go there afoot; so that this makes nothing
to that author’s purpose, but rather to the sense that we have given of the
word.
.fn-
.fn 202
See Grot. in loc.
.fn-
.fn 203
See Dr. Whitby in loc.
.fn-
.fn 204
See Quest. xliv, lxviii.
.fn-
.fn 205
See Dr. Goodwin, vol. 2. of election.
.fn-
.fn 206
προεθετο.
.fn-
.fn 207
See page #137#.
.fn-
.fn 208
This is what is meant by that axiom, used by the school-men, Decretum Dei,
nihil ponit in esse.
.fn-
.fn 209
Thus the school-men distinguish between necessitas consequentis, and consequentiæ;
so that that, which is not in itself necessary, is rendered eventually so, as
the consequence of God’s purpose, that it shall be.
.fn-
.fn 210
“There is no necessity for supposing a predestination to death, in the
same sense as unto life, that is to the means and the consequent end: For the
occurrence of sin may be satisfactorily accounted for on other principles; though
without pretending to the removal of every difficulty in a subject the entire comprehension
of which is probably unsuited to our present state and faculties.”[211]
Smith’s Letters to Belsham.
.fn-
.fn 211
It is acknowledged that this view of the subject is different from that which most Calvinistic
writers have given. Yet several eminent divines have laid down the fundamental principles,
at least, of this sentiment, and have opened the way to it: particularly Augustine, Theophilus
Gale, and a class of German Theologians who may be termed the school of Leibnitz. A short
time ago an attempt was made to excite the attention of thinking men to his doctrine, by a Sermon
on the Divine glory, displayed by the Permission of Sin. But, since the publication of that
pamphlet, the subject has been more ably and fully treated by my reverend tutor, the Rev. Dr.
Williams, in his Discourse on Predestination to Life, published very lately.
.fn-
.fn 212
αδοκιμοι.
.fn-
.fn 213
See Whitby’s Paraphrase, &c. on Jude, ver. 4.
.fn-
.fn 214
Thus Beza in loc. calls them vessels, because, as creatures, they are the workmanship
of God, the great potter, but vessels prepared for destruction by themselves,
and therefore adds, Exitii veras causas minime negem in ipsis vasis hærere juxta
illud perditio, tua ex te est.
.fn-
.fn 215
It ought to be observed, that the word, here used, is κατηρτισμενα εις απωλειαν,
and not προκατηρτισμενα; nor is there any thing added to the word, that signifies, that
this preparation thereunto was antecedent to their being; or as though it took its rise
from God, as the cause of that sin for which he designed to punish them; whereas,
on the other hand when the apostle in the following verse, speaks of God’s making
known the riches of his glory on the vessels of mercy, to wit, the elect, they are
described as those whom he had afore prepared unto glory, ἁ προητοιμασεν εις δοξαν.
What should be the reason that the apostle alters the phrase, but that we may hereby
be led to consider, that when God chose the elect to glory they are considered in his
purpose as those whom he designed, by his grace, to make meet for it! So that the
vessels of wrath are considered as fitting themselves for destruction; the vessels of
mercy, as persons whom God would first prepare for, and then bring to glory.
.fn-
.fn 216
See Whitby’s Discourse, &c. page 10.
.fn-
.fn 217
See his Riches of God’s love, against Hord. Part II. page 50.
.fn-
.fn 218
See Bishop Patrick in loc.
.fn-
.fn 219
This agrees with the sense given of it by
Grot. in loc. and Whitby in his discourse, &c. page 11. and it agrees very well with
the sense of the Hebrew words, פעל למענרה which does not so much signify to make,
as to dispose, and adapt one thing to another, which the lxx. render, φυλασσεται ὁ
ασεβης, &c. the wicked is reserved to the day of evil.
.fn-
.fn 220
See Quest. xliv.
.fn-
.fn 221
The words are, παντα τετραποδα, that is, all four-footed beasts.
.fn-
.fn 222
Matt. iv. 23. The words are, θεραπευων πασαν νοσον και πασαν μαλακιαν, every
sickness, and every disease; and so the same words are translated, in Matt. ix. 35.
.fn-
.fn 223
It is improper to say we have no power, when we can do the thing if we
will; and criminal to take the glory, which is God’s.
.fn-
.fn 224
See Whitby of Election, Chap. 5. Limborch. Amic. Collat. page 242.
.fn-
.fn 225
Vid. Sixt Senens. Bibliothec. Lib. V. Annotat 101. Annotavit quidam Chrytostomum
interdum naturæ nostræ vires plus æquo extulisse ex contentione disceptandi
cum Manichæis & Gentilibus, qui hominem asserebant, vel natura malum vel
fati violentia ad peccandum compelli.
.fn-
.fn 226
Vid. Aug. Retrac. I. Cap. 25.
.fn-
.fn 227
Vid. Aug. de Prædest. Sanet. Cap. 14. Quid igitur opus est, ut eorum scrutemur
opuscula, qui prius quam ista hæresis oriretur, non habuerunt necessitatem in
hac difficili ad solvendum quæstione versari: quod proculdubio facerent, si respondere
talibus cogerentur.
.fn-
.fn 228
Vid. Forbes. Instruct. Historico-Theol. Lib. VIII. Cap. 28. § 16, &c. & Joh. Jacobi
Hottingeri, Fata Doctrinæ de Prædestinat. Lib. I. § 35, &c.
.fn-
.fn 229
Vid. G. J. Vossii Hist. Pelag. Lib. VI. Thes. 8, 9, 10.
.fn-
.fn 230
Vid. Calv. Instit. Lib. III. Cap. 22. § 1. Certior est hic Dei veritas, quam ut
concutiatur, clarior quam ut obruatur hominum authoritate.
.fn-
.fn 231
See the epistles that passed between Berevov, a physician at Dort, and several
divines at that time, in Lib. de Term vitæ.
.fn-
.fn 232
Seneca de Consol. ad Marciam, cap. 20. Nemo nimis cito moritur, qui victurus
diutius quam vixit non fuit, fixus est cuique terminus, manebit semper ubi positus
est, nec illum ulterius diligentia aut gratia promovebit. Et Cicero de Senect. Quod
cuique temporis ad vivendum datum, eo debet contentus esse. Virg. Æn. X. Stat
sua cuique dies. Serv. Fixum est tempus vitæ.
.fn-
.fn 233
Evil as well as good actions are links in the chain of providence, and yet
do not impeach Divine holiness.
.fn-
.fn 234
Vid. Senac. de Prov. cap. 5. August, de Civ. Dei, Lib. V. cap. 1, & 8. Lips
Phys. Stoic. Lib. J. Diss. 12.
.fn-
.fn 235
See Quest. XVIII.
.fn-
.fn 236
See Quest. XXI, XXII.
.fn-
.fn 237
When we contend for this doctrine as a truth, it should be viewed in
connexion with its real importance. These two objects are extremely different
in things natural, civil, and religious. There are many things true in history, in
philosophy, in politics, and even in theology, which no sober person deems important.
There are other things hypothetically important, whether actually true
or not. And of this kind is the subject before us. Such is the nature, the connexion,
and consequences of it, that if it be true, it cannot fail of being of the
first importance.
But how are we more particularly to estimate the importance of this subject?
By the influence which the admission or the denial of it has on the very foundations
of religion. For instance, if it be NOT true, either man himself or mere
chance has the principal share in effecting our actual salvation, and investing us
with eternal glory. Some indeed are so lost to modesty and self-knowledge, and
so unacquainted with the leading truths of christianity, that they do not scruple
to ascribe the eventual difference in our future state, whether good or bad, to
man himself, but attended with some verbal, unmeaning compliment to divine
mercy. Such persons should first learn the rudiments of christianity, before they
have a right to expect any deference shewn to their opinions. On the other hand,
if this BE true, its utility is plain; it will hide pride from man; it will exclude
chance from having any share in our deliverance; it will exalt the grace of God;
it will render salvation a certain, and not a precarious thing; and, in a word, it
will secure to them who have the Spirit of Christ the greatest consolation.
This was the view which our episcopal reformers had of the doctrine, both as
to its truth, and the importance of it. ‘Predestination to life’ say they, ‘is the
everlasting purpose of God, whereby, before the foundations of the world were
laid, he hath constantly decreed by his counsel, secret to us, to deliver from
curse and damnation those whom he hath chosen in Christ out of mankind, and
to bring them by Christ to everlasting salvation, as vessels made to honour.—The
godly consideration of Predestination and our election in Christ is full of
sweet, pleasant, and unspeakable comfort to godly persons, and such as feel in
themselves the working of the Spirit of Christ mortifying the works of the flesh,
and their earthly members, and drawing up their minds to high and heavenly
things; as well because it doth greatly establish and confirm their faith of eternal
salvation, to be enjoyed through Christ, as because it doth fervently kindle
their love towards God.’—Another observation I would make is,
2. That it is highly proper, in order to investigate the present subject with
success, to keep it perfectly distinct, and free from all impure mixtures. This is
what some of our early reformers, and many of the modern defenders of this doctrine
have not done. For want of this, many bitter enemies have opposed it. Dr.
Whitby, for instance, and most who have written on the same side of the question
since his time, place predestination to death, or reprobation to misery, as
the very foundation of Calvinism, and inseparable from predestination to life. But
so far is predestination to death from being true, that nothing can be more untrue.
It is but an arbitrary assumption; a foreign, impure mixture, having no
foundation either in the real meaning of holy writ, or in the nature of things; except
indeed we mean by it, what no one questions, a determination to punish the
guilty.[238]
But is not one man’s misery as certain as another man’s happiness? Yes;
equally certain. What then; must they therefore be equally predestinated? No.
But how can a thing be certain, if it be not predestinated? Have a little patience
and I will tell you. The previous question is, Does God predestinate to sin as
the means, and to death or misery as the end, in the same way as he predestinates
to holiness as the means, and eternal glory as the end? This we deny, as
it would be infinitely unworthy of God, making him the author of sin, or doing
evil that good may come. Some indeed have distinguished between being the
author or the cause of sin, and being a sinner. But the distinction itself is not
solid, nor could it fully satisfy those who have made it in clearing the divine
character.[239]
In fact, sin and holiness are not only different, but opposite effects, and their
causes equally opposite; but as God is the sole cause, the sole exclusive cause
of holiness, the creature, in some way, must be the sole and exclusive cause of
sin. If you ask how? I reply, by exercising his liberty, which is a mere natural
instrument, on himself, rather than on God. But how came he to do that? By
his passive power. What is passive power? In general, it is that which distinguishes
the creature from the Creator. But more particularly, it is that tendency
to nothing as to being, and to defection as to well being, which is essential to
every created existence. If every creature have, and must of necessity have this
passive power, you will ask, how came the holy angels, and the spirits of the
just, not to sin? The answer is, because divine grace upholds them. These
things duly considered, though briefly stated, will shew, that as God is not the
author of sin, so neither has he predestinated sin. He is the author and cause of
good only. He is the author of our liberty; but that in itself is not evil. And he
is the author of our nature as limited; that also of itself is no moral evil. But
when our liberty unites with this limited nature, or terminates on passive power,
when this latter is not controuled by grace, their offspring is imperfect, or sinfulness
attaches to our moral acts.
Hence you may learn, that sin and future misery are events perfectly certain,
though not predestinated. It has been often assumed, but without propriety or
truth, that an event is foreknown only because it is decreed. In reality all good
is foreknown, because it is decreed; for there is no other ground of its existence.
But sin, as before shewn, has another ground of existence, namely, passive power,
which can no more be an object of divine predestination or decree than its perfect
opposite, the all-sufficiency of Jehovah. Yet, observe attentively, this has
its proper nature, and God sees all things, and all essences, in their proper nature.
What! Does not God foreknow the sinfulness of any event in its deficient
cause, as well as the goodness of another in that which is efficient? Beside, passive
power in union with liberty is an adequate, a fully adequate ground of sin
and death; and therefore to introduce a predestination of sin and death, is to ascribe
to God what is equally impious and needless.[240]—Let us, therefore, keep this
doctrine free from all impure mixtures, and now proceed to a
3rd Observation, that is, When the end is maintained to be infallibly certain,
the means to promote that end are included. Thus you may suppose a chain suspended
from a great height, and to the lowest link a weight is fixed, which is
borne by it. You do not suppose that this link is unconnected with the next, and
so on till you come to the highest. Every one of the links is equally necessary
with that which is next the weight; and the whole is connected with something
else which is stronger than the weight, including that of the chain also, however
long and heavy.
Thus also in the cultivation of our land, though it is decreed that on such a
field there shall be this very season a crop of wheat, this was not independent of
providential virtue giving the increase, the genial showers, the solar warmth, and
the vivifying air. It is not unconnected with the proper seed sown, needful tillage,
plowing and harrowing, and the quality of the soil. And the same holds
true as to the health of the body, and the prolongation of life to an appointed
period. He who dies must first have life; he who grows to manhood must arrive
at it through the previous stages of youth, childhood and infancy. So likewise
an the education of our children; if learning be the end, that supposes the previous
means of application; and if it is determined who shall be the first scholar
of the age in which he lives, it is equally determined that he shall begin with the
rudiments of letters, and diligently prosecute his literary studies. And respecting
religious attainments the matter is equally plain; if life or eternal glory be
the end predestinated, the previous steps of purity of heart, justification and a
new birth unto righteousness, preservation in Christ, and every individual event
and circumstance preceding, is included in the decree, as far as there is any
goodness in them. As to the evil with which any events or circumstances are
blended, that has been already accounted for on another principle. Nothing can
be more true or plain, God had predestinated an everlasting righteousness to be
brought in by the Lord Jesus Christ. But is it not equally true and plain that
the birth of Jesus, and of his virgin mother, the existence of David, the call of
Abraham, the preservation of Noah, and the creation of Adam and Eve were
predestinated?—Let us therefore guard against separating the end and the
means; and what God joins together in his predestinating care and love, let no
man put asunder.—We now come
II. To consider some proofs of this doctrine.—That the scriptures, especially
those of the New Testament, appear, at least, to maintain the doctrine in question,
no person of common modesty will deny. Thus, for instance, Rom. viii. 29,
30. “Whom he did foreknow, he also did predestinate to be conformed to the image
of his Son.” Again, Eph. i. 4-6. “According as he hath chosen us in him,
before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and without blame
before him in love; having predestinated us unto the adoption of children by Jesus
Christ to himself, according to the good pleasure of his will, to the praise of
the glory of his grace.” And again, ver. 11. “In whom also we have obtained an
inheritance, being predestinated according to the purpose of him who worketh
all things after the counsel of his own will.” Believers are said to be “called according
to God’s purpose;” and certain discriminations are made between man
and man, between nation and nation, “that the purpose of God according to election,
might stand, not of works but of him who calleth.” “The election hath obtained
it.” “So then it is not of him that willeth, nor of him that runneth, but of
God that sheweth mercy.” “Shall the thing formed say to him that formed it,
Why hast thou made me thus?”—“I will have mercy on whom I will have mercy,
and I will have compassion on whom I will have compassion.”
These are some of the many passages of holy writ which at least seem to hold
this doctrine. But it is of importance to observe, that to establish this very doctrine
is the main drift of the apostle Paul’s elaborate argument in a considerable
part of his epistle to the Romans. See Rom. ix.-xi.—But more particularly,
1. It is evidently inconsistent with God’s infinite perfection to suppose that he
has no purposes, designs, or aims in his operations; or, which is virtually the
same thing, to suppose that he decrees or predestinates nothing. Wherein would
he then differ from blind, unmeaning chance, which hath neither wisdom, power,
nor properties? An intelligent spirit without any plan or purpose, is inconceivable;
much less is the infinitely perfect Jehovah such a being.
But if he purposes any thing, what can be conceived of in this world of higher
importance, or more worthy of his predestinating care, than the salvation of his
people, that is, of those who are eventually saved? Shall he purpose from eternity
to give his Son to appear in the form of a servant, to suffer an ignominious
death, and to be head over all things to the church, at an uncertainty? Does he
bestow his Holy Spirit without knowing, or without intending, who shall be
ultimately changed into the divine image from glory to glory, and made meet
for the inheritance of the saints in light? Truly, if in time he draws with loving-kindness,
it is because he has loved with an everlasting love.
2. What scripture and experience teach of man’s condition as a sinner, utterly
excludes every other cause of salvation but God’s predestinating love. From
our very birth we are sinful, guilty, and without strength. The carnal mind is
enmity against God. The graceless heart is a heart of stone; in spiritual concerns
unfeeling and impenetrable. Well may our Lord say to his disciples, Ye
have not chosen me, but I have chosen you. If then those who were dead in trespasses
and sins have been quickened, if persecutors have been arrested and
alarmed, if those who were fully bent on rebellion have been instantly rendered
humble, meek, loving and obedient, to what can we rationally ascribe it but to
the discriminating and sovereign pleasure of him who worketh all things after
the counsel of his own will? If such are not predestinated, how came they to be
called, converted, and regenerated?
Consult the good man’s experience. Will he coolly and deliberately arrogate
any thing to himself? Follow him to the throne of grace; what is his language
before God? Listen to his most holy, happy, and animated praises in the church.
Attend to him in his happiest frames—or, when emerging from the deep waters
of affliction—when restored from backslidings—or with faltering speech on the
brink of eternity; and you will find him steady to one point; “Behold, God is
my salvation.” My recovery from sin and woe is all of grace. Yea, follow him to
heaven, when he joins the noble army of martyrs, and the countless myriads of
the redeemed from among men, and there he shouts aloud in chorus, “Unto him
that loved us, and washed us from our sins in his own blood, and hath made us
kings and priests unto God and his Father; to him be glory and dominion for
ever and ever. Amen.”—“Thou art worthy, O Lord, to receive glory, and honour,
and power; for thou hast created all things, and for thy pleasure they are
and were created.” If we search eternally into the origin and cause of our deliverance
from sin, and our exaltation to happiness and glory, none can be found
but God’s predestinating love.
3. Nothing short of eternal predestination could secure that which is demonstrably
the most worthy, the most glorious, the most real end of God in the salvation
of man, that is, the praise of the glory of his grace. No end can be compared
to this in excellence; it is expressly the end which God has proposed to
himself in the salvation of his people; “having predestinated us unto the adoption
of children by Jesus Christ to himself, according to the good pleasure of
his will, to the praise of the glory of his grace.” If there be no predestination,
how can such an end ever be proposed, and how infallibly secured? Can there
be any effect without an adequate cause? Or can the invention of men or angels
discover any other cause than predestination?
On any other supposition, how can divine love, grace, and mercy be glorified,
infallibly glorified? Is the honour of these glorious and blessed perfections of
Jehovah to be suspended on a feeble peradventure? Or is the spiritual temple
constructed of some materials which come by chance, or approach of themselves,
while others are brought forth by a divine hand out of the quarry of nature,
and placed on the living foundation? Is the glory of the Creator to depend
upon the precarious will of man? The supposition is too absurd to admit a
thought.—Again,
4. Predestination to life is essentially necessary to secure the full end of the
death of Christ and the efficacy of divine influence. What though he laid down
his life for his sheep, if after all he do not bring them into his fold? For him to
lay down his life a ransom for many, and then leave it to them whether they should
come for life, and all the benefits of his death, righteousness and grace, is to
suppose them possessed of more power than Adam had before the fall. For the
power he needed was only that which might keep him from falling; but the
power which fallen man requires is that by which he may rise from his fallen
state, and enter into the favour of God, into union with Christ, into spiritual sensibility
and life, into wisdom, righteousness and holiness, and into eternal glory.
Now what can be adequate to this but omnipotent power helping our infirmities?
If it be said, Though we cannot of ourselves do this, may we not through
Christ and his holy Spirit assisting us? I reply, assistance is of two kinds; it is
either affording us proper means, such as the holy scriptures, the ministry of the
word, ordinances of religion, and precious promises by way of encouragement;—or,
it is actually to influence the mind by supernatural agency. If this latter assistance
be afforded, the event is secured; for nothing is requisite to secure the
volitions, and all the exercises of the will, in faith, repentance, love, hope, and
even perseverance therein unto the end, but this kind of influence to a certain
degree. But does God impart any gracious influence without purposing to do so?
And does he not know what influence is necessary to secure the end? Without
predestination to life, what security can there be, that the death of Christ will
not prove abortive and unavailing?
The notion that a sufficient degree of grace is given to all, but that a degree
more than sufficient is given to the elect; that all the elect are certainly and infallibly
saved, but the others left at uncertainty, with a perhaps that some of
them may be saved in addition to the elect—this notion is neither founded in revealed
truth, nor capable of rational consistency.[241]
Without predestination to life, the influences of the Holy Spirit, which, it is
confessed, are given to some, might be given in vain, or without effecting any
saving purpose in any one of the human race. Where then could be the wisdom
of a dispensation of the Spirit, or of communicating the influence of grace? Does
God foresee that some will be so good and pliable as to improve a common favour
in such a way and to such a degree as to constitute the difference between them
and others that perish? But where is this divinity taught, and by whom is it
sanctioned? It is not sanctioned by the patriarchs and prophets, by Christ and
his apostles, nor is it contained in the words of inspiration, or even in the tablet
of unsophisticated reason.
5. Setting aside this doctrine, or supposing it not true, what room is left for
a covenant of grace between the Father, Son, and Spirit? Has not the Father
given to the Son a people for whom he should be obedient unto death, for whom
he should give his life a ransom, for whom he should rise, live, and reign till all
his enemies be subdued, and to whom Christ has engaged to give eternal life?
If we reject predestination to life, what meaning is there in his office of surety?
Is not Jesus a surety for his people? But what is a surety? It is one who undertakes
for another. What does Jesus undertake to do? He undertakes not only
to become incarnate for them, to obey the law, to endure the contradiction of
sinners and cope with the rigid demands of equity, but also to justify many, to
give them life, to keep them from every rapacious hand, to purify them by his
blood, to save them from sin and hell, and to bring them to the beatific vision of
his glory.
In a word, take away this doctrine, and you take away the foundation of God—the
foundation of his covenant—the foundation of his temple, the church—the
foundation of the saints’ hope and joy. But, blessed be God, his foundation standeth
sure, having this seal, The Lord knoweth them that are his. Known unto
God are all his ways, and all his people from the beginning. Blind chance and
impotent free will shall never be the partners of his throne.
We next come to notice
III. Some objections which may be, and often are, made to this doctrine. And
1. If this doctrine be true, it is urged by some, God would then be an arbitrary
and partial being. This objection supposes that God has no right to be so;
but on the contrary, nothing appears more worthy of him than to exercise arbitrary
power, and to manifest partiality. No such right is vested in man, as to do
what he pleases, while he disdains to consult any other will than his own. But
whose will beside his own can the infinitely perfect God consult? Who hath
known the mind of the Lord, or who hath been his counsellor? Or, who hath first
given to him, and it shall be recompensed unto him again? For of him, and
through him, and to him are all things; to whom be glory for ever.
Let us appeal to facts. Are there not marks of high sovereignty and holy partiality
through universal nature? Are they not visible in the heavens above, and
in this lower world? Is there not a greater light that rules the day, and the lesser
lights that rule the night? And does not one star differ from another star in glory?
Are not these marks visible in the operations of providence, in the persons
of men, their corporeal forms and mental endowments? Are they not constantly
seen in the history of nations, the changes of empires, and the dispensations of
grace to different tribes of men? How conspicuous is this in God’s conduct towards
Abraham and his posterity for a series of ages, and afterwards in the calling
of the Gentiles? And how becoming in us to adopt the same language with
the apostle Paul on that occasion: “O the depth of the riches both of the wisdom
and knowledge of God! how unsearchable are his judgments, and his ways
past finding out!” And is not the same partiality visible at this very day? Yet
is he holy in all his works, and righteous in all his ways.
2. It is objected, If this doctrine be true, then is man reduced to a mere machine.
No, a mere machine has no sensibility, no consciousness, no reason, and
no will. But he is acted upon, they say, and therefore not an agent. Is it then
essential to an agent not to be acted upon? Then there is but one agent in the
universe; for every thing but the first cause is acted upon more or less. The
fact is, there is no contrariety in these two things. Angels and men are acted
upon, yet they are moral agents. The holy agency upon them respects chiefly
their disposition itself, but the agency they exert is the exercise of their faculties,
will, and disposition. Whether their disposition be good or bad, still they are
agents. If this be made good, it must be by sovereign influence; and then the
agency and choice will be good: but if this be bad, the agency is bad too.
But granting to the objector that the objects of predestination are, in the sense
now mentioned, machines, or instruments in the hand of divine sovereignty; what
then? I fain would know what better lot can be assigned us than to be instruments
in the hand of a predestinating God? I solemnly protest that I desire no
better, no other lot. And who can describe the nature of this high privilege!
This people have I formed for myself, they shall shew forth my praise. O the
blessedness of being entirely passive in the hand of that God who predestinates
nothing but good? Was Paul obliged to the Lord, or was he not, for arresting
him in the midst of his wicked career? Has that man any reason to complain,
who is restrained from wickedness, but compelled to embrace happiness? Then,
say some, his will would be forced. O no! this by no means follows. My people,
saith the Lord, shall be willing in the day of my power. Surely God can put his
Holy Spirit in either man or child without forcing the will. And let there be but
the active, regenerating renewing presence of this divine agent, the choice of
good will be no more compelled, or the will no more forced, than in the most
free acts of which the human mind is capable.
3. This doctrine, it is said, tends to licentiousness.—This is an assertion which
has been often made, but, I apprehend, never fairly proved; for it is contrary to
universal experience. Turn your eyes to a vast army, headed by experienced officers—what
is the language of nature and experience? You uniformly find great
generals anxious to impress the sentiment on the minds of their troops that they
are destined to victory. What gives rise to this kind of oratory? What is the
philosophy of such rhetoric? It is founded in the nature of man, and confirmed by
the experience of ages, that confidence in a favourable issue animates exertion.
Consult a serious christian, who, through a long pilgrimage, has believed this
doctrine. Will he deliberately tell you that it has this tendency, or that he has
found this effect in his own experience? No, he will tell you nothing gives him
more courage and vigour against sin.—It is not when in a dry, backsliding frame
of mind, or when verging to licentiousness, that he can rest in this doctrine; but
when he is most resolved for God and heaven—when most diligent in the high
way of holiness. Then, indeed, he can say, I know that all things work together
for my good—my predestination includes conformity to Christ, my calling, my
justification, and warfare against sin. If God be for me, who can be against me?
Who shall lay any thing to my charge? It is God that justifieth. Who is he that
condemneth? It is Christ that died, is risen, and maketh intercession. Who
shall separate me from the love of Christ? Shall tribulation, or distress, or
famine, or persecution, or nakedness, or peril, or sword? Nay, in all these things
I am more than conqueror through him that loved me. For I am persuaded,
that neither death, nor life, nor angels, nor principalities, nor powers, nor things
present, nor things to come, nor height, nor depth, nor any other creature, shall
be able to separate me from the love of God which is in Christ Jesus my Lord.
4. Some would insinuate, that though this doctrine be true, yet it should not
be preached, because it is a secret in the mind of God. But I hope it has been
proved, that as a doctrine it is not a secret, but is revealed in the holy scriptures,
and supported by the soundest arguments. The objects, indeed, or the
persons who are predestinated, are known to God only before they bear fruit,
By their fruits WE can come to know them, in the ordinary course of things;
nor is it any part of the doctrine asserted, that it belongs to man to ascertain the
individual objects any farther than by character.
But there are other ends to be answered by this doctrine.—To be in the way
to eternal glory is an unspeakable privilege; and it is the proper part of a christian
to enquire into the cause of it. His own humility and gratitude are involved
in it. The honour of God, the wisdom of his counsel, and the lustre of his grace;
the offices of Christ, the surety of a better covenant, and the good Shepherd of
the sheep; his powerful intercession, and his government over all things to the
church—all are involved in the proper declaration of this truth.—Once more,
5. This doctrine, it may be said, is dangerous, in proportion as it is insisted
upon, in that it prevents the more needful enquiry, “Am I born again!” Yes,
there would be danger, if all the attention of ministers and people, or even a disproportionate
share of it were confined to this. But, thou mistaken objector, because
there are some who will take the bread of children and cast it away, are
the children not to be fed? Because there were corrupt men disposed to turn
the grace of God into lasciviousness, would you rob any child of God of this
holy triumph. He will choose our inheritance for us! The Lord will not cast
off his people, neither will he forsake his inheritance. For the Lord is our defence,
the Holy One of Israel is our King. I will trust and not be afraid, for the
Lord Jehovah is my strength and my song, he also is become my salvation.——For
the same reason that we ought not to be ashamed of the gospel of Christ,
we need not, we ought not to be ashamed of this doctrine.
I would now offer
IV. A few practical uses of the subject. And,
1. This doctrine is a source of great comfort, when contrasted with the fickleness
of men, and the perpetual vicissitudes of the world. The lot may be cast,
but the Lord is the disposer of it. He worketh all things after the counsel of his
own will. His counsel shall stand, and he doeth, and will do, all his pleasure.
The wrath of man shall praise him, and the remainder of wrath he will restrain.
All things work together for good to them who love God, to them who are the
called according to his purpose. He doeth all things well.
After viewing the present perturbed state of the world, the revolutions of
empire, the devastations of war, the alarms of invasion, the degradation of some,
and the exaltation of other characters—how pleasing and consolatory to view a
steady hand over-ruling, guiding, and influencing all! Providence is “as it were
a wheel in the middle of a wheel.”—As for their rings, they are so high that
they are dreadful, and are full of eyes round about them. But how delightful to
reflect, that within these perpetually revolving wheels there is an immoveable
centre! God’s aim is steady, he is of one mind, who can turn him?
2. As the predestination for which we contend is only to good, it affords the
most pleasing view of the divine character. God is love. In him is no such inconsistency
as is but too frequently found among men. He is not a fountain sending
forth at the same place both sweet water and bitter, yielding both salt water
and fresh. With the utmost safety and confidence may a humble soul commit
itself into the arms of such a being. No one has any thing to fear from God but
the proud and rebellious, the unbelieving and impenitent. And surely bad must
be the doctrine that speaks peace to the wicked.
3. As in the present case the end, and the way leading to it, are inseparable;
every reason and argument, every alarming topic, every scriptural exhortation,
and every obligation to duty, are in full force. They who represent these things
as inconsistent with predestination, either have a wrong view of the subject, or
care not what they say nor whereof they affirm. Obligation to duty is founded
on widely and totally different considerations.[242]
God sustains, with respect to man, a twofold character, the one is that of an
equitable governor, the other that of a sovereign disposer. Answerably to this,
man sustains a twofold character also; that of an accountable agent, and that
of a disposable subject. As passive in the hand of a sovereign God, he is necessitated
to good, in proportion as goodness attaches to him; and in the heirs of
salvation this is predestination to life. As active, or a moral agent, man is treated
according to the rules of reason and equity, yet mingled with undeserved favours.
So that every man is, in these different respects, at once the subject of
liberty and necessity.
Equally vague and unprofitable, therefore, is all controversy on the subject
now alluded to while one side contends for liberty and the other for necessity to
the usual exclusion of the opposite. Neither can be wholly right. For, as sure
as God disposes of a man for final good, the doctrine of necessity is true; and as
sure as a man is a transgressor of divine law, and thus is fitted for destruction,
he is free from all decretive necessity. Therefore,
4. Here is no room for the impious inference, that when we do evil we are predestinated
to it. Let no man say when he is tempted, I am tempted of God; for
as God cannot be tempted with evil, so neither tempteth he any man; but every
man is tempted when he is drawn away of his own lust, and enticed. Then when
lust hath conceived, it bringeth forth sin; and sin when it is finished, bringeth
forth death. Do not err, my beloved brethren; every good gift, and every perfect
gift is from above, and cometh down from the Father of lights, with whom
is no variableness, neither shadow of turning.—But evil, in whatever person, in
whatever place, at whatever time, in whatever form or degree, is from a quarter
diametrically opposite.—On the contrary,
5. When at any time we are engaged in the work of God, in any thing whatever
that is morally good, then are we employed in the execution of the divine
purposes; for there is no good done in time but was decreed to be done, in all
its circumstances, from eternity. Even all the actions of the wicked, except the
deformity or sinfulness which is in them, are also worthy of God to predestinate.
This consideration, every one must allow, is a great incentive to virtue and holiness.
This remark is applicable both to ministers and people. Are ministers engaged
in preaching the law for conviction, the promises for encouragement, and
the unsearchable riches of Christ for consolation; are they urging, according to
scripture commands and example, repentance towards God and faith in our Lord
Jesus Christ; do they enforce christian duties, teaching the disciples all things
whatsoever our Lord and lawgiver has commanded; do they warn sinners to flee
from the wrath to come, or invite the burdened and heavy laden to seek rest in
the meek and lowly, the merciful and loving Saviour? They are in all this only
the instruments of a sovereign God, or the appointed means whereby he executes
his eternal purposes. Again, has God enjoined the necessity of repentance, faith,
holiness, obedience, and perseverance; poverty of spirit, holy mourning, purity
of heart, love to enemies, &c? our personal compliance, which is evermore of
grace, is only the decreed method of bringing us to that eternal glory which is
the end. Once more,
6. This doctrine properly guarded, and rightly understood, shews with peculiar
force the true ground of repentance, and the obligations of gratitude and
holiness.—If the sinfulness of no action is decreed, but proceeds wholly from
that in us which is opposite to God and his will, whether secret or revealed,
rectoral or decretive, what can be more binding and reasonable than repentance
toward God? And if all good, whether natural, supernatural, moral or spiritual,
in ourselves and others, in time and to eternity proceed from God’s predestination,
what a foundation is there laid for gratitude! Put on, therefore, as the elect
of God, holy and beloved, bowels of mercies, kindness, humbleness of mind,
meekness, long-suffering. Give all diligence to make your calling and election
sure. And let the peace of God rule in your hearts, to the which also ye are
called in one body, and be ye thankful. And whatsoever ye do in word or deed,
do all in the name of the Lord Jesus, giving thanks to God and the Father by
him. Amen.
Dr. Williams.
.fn-
.fn 238
Predestination to Death or misery, as the end, and to sin as the means, I call “an impure
mixture;” a mixture, because its connexion with Predestination to life is arbitrary and forced;—impure,
because the supposition itself is a foul aspersion of the divine character. St. Augustine,
Calvin, Perkins, Twisse, Rutherford, &c. &c. though highly valuable and excellent men,
upon the whole, were not free from this impure mixture of doctrine. But of all modern authors,
if we except the philosophical Necessarians, Hobbes, Collins, Hume, Hartley, Priestly, &c. Dr.
Hopkins, of America seems the most open in his avowal of the sentiment, that sin and misery
are decreed in the same manner as holiness and happiness, in order to produce the greatest general
good. The substance of his reasoning is thus expressed by himself: “All future existences,
events, and actions, must have a cause of their futurition, or there must be a reason why they
are future, or certainly to take place, rather than not. This cause must be the divine decree
determining their future existence, or it must be in the future existences themselves. But the
future existences could not he the cause of their own futurition; for this supposes them to exist
as a cause, and to have influence, before they have any existence, even from eternity.—The
cause therefore can be nothing but divine decree, determining their future existence, without
which nothing could be future, consequently nothing could be known to be future.”—See his
System of doctrines, 2 vol. 8vo. especially Vol. i p. 110-217.
On the sentiment itself, by whomsoever held, I would offer the following strictures:
1. It is a mere assumption, that sin, which the above proposition avowedly includes, has no
possible cause of its futurition but either the divine decree, or the future existences themselves.
For though God’s decrees are the cause of our being, faculties, and volitions, none of these, nor
any thing else that can he traced to divine causation, will constitute sin. Nor yet is it true that
sin is the cause of itself; for then sin would be self-existent. It follows therefore that it must
have another origin than either the divine decree or its own existence.
2. It is equally plain that the cause of sin is not itself morally evil; For this would involve a
contradiction, making cause and effect to be the same thing. Nor yet can the cause be morally
good. For as from truth nothing but truth can legitimately proceed, so from good nothing but
good can flow. Evil, indeed, is related to good, but not as cause and effect. Though evil could
not follow were there no infinite good, no creature, no will, no freedom, yet something else must
be sought as the matrix, where the monster sin is generated and fostered, and which, morally
considered, is neither good nor evil.—Therefore,
3. We assert, that the origin of moral evil is to be found in the union of two principles, neither
of which considered alone partakes of a moral character. These two principles are Liberty and
Passive Power. Liberty, it is manifest is morally neither good nor bad, but is a mere natural
instrument, if I may so speak, and may be termed a natural good of which God is the author and
decreer. On the contrary, Passive Power is a natural evil of which God is not the author or
decreer, yet morally considered is not evil. But this term, being little understood, requires further
explanation; at least it is incumbent on me to shew in what sense I use it. My design is
not to vindicate the use of it by others, but I adopt it to convey a specific idea, for which I find
no other word or phrase more appropriate. By ‘Passive Power,’ then, I mean, That which is
of unavoidable necessity found in every creature, as such, in direct opposition to the self-existence,
independence, and all-sufficiency of God. In other words, It is that tendency to nihility,
physically considered, and to defection, morally considered, which of absolute necessity belongs
to every dependent or created nature. That there is such a principle is self-evident, nor is it probable
that any reasonable being will ever controvert its existence. Now, it is demonstrable that
this, from the definition, cannot be the object of divine decree, or of will; for it is stated to be
of absolute or unavoidable necessity; besides, it is absurd to suppose that God has decreed, or produces,
any thing the existence of which stands in direct contrariety to himself. That it is not a
moral evil is plain, for the holiest creatures are subjects of it—God alone is exempt.
4. Let it be further observed, that the First Cause, being goodness itself, impels, whether decretively
or efficiently, to good only; and of this character is even our being necessitated to exercise
our volitions. Yet, when the exercise of liberty, in itself innocent, unites with passive power,
the fruit or offspring of this union is moral evil. This, I am fully persuaded, is the true solution
of this question, Whence cometh moral evil? If any person shall think proper candidly to
assign his reasons to the contrary, due regard shall be paid to them,
5. If it be asked, where lies the difference between decreeing and permitting sin to take place?
I answer, the difference is, that the one would be an act of injustice, the other is doing nothing.
So that until it can be shewn that there is no difference between injustice and doing nothing,
there is no force in the objection. That to necessitate sin decretively would be an act of injustice,
and therefore incompatible with the divine character, is, I think, demonstrable; for, it would
be to decree to destruction antecedently to desert—to annihilate the sinfulness of any act, making
its evil nature to consist in its effects—and to destroy the immutable essences of good and evil.
Whereas to permit, or to suffer to take place without prevention, is not to act not to decree. To
‘decree to permit,’ therefore, is a contradiction in terms.
6. But, it has been said, the event is the same to the sinner, whether he hurried on to sin
and misery by a decretive impulse, or these effects are not prevented when in the power of omnipotence
to interpose. This objection would have some weight, if the happiness of the creature
were the only, or even the principal end of God in creation. But this not being the case, its
weight vanishes. To illustrate this we may suppose, that the event of a man’s execution is well
known to a judge; but, instead of proceeding on the principles of law and equity, and to effect
conviction and condemnation according to legal evidence, he orders the man to be executed clandestinely
without any equitable process, under pretence that it could make no difference to the
sufferer, for the event of his execution was certain! Besides, the spirit of the objection reflects
on God’s actual dealings with his creatures, in every instance of their sufferings; because it is
in the power of omnipotence to interpose. And in fact, it must be allowed, either that the happiness
of the Creature is not the chief end of creation, or that the permission of sin is an act of
injustice. But the case is plain, that his own glory is the chief end of creation and government,
and that there is no injustice in the permission of sin.
7. It may be said, If the union of liberty with passive power be the origin of moral evil, and if
the holiest creatures in heaven are both free and the subjects of passive power, how is it that they
do not sin! If both are united in the same persons, does the one never terminate upon; or unite
itself to the other? In answer to this enquiry, we must distinguish between having the principle,
and being under its influence without control. Though the spirits of the just, and holy
angels, have in them the principle, as the condition of their created existence, yet it is counteracted
by sovereign favour. They may say, as well as Paul, by the grace of God we are what
we are. The object of divine support is the disposition, or the seat of moral action; this being
made good, or pure, or holy, prior to all acts of the will, effectually counteracts the influence of
passive power. The Liberty and choice of a heavenly being therefore, terminating on such a disposition,
no acts but such as are holy can ensue. Hence,
8. If we would know how this is consistent with the actual fall of beings who were once in
this condition, we must attend to another important consideration; which is, that when God at
any time deals in mere equity with a moral agent, without the counteracting influence of sovereign
favour, the inevitable consequence is, that his liberty, or free choice, will terminate upon
his passive power. Hence the certainty of the futurition of moral evil, in all possible degrees and
circumstances, without any decretive efficiency in its production.—If it be asked, why the exercise
of equity is assigned as the occasion of this union, rather than sovereignty; or, why leaving
a free agent to the influence of his passive power should not be considered a sovereign rather than
an equitable act? The best answer to this enquiry, is a definition of the two terms. By equity
then I mean the principle that gives to each his due; by sovereignty, a right to do whatsoever is
not inconsistent with equity. And from this definition it must appear that there may he a two-fold
deviation from equity, viz. giving more than is due, or less than is due; more good and less
evil, or more evil and less good than is equitable. The former of these, more good and less evil,
must needs be for the advantage of the creature; and therefore it may be called a gracious deviation.
Without it, there would be no room for either mercy or grace. The latter, more evil
and less good than is due, is properly called injustice, and is such a deviation from equity as is
not compatible with the divine character. Therefore, to do us good beyond our claim is an act
of sovereignty; but to give us neither more nor less than is our due is to deal with us in pure
equity.
9. Hence it follows, that when God deals with angels or men in sovereignty, according to the
definitions, he does them good beyond their claim. But to make this to be the immediate cause
of the sin of men and angels is absurd. On the other hand, it is incompatible with the divine
character, as before observed, to give them less good and more evil than is their due; and therefore
this cannot be the cause of sin, as sure as God is incapable of exercising injustice.—Wherefore,
it remains that then alone can moral agents fall into sin when dealt with in pure equity.
In the act of defection, or becoming sinful, they are equally free from being impelled by injustice,
and upheld by sovereign favour.
COROLLARIES.
1. All the good and happiness in the universe of created beings are the fruit of Sovereignty and
Decree.
2. All the moral evil and misery in the universe are the offspring of liberty, a natural good,
terminating or acting upon, or united to passive power, a natural evil not counteracted by sovereignly
gracious acts on the disposition, or the seat of the moral principle, which may be called
analogically the heart.
3. As every act and degree of liberty is perfectly fore-known to God, as the effect of his own
decree, and every hypothetical tendency of passive power, though itself not an object of decree,
is equally fore-known, it follows, that every sin is as accurately fore-known as if decreed, and has
an equally infallible ground of certain futurition.
.fn-
.fn 239
It is allowed that there is a difference between the cause of sin, as a principle, and being a
sinner; but when applied to an agent, to be the author or the cause of sin, and to be a sinner, is
the same thing. Therefore, when applied to God, in no proper sense whatever can it be said that
he is the author of sin.—“If by the author of sin is meant (says President Edwards) the permitter,
or a not hinderer of sin, and at the same time a disposer of the state of events in such a manner,
for wise, holy, and most excellent ends and purposes, that sin infallibly follows: I say, if this
be all that is meant by the author of sin, I do not deny that God is the author of sin, though I
dislike and reject the phrase, as that which by use and custom is apt to carry another sense.”
Edwards on the Will, Part iv. Sect. xi.
But though this acute and excellent writer disavows the use of the phrase, he no where assigns
the true ground why it should not be used. The truth is, he does not seem to have been aware of
any alternative between the certain futurition of sin and its being decreed. And his only method
of warding off the most ruinous consequences appears to have been adopted for want of a better,
and not from the satisfactory nature of that method. His view, in brief, is this: God is a being
of infinite goodness and wisdom; he can will nothing but good; the system he hath adopted is
the best; now, says he, “if the will be good, and the object of his will be, all things considered,
good and best, then the choosing and willing it, is not willing evil. And if so, then his ordering
according to that will is not doing evil.”
It is very seldom that this eminent author fails in his reasoning; but here certainly he does
fail. The phrases willing evil, and doing evil, are not used in the same sense in both parts of the
premises, from whence the conclusion is inferred. A system, all things considered, being best,
is no good reason why each individual part of it is good. And it may be forcibly retorted; a
system which includes an infinite evil as a part of its institution cannot be from God. Nor can it
be said that this is arguing against fact, without begging the question, that God has appointed the
evil which is blended with the good.—On the subject itself let the following things be considered:
1. If choosing and willing a system in which sin is a decreed part is not willing evil, because
the system is good and best, all things considered then it would inevitably follow, that sin, because
such a part of that system is not an evil. But, it may be said, It is willing it for a good end.
Does then a good end or intention destroy the nature of sin? Was the sin of Paul or any other
saint anihilated because he sincerely aimed at the Glory of God? Or has any design, however comprehensive,
exalted or sincere, the least tendency to alter the nature of sin?
2. Allowing as incontrovertible that the present system of things is the best, all things considered,
and that sin is actually blended with it, it does not thence follow that the sin itself is decreed,
or is any part of divine appointment. For not to hinder sin, is extremely different from being
the cause or author of it. The one is perfectly consistent with equity, the other would be an act
of injustice.
3. It is a sentiment so repugnant to all analogical propriety, to do evil that good may come, that
it cannot be supposed a man of Mr. Edwards’ piety would have adopted any thing like it, but
from what appeared to him an inevitable necessity. And indeed whoever assumes the principle,
that every event comes to pass from decretive necessity, sin not excepted, must of course be driven
to his conclusion. But this valuable author had no need to recur to that opinion, in order to establish
his theory of hypothetical necessity; for this will stand on a rock, immoveably, without
such aid.
4. In reality, the certain futurition of good, and that of evil, arises from different, yea from diametrically
opposite causes. The one flows from the operative will of God, and is fore-known to
be future because decreed, the other flows from a deficient or privative cause, passive power,
when united to liberty, as before explained, which exists only in created beings, and in all these,
as a contrast to self-existence, independence, and all-sufficiency. Yet this is the subject of hypothetical
tendencies and results no less than the good to which it stands opposed, in all the boundless
varieties of its blendings; therefore no case can be so complicated, but to infinite prescience
the event must appear with equal certainty as if decreed.
.fn-
.fn 240
“Equally impious and needless.” Needless, because the existence of sin is fairly and fully
accounted for on another principle; impious, because it ascribes to God the worst of all principles,
the causation of sin. That God superintends, directs, and over-rules the actions of men is worthy
of him; and equally so that he does not hinder the existence of moral evil; but that he is a
positive and efficacious cause of moral evil, or that this is consistent with either his justice or
holiness can never be proved. Dr. Hopkins, indeed, says, that “the attempt to distinguish between
the sinful volitions or actions of men as natural and moral actions; and making God the
origin and cause of them considered as natural actions, and men the cause and authors of the depravity
and sin which is in them, is, it is believed, unintelligible—unless by making this distinction
it be meant, that in every sinful action, God is not the sinful cause of it.” The author, however,
candidly adds, “But if the contrary can be made to appear, this doctrine, with all that is
implied in it, shall be given up and renounced.” As the removal of this principle, and the establishment
of the other, appear to me of the highest importance in theology, a few remarks, in
addition to those already made, may not be superfluous, as tending to exhibit the principle here
maintained in different lights and connexions; and when all are properly examined, it is probable
they will not be wholly “unintelligible.”
1. God, JEHOVAH, is the infinite and eternal Essence, which is of absolute necessity—the self-existent,
independent, and all-sufficient Being—from eternity to eternity generating his own light
and joy, called his only begotten Son; not from mere will, but of the same necessity.
2. God in his boundless all-sufficiency views all possibles with all their positive and privative
tendencies. That all possibles have their positive tendencies is as plain as that two added to
three make five. Were there no positive tendencies, there could be no hypothetical certainty,
no law of nature, no connexion between cause and effect. And it is equally true, though not
equally plain, that there are privative tendencies in all beings but that one who exists of absolute
necessity. To suppose the contrary, is the same as to suppose that a creature may be made independent,
and all-sufficient. But that is, every reasonable being must allow, absolutely impossible,
as implying the grossest contradiction. On this demonstrated fact rests unavoidably the
existence of that principle in every created nature which I call Passive Power. Yet.
3. It does not follow that the mere collateral existence of these two principles in the same subject
must needs produce moral evil. Then alone does this take place when the one terminates
upon, or is united to the other, without the interposition of sovereign favour. It is not in the
power of equity to assist. For the exercise of equity is to give each his due; but to prevent sin
is not due to the subject of it, otherwise no one could ever sin but on condition of injustice in God.
4. After all, it may be objected, that the scriptures ascribe to God the causation of moral evil;
as, hardening the heart of Pharaoh—hardening whom he will—making the wicked for the day
of evil—appointing to destruction—determining the death of Christ—delivering him by determinate
counsel—doing all evil in a city—making vessels to dishonour—fitting them for destruction,
&c.—In reply to this objection it must be considered, that whatever the import of such representations
may be, no interpretation which is unworthy of God can be the true meaning—that the
idioms of the sacred languages ascribing cause or operation to God must be understood according
to the nature of the subject—and, what is particularly to our purpose, that active verbs which
denote making, doing, causing, and the like, often denote a declaration of the thing done, or that
shall take place; or a permission of it.
Take a few specimens. Thus Acts x. 15. “What God hath cleansed,” means, what God hath
declared to be clean.—Isai. vi. 9, 10. The prophet is commanded to tell the people, “understand
not, perceive not;” and he is ordered to “make the heart of this people fat, to make their ears
heavy, and to shut their eyes.” And what can this mean more than to declare a fact, either what
they then were, or what they would be?—So Jer. i. 10. The Prophet’s declaration of what should
be, is called his rooting out pulling down, &c.—Ezek. xliii. 3. The prophet says, “when I came
to destroy the city;” his meaning undoubtedly is, When I came to prophecy or declare that the
city should be destroyed.—Exod. v. 22. “Lord, wherefore hast thou evil entreated this people?”
Moses means, Wherefore hast thou permitted them to be evil entreated?—Jer. iv. 10. “Lord
God, thou hast greatly deceived this people;” that is, permitted or not hindered them to be deceived
by the false Prophets.—Ezek. xiv. 9. “I the Lord have deceived that prophet.” Can any thing
else be meant than suffering him to deceive himself?—Matt. xi. 25. “Thou hast hid these things”
i. e. not revealed.——Thus also, Rom. ix. 18. “Whom he will he hardeneth,” he suffereth to be
hardened.—Rom. xi. 8. “God gave them a spirit of slumber,” i. e. permitted them to slumber.
2 Thes. ii. 11. “God shall send them strong delusion, that they should believe a lie;” i. e. shall
permit them to be deluded so that they shall believe a lie.—Exod. vii. 3. &c. “And I will harden
Pharaoh’s heart,” i. e. I will suffer it to be hardened. Matt. x. 34, 35. “I am not come to send
peace, but a sword; For I am come to set a man at variance against his father,” That is, my
coming shall be the innocent occasion of wars and variance.—Jude 4. “Who were before of old
ordained to this condemnation;” i. e. foretold, or forewritten, as the word signifies; announced
in the sacred pages, and proscribed by divine law.
But the passage above all others, which appears to countenance the notion, that God is the
cause of sin, is 1 Pet. ii. 8. “A stone of stumbling, and a rock of offence, even in them which
stumble at the word, being disobedient, whereunto also they were appointed.” i. e. unto which
thing, their stumbling, they were appointed because disobedient. The Greek participle includes
the cause of their falling; as Heb. ii. 3. Neglecting so great salvation, how shall we escape? To
which not escaping, they were appointed, for neglecting so great salvation. A striking contrast
to this we have, John vii. 17. “If any man will do his will, he shall know of the doctrine;” but
the disobedient shall, according to an awful but equitable appointment, “stumble, and fall, and be
broken, and be snared, and be taken.”—(Isa. viii. 15.) We have a further illustration of this
meaning in Heb. iii. 18. “To whom sware he that they should not enter into his rest, but to
them that believe not?” i. e. Who were appointed to destruction? The answer is, the disobedient;
for the original word is the same here as in Peter, under a different inflection. And it is
added, ver. 19. “So they could not enter in because of unbelief.”—Thus also Rom. xi. 7. “The
rest were blinded, or hardened;” i. e. were suffered to be blind or hard. And that this is the
meaning is decided by ver. 20. “Because of unbelief they were broken off.”
Upon the whole, Peter intimates, that none should be offended at such characters, men of learning
and eminence rejecting the Messiah and his gospel. Their end is what might be expected,
as foretold by the prophets, according to God’s righteous government, and his eternal appointment,
or determination, respecting all such offenders. Their habitual unbelieving disobedience
was the cause, but their actual stumbling at the word to their destruction was the natural, the
righteous, the appointed effect. To this they were appointed, placed, or set forth (as Pharaoh
was raised up) by the righteous judgment of God, who resisteth the proud and disobedient; in
order to shew forth the glory of his justice in them. They were personally appointed to exalted
situations, being civil and ecclesiastical builders; they were suffered to reject Christ, in pure
equity; and thus were deservedly constituted awful warnings to others.
.fn-
.fn 241
This notion, perhaps more than any other, has been termed Baxterianism, and yet it is not
easy to say that Mr. Baxter ever maintained it. He says indeed “all have so much (grace) as
bringeth and leaveth the success to man’s will;” and this in a discourse wherein he allows that
God hath “positively elected certain persons by an absolute decree to overcome all their resistances
of his Spirit, and to draw them to Christ, and by Christ to himself, by such a power and
way as shall infallibly convert and save them.” He moreover says, “What if men cannot here
tell how to resolve the question, whether any or how many are ever converted or saved by that
mere grace which we call sufficient, or rather necessary, and common to those that are not converted;
and whether man’s will ever make a saving determining improvement of it?”—“And
yet,” he adds, “this question itself is formed on false suppositions and is capable of a satisfactory
solution.” Baxter’s Works, Vol. ii. p. 929.—On the subject of this Note the author begs
leave to refer his readers to Doddridge’s Works, Vol. v. p. 238, 239, Notes.
.fn-
.fn 242
The nature of God, his holy will, and our peculiar relation to him, form an adamantine chain
of obligation to duty which cannot with impunity be broken; from which predestination is so
far from releasing us, that it forms another chain of gold that shall finally prevail; and divine
grace personally experienced is a silken cord to draw the soul along in the path of duty. But do
these powerful ties render useless God’s reasoning with sinners, his exhortations to repentance,
to believing, to obedience, and to every particular branch of duty? No: for these methods are
the very means to attain the end, and form a part of the decree itself.
.fn-
END OF THE FIRST VOLUME.
.sp 4
.if h
.ce
Footnotes
.fm lz=h rend=no
.if-
.sp 4
.dv class='tnotes'
Transcriber’s Notes:
Missing or obscured punctuation was corrected. The author's archaic punctuation
and spellings have been retained.
.dv- |