Produced by Richard Hulse, David King, and the Online
Distributed Proofreading Team at http://www.pgdp.net. (This
file was produced from images generously made available
by The Internet Archive.)









                          Transcriber’s Note:

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.

                           A Body of Divinity




                          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.




_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:

    “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.”

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.




                             TO THE READER.


_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._




                                PREFACE.


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 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 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 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 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.

Footnote 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._

Footnote 2:

  _And the same reason may be assigned why this third is now offered to
  the public._




                   THE CONTENTS OF THE FIRST VOLUME.


QUEST. I. Of glorifying God, and the enjoyment of him.


_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_

    _How God glorifies himself_ _ibid_

    _How creatures glorify him_ 14

_What it is to enjoy God_ 17

    _The connexion between glorifying God and the enjoyment of him_ 18

_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


QUEST. II. Of the Being of a God.


_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_

    _What meant thereby_ _ibid_

    _How it proves the Being of a God_ 22

_From the works of creation_ 24

    _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

_From the consent of all nations_ _ibid_

    _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_

_From the works of providence_ 41

_From the foretelling future events_ 42

_From the provision made for all_ 43

    _Particularly for man’s safety_ 44

_The objections taken from the prosperity of the wicked, answered_ 45

_Nothing short of revelation sufficient to give a saving discovery of
God_ 47


QUEST. III. Of the Holy Scripture.


_The names given to it_ 48

    _Why called a Testament_ 50

_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

    _Its properties as a rule_ 61

    _It is the only rule_ _ibid_

_Human traditions of no divine authority_ 62

    _The Popish doctrine of them confuted_ _ibid_

_The Canon of scripture preserved entire_ 65

    _Is not perverted_ 66


QUEST. IV. Of the Divine Authority of the Scriptures.


_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

    _Its holiness considered absolutely_ _ibid_

    _And as compared with other writings_ 76

_From the harmony of all its parts_ 78

_Dr. Paley on the genuineness of the scriptures, in a note_ 79

    _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

        _Grotius on their authority, in a note_ 97

_From its scope and design_ 98

_From the character of the penmen_ 102

    _These were faithful_ _ibid_

    _They were not imposed on_ 106

    _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

_From its antiquity and preservation_ 112

_From the testimony of God by miracles_ _ibid_

    _Two objections answered_ 114, 115

    _By the conviction and conversion of sinners_ 116

_How Christians come to a full persuasion of the divinity of scripture_
118

_The inward testimony of the Spirit explained_ _ibid_


QUEST. V, VI. The principal matters contained in scripture.


QUEST. VII. Of the nature and perfections of God.


_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

    _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

        _Wherein his power appears_ 141

        _What things God cannot do_ 142

        _The improvement of this subject_ 143

    _Omniscient_ 145. _He knows all future contingencies_ 147

        _Properties of God’s knowledge_ 149. _Its improvement_ 150

        _When it is practically denied_, _ibid_.

    _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

_Holiness of God infinite_ 159

    _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

    _When God’s holiness is contemned_ 163

_Justice of God infinite_ 164

    _How distinguished from his holiness_ _ibid_

    _Glory, how called a reward_ 167

    _Afflictions of believers not properly a punishment_ _ibid_

_Mercy and grace of God infinite_ 168

    _Difference between goodness, mercy, grace, and patience_ 169

    _Mercy is either common or special_ 171

    _Grace free and sovereign_ 172

        _Discriminating_ 173. _Instances of it_, _ibid_. _Afflictions
        not inconsistent with it_ 174

        _Leads not to licentiousness_ _ibid_

_Patience of God, what it is_ 176

    _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

_Truth, God is abundant therein_ 186

    _How he is called a God of truth_ 187

_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

    _How this perfection is to be improved_ 191


QUEST. VIII. Of the Unity of the Godhead.


_How God is styled the living God_ 194

_Unity of the Godhead proved_ _ibid_

    _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

_Different modes used in speaking of the perfections of God_ 204


QUEST. IX, X, XI. Of the Doctrine of the Trinity.


_Calvin on the word Person, in a note_ 207

_The doctrine of the highest importance_ 209

    _How to determine the importance of a doctrine_ 211

    _What knowledge of it necessary to salvation_ 213

_It is a great mystery_, 214. _What a mystery is_, _ibid_.

_It is incomprehensible_ 216

        _Dr. Bates on mysteries_, in a note 217

    _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

    _Whether that which is unintelligible be the object of faith_ 222

_How this doctrine promotes religion_ 223

    _In what sense revelation is an improvement of the light of nature_
    224

_Not contrary to reason, though above it_ 226

    _When a doctrine is contrary to reason_ _ibid_

_It is not chargeable with Tritheism_ 227

    _The use of reason in proving doctrines of pure revelation_ 229

_It cannot be known by the light of nature_ 230

    _How it was made known to_ Adam _ibid_

    _Whether the heathen knew it_ 231

        _Whitaker on the word_ Logos _used by the Jews_, in a note 233

Trinity, _not to be illustrated by similitudes_ 235

    _Rules for interpreting scriptures relating to it_ 236

    _The word_ Trinity _explained_ 239

Person, _the word explained_ 239

    _The difference between divine and human persons_ 242

_Sacred Three, in what respect One_ 243

        _Dr. Jamieson on the Trinity_, in a note 243

    _How their glory equal, how the same_ _ibid_

_Personality of the Son_, 248. _Of the Spirit_ 250

    _Not metaphorically ascribed to either_ 252

_Eternal generation of the Son, how understood by many_ 259

    _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

_Procession of the Spirit, how understood by many_, 260. _What it is_
261

    _The scripture doctrine of it_ 280

_Œconomy of the sacred Three explained_ 291

    _How distinct works are ascribed to them_ 292

_The Deity of the Son proved_ _ibid_

_From his divine names_ 295

    Jehovah _God’s incommunicable name_ 296

        _Never given to creatures_ 297

        _It is not applied to angels_ 301

        _Christ’s Deity proved from it_ 302

    God _and_ Lord, _how applied in scripture_ 304

        _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

    _When the word_ God _is used absolutely_ 321

        _Its meaning when so used_ 321

    _In what sense Christ is styled God by the_ Socinians 322

_From the ascription of the divine nature to him in_ Col. ii. 9. 325

    _In_ Philip, ii. 6. _this explained and defended_ 326

    _Genuineness of_ 1 John v. 7. _defended_ 329

_From his conference with the_ Jews 335

_From his Attributes_ 342

    _Eternity_, 343. _Immutability_, _ibid_.

    _Omnipresence_ 345

        _This proved from_ John iii. 13. 347

    _Omniscience_, 349. _Objections answered_ 350

    _Omnipotency_ 352

_From his glorious titles_ 353

_From his work of creation_ 357

        _The_ Socinian _account thereof_ 359

    _Christ no instrument in creation_ 361

    _How the Father made the world by him_ 362

    _Men only moral instruments in miracles_ 365

_From his works of providence_ 366

    _Christ the Governor of all things_ 367

_From his acting as Judge_ 368

    _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

_From the worship paid him_ 377

    _Christ the Object of religious worship_ 379

_From Baptism_ 382

_From the doxologies applied to him_ 386

    Anti-Trinitarians _differ about the worship due to Christ_ 388

_Right to divine worship is incommunicable_ 389

    _Objections against the deity of Christ answered_ 391

    _Dr. Priestley’s disingenuity_, in a note 397

_Of the divinity of the Holy Ghost_ 398

    _His divinity proved_ _ibid_

    _From_ Acts v. 3, 4. 400

    _From his divine Attributes_ 404

    _From his divine works_ 405

        _Such works performed by him_ 407

    _From the worship given to him_ 408

        _Objections answered_ 410

_Practical inferences from the doctrine of the Trinity_ 414


QUEST. XII, XIII. Of God’s Decrees.


_Some things premised in general_ 417

    _Dissuasives from prejudices_ 419

_The general method laid down_ 421

_In what sense God fore-ordained all things_ 422

    _That he did so, proved_ 424

        _Dr. Smalley on the origin of sin_ 425

_Purpose of God free, wise, holy_ 432

    _How it renders salvation necessary_ 484

    _It is unchangeable_ 481

    _Repentance, how ascribed to God_ 483

_Predestination, the word explained_ 433

    _Consequences of denying it_ 499

_Election, the word explained_ 434

    _How used in the Old Testament_ 438

    _How in the New_ 441

    Fathers, _their sense about this doctrine_ 507

_Election to salvation asserted in scripture_ 442

    _Churches, how styled elect_ 443

_Chosen, part of mankind were so_ 447

        _These styled a_ Remnant 449

    _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

Supra-lapsarian _and_ Sub-lapsarian _schemes differ_ 446

_Proofs of the doctrine of Election_ _ibid._

        _from God’s fore-knowledge_ 452

        _from his giving the means of grace_ 454

    Jacob _loved_, Esau _hated, explained_ 456

        _Objections answered_ 458

    _The opposite doctrine, how defended_ 501

_Properties of Election_ 469

    _Misrepresentations of it answered_ 465

_Reprobation, how to be explained_ 486

    _Preterition a branch of it_ (vide the note, 529) 488

_Predamnation considered from_ Jude, _ver._ 4. 491

    Rom. ix. 22. and xi. 7-10. _explained_ 492

    2 Thes. ii. 11, 12. Psal. lxxxi. 12. John xii. 39, 40. _explained_
    494

_Wicked, how made for the day of evil_ 495

_Will of God secret and revealed_ 471

    _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

_Expectation of God not disappointed by the will of man_ 505

    _God not really disappointed, grieved, or resisted_ 506

_Bounds of life fixed by him_ 508

_Stoical fate, how it differs from God’s decrees_ 516

_Objections against Election answered_ 507

    _Practical improvement of it_ 526

_Dr. Williams on election_, in a note 529




                           THE INTRODUCTION.


_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]

_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 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._

Footnote 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.




                               Quest. I.


    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.


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,

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 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_, 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 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, 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 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]

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.

Footnote 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.

Footnote 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.

Footnote 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.

Footnote 7:

  Dr. HOPKINS.

Footnote 8:

  President EDWARDS.




                               Quest. II.


    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.


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.

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 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 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.

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 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 it, What makest thou, or thy work, He hath no hands?_
Isa. xlv. 9.

This leads us to consider the wisdom of God in his works, which
demonstrates his being. This the Psalmist mentions with admiration,
Psal. civ. 24. _O Lord, how manifold are thy works; in wisdom hast thou
made them all!_ When we see letters 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 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]

But that we may farther evince this truth, we shall lay down the
following arguments to prove the being of a God, which appears,

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 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.

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.

(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 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.

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 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 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.

(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: 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,

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 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.

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.

(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! 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 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,

(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!_

Footnote 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.

Footnote 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.

Footnote 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.

Footnote 12:

  See Search’s Light of Nature, passim.

Footnote 13:

  The theory of a nervous fluid, or animal spirits, is generally
  abandoned.

Footnote 14:

  See this doubtful doctrine discussed post Quest. 60.




                              Quest. III.


    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.


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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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]

We shall now proceed to consider, how far the Old Testament is a rule of
faith and obedience to us, though that dispensation be abolished; for we
are not to reckon it an useless part of scripture, or that it does not
at all concern us. Since,

(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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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, 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.

Footnote 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.

Footnote 16:

  Where a covenant is, there should be the death of the devoted
  _victim_.

Footnote 17:

  PROPHETS BEFORE THE CAPTIVITY.

  _With the order and times of their Prophecies._

   Years
  before
 Christ.

     812 Amaziah king of Judah,         Jonah sent with a message. 2
         Jeroboam II. king of Israel    Kings xiii. 20. xiv. 25.

     800 Uzziah king of Judah. Jeroboam Joel i. ii. iii.
         II.

     800 Jeroboam II. king of Israel.   Amos i.——ix.
         Uzziah king of Judah

     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. Ezekiel i.-vii.
         5

     594 Zedekiah 6. Jehoiachin’s capt. Ezekiel viii.-xi.
         6

     593 Zedekiah 7. Jehoiachin’s capt. Ezekiel xii.-xix.
         7

         In the same year, fifth month  Ezekiel xx.-xxiii.

     591 Zedekiah 9. Jehoiachin’s capt. Jeremiah xxi. xxxiv ver. 1-8.
         9

         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      Jeremiah xxxvii. ver. 1-11.
         capt. 10

         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 Ezekiel xxxvi. xxxvii.
         11. first month                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     Jeremiah xxxix. ver. 11-15.
         sixth month                    xl. ver.   1-7.

         In the same year               Jeremiah xl. ver. 7. xli.
                                        xlii. xliii. xliv. ver. 1-8.

  PROPHETS AFTER THE DESTRUCTION OF THE TEMPLE, DURING THE CAPTIVITY.

     588 Jehoiachin’s captivity 12.     Ezekiel xxxiii.
         tenth month

         In the same year, twelfth      Ezekiel xxxii.
         month

         Between the 12 and 25          Ezekiel xxxiv. xxxvi. xxxvii.
         captivity                      xxxviii. xxxix.

         In the same year               Obadiah

         In the same year               Ezekiel xxxv.

         In this year Nebuchadnezzar    Daniel iii.
         set up his golden image

     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.

  PROPHETS AFTER THE CAPTIVITY UNDER THE SECOND TEMPLE.

     535 Cyrus 2.                       Ezra iv.

         In the third year of Cyrus,    Daniel x. xi. xii
         and third after the captivity

     520 Darius Hystaspis 2. sixth      Haggai i. ver. 1-12.
         month

         In the same year and month     Haggai i. ver. 12, &c. Ezra v.

         In the same year, seventh      Haggai ii. ver. 1-10.
         month

         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     Zechariah i. ver. 7, &c.
         month                          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  Zechariah ix.-xiv.
         of Darius Hystaspes

     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.

  DR. TAYLOR.

Footnote 18:

  κοσμος is the _unregenerate world_, John vii. 7. and χωρησαι, is to
  _receive kindly_, 2 Cor. vii. 2.

Footnote 19:

  _Vid. Philo. Jud. de Vit. Mosis; & eund. citat. ab Euseb. in Præp.
  Evang. l. viii. c. 6. & Joseph, contr. App. l. ii._




                               Quest. IV.


    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.


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]

1. When we speak of the scriptures as divine, we do not only mean that
they treat of God and divine things; to wit, 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 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 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 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 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
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?_

(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 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 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, if we compare them with other
writings, in which there is but little harmony. Thus, if we consult the
writings of most men uninspired, we shall find that their sentiments
contained therein often times very widely differ; and if, as historians,
they pretend to report matters of fact, their evidence, or report, does
not, in all respects, agree together, which shews that they are
fallible; but the exact and harmonious agreement of scripture proves it
divine. That other writings of human composure agree not among
themselves, is very evident; and it is less to be wondered at if we
consider,

(1.) That men are naturally blind and unacquainted with the things of
God; and therefore their writings will hardly be consistent 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 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 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 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, _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 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.

_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 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, 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.

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 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 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 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]

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.

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.

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 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.

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 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
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]

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 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,

(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 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 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, 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 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 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 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 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, 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 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, 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, 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]

Footnote 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.

Footnote 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.

Footnote 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.”

                  *       *       *       *       *

  “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.”

                  *       *       *       *       *

  “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.

Footnote 23:

  See Lardner, vol. xii. p. 22.

Footnote 24:

  Lardner, vol. ii. p. 598.

Footnote 25:

  See Lardner’s Recapitulation, vol. xii, p. 53.

Footnote 26:

  See Lardner’s Recapitulation, vol. xii. p. 53.

Footnote 27:

  Lardner, vol. ii. p. 808.

Footnote 28:

  Lardner, vol. xiv. p. 455.

Footnote 29:

  Lardner, vol. xiv. p. 458.

Footnote 30:

  Lardner, vol. i. p. 313.

Footnote 31:

  Iren. advers. Haer. quoted by Lardner, vol. xv. p. 425.

Footnote 32:

  Lardner, vol. viii. p. 106.

Footnote 33:

  See the tracts written in the controversy between Tunstal and
  Middleton upon certain suspected epistles ascribed to Cicero.

Footnote 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.

Footnote 35:

  Lardner, vol. x. p. 103.

Footnote 36:

  Lardner, vol. xi. p. 88.

Footnote 37:

  לך שבע שנים are wanting only in 85 and 112 of Kennicott.

Footnote 38:

  _See Ques._ 154.

Footnote 39:

  ῾Υπερανω αὐτῆς.

Footnote 40:

  [ἐν ἡ] εν _oftentimes signifies_, Cum, ad, prope, juxta, _as well as
  in_.

Footnote 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.

Footnote 42:

  Vid. Joseph Antiq.

Footnote 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.

Footnote 44:

  Vide Dodd. Expos. 3 vol. app.—Dick on Insp.—Parry’s Enq.—Hawker, &c.

Footnote 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.




                               Quest. V.


    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]


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?

Footnote 46:

  What we are to believe reaches to Qu. 91. the rest is of practice.




                               Quest. VI.


    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.

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 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.

Footnote 47:

  That is unto the 91st Quest.




                              Quest. VII.


    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.

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_, 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 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 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 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 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, 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 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. 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, 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. 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 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,

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 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, 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.

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 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 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.

_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 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 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 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 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 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, 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. 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 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 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,

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.

(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 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 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 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.

(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]

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,

(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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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
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 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 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 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 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; 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, _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 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 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. 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, 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, 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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, 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 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.

(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
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.

Footnote 48:

  His ideas are not the effects, but causes of things. Vide post p. 124,
  125.

Footnote 49:

  There is not succession in His ideas, but he exists in every point of
  time.

Footnote 50:

  Effects spring from _power_, not _laws_, and prove a _virtual_, or
  influential, revelation, an _essential_ ubiquity.

Footnote 51:

  Quest. xv. and xviii.

Footnote 52:

  Quest. lxvii.

Footnote 53:

  Vide Edwards on Free-will, part I. sect. IV.

Footnote 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.

Footnote 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.

Footnote 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.

Footnote 57:

  See Page 46.

Footnote 58:

  See Quest. clvi. and clvii.

Footnote 59:

  _Quest. xvi. xvii. xxi. and xxx._

Footnote 60:

  _The Quest. xliv. and lxxi._

Footnote 61:

  _Quest. xxix. and lxxix._

Footnote 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.

Footnote 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.

Footnote 64:

  _See Quest. xx._




                              Quest. VIII.


    QUEST. VIII. _Are there more Gods than one?_

    ANSW. There is but one only, the living and true God.


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 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,

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 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]

Having considered the unity of the Godhead, not only as evinced from
scripture, but as it may be demonstrated by the light of nature, it will
be necessary that we obviate an objection that may be brought against
this latter method of proving it, _viz._

_Object._ If the unity of the Godhead might be known by the dictates of
nature, or demonstrated by other arguments, besides 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 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, 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 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 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 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.

Footnote 65:

  _See Quest._ cv.

Footnote 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

Footnote 67:

  _See Arist. Metaphys. Lib. I. Cap. 2. & Lib. XII. Cap. 7._

Footnote 68:

  _Vid. ejus. Mag. Moral. Lib. II. Cap. 15._

Footnote 69:

  _Vid. ejus. De Moribus, Lib. IX. Cap. 4. & De Mundo, Cap. 6._

Footnote 70:

  _Vid. Mornæi de Verit. Relig. Christ. cap. 3._

Footnote 71:

  _Epist. XIII. ad Dionys_.

Footnote 72:

  _See Cicero de Natura Deorum._

Footnote 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._

Footnote 74:

  _Quest. cv._

Footnote 75:

  _See de Vries Exercitat. Rational._




                          Quest. IX., X., XI.


    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.


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 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]

I. We shall premise some things which are necessary to be considered,
with relation to the doctrine of the Trinity in general. And,

1. It is a doctrine of the highest importance, and necessary to be
believed by all Christians, who pay a just deference to revealed
religion. It may probably be reckoned an error in method to speak of the
importance of this doctrine, before we 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 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 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 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 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 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 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]

The question therefore in controversy is; whether any doctrines of
religion may be deemed incomprehensible, that is, such as we can have no
adequate ideas of, because of the disproportion between them and our
finite minds? and whether the incommunicable 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 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 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 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 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.

(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 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 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, 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 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 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 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 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 scheme,
who, in other parts of their writings, appear to be remote from it.[85]

And this leads us to consider the method which some divines have taken,
in using similitudes to explain the doctrine of the 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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, 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]

III. We shall prove that the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, are distinct
persons in the Godhead, by applying what has been but now observed, by
which any one may, by our common mode of speaking, be denominated a
person; and to this we shall add something concerning those personal
properties, mentioned in one of the answers we are explaining, with
respect to the eternal generation of the Son, and the procession of the
Holy Ghost. And,

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.

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 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 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]

_Object._ It will be objected, by those who are favourers of the
Sabellian scheme, that the characters which we have laid down, to prove
the personality of the Son, and Holy Ghost, are not Sufficient to answer
that end; inasmuch as they are oftentimes applied, in a metaphorical
way, to those things which no one supposes to be persons, and therefore
that they may be taken 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 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 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, 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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, 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 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 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 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 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.

(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 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 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 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 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 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, 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 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 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]

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 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 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 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, 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 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
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 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 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 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 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 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, 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, 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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, 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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, 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 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 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, 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 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, 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 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, 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
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 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: 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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; 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 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 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 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 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. 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 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 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 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 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, 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, 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 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 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 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.

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 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 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, 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 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 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 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.

_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 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 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 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 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; 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 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. 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 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]

_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.

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, 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 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 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 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 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 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. 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 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 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 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 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, 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 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 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 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
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 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 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, 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 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, 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 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]

_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 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 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 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 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._ 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 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 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 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._ 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 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 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 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 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
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_; 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 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.

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, 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 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.

Footnote 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.

Footnote 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.

Footnote 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.

Footnote 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._

Footnote 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.

Footnote 81:

  _Vid. Epist. 2. ad Dionys._

Footnote 82:

  _Vid. Euseb. Præp. Evang. Lib. XIII. cap. 12._

Footnote 83:

  _Vid. Huet. Concord. Ration. & Fid. Lib. II. cap. 3._

Footnote 84:

  _See Dr. Berriman’s Historical account, &c. page 94._

Footnote 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.

Footnote 86:

  _Vid. Forbes. Instruct. Hist. Theol. Lib. I. cap. 2 §. 8._

Footnote 87:

  _Vid. Curcell in Quattern. Dissert. de Voc. Trinit. personæ ge._

Footnote 88:

  _Vid. Calv. Institut. Lib. I. cap. 13. §. 5._

Footnote 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.

Footnote 90:

  _See Le Clerc’s Supplement to Dr. Hammond on the New Testament,
  preface to John i._

Footnote 91:

  _See Biddle’s Confession of Faith, touching the holy Trinity, Article
  VI._

Footnote 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._

Footnote 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.

Footnote 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._

Footnote 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._

Footnote 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._

Footnote 97:

  _Some, who take delight in darkening this matter, by pretending to
  explain it, call the former a_ το νυν, stans; _the latter_, fluens.

Footnote 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.

Footnote 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.

Footnote 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.”

Footnote 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.

Footnote 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._

Footnote 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.

Footnote 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.

Footnote 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?

Footnote 106:

  _See Dr. Owen against Biddle, p. 362._

Footnote 107:

  Ονομα ανεκφωνητον.

Footnote 108:

  _Antiq. Lib. III. Cap. 5._

Footnote 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._

Footnote 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._

Footnote 111:

  See Dr. Allix’s judgment of the Jewish church against the Unitarians,
  chap. xiii. to xvi.

Footnote 112:

  _Vid. Catech. Racov. ad Quest. lix._

Footnote 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._

Footnote 114:

  _See Whitby in loc._

Footnote 115:

  _See Dr. Clarke’s reply to Nelson, page 86._

Footnote 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.

Footnote 117:

  _Dr. Owen against Biddle, page 256._

Footnote 118:

  _See Dr. Clarke’s reply to Nelson, page 97._

Footnote 119:

  _See Page 307._

Footnote 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._

Footnote 121:

  _See Dr. Clark’s reply to Nelson, page 85._

Footnote 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._

Footnote 123:

  _See reply to Nelson, page 67._

Footnote 124:

  _Acts vii. 43. chap. xiv. 11._

Footnote 125:

  _See Matt. xix. 26. compared with Mark x. 27._

Footnote 126:

  _See Scripture-doctrine, &c. page 67, 68, and in many other places._

Footnote 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._

Footnote 128:

  _See Scripture-doctrine, page 3._

Footnote 129:

  _See page 120._

Footnote 130:

  _See Dr. Clarke’s Scripture Doctrine, page 176._

Footnote 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._

Footnote 132:

  _Grotius in loc._

Footnote 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.

Footnote 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._

Footnote 135:

  _See Histoire Crit. du. Nouv. Testam. chap. 18. page 204._

Footnote 136:

  _See this conjecture of Father Simon learnedly opposed in Smith.
  Miscellan. contra Simon._

Footnote 137:

  _Vid. Epist. lxxiii. ad Jubaianum, & de Unitate Eccl. § v._

Footnote 138:

  _See true Scripture-doctrine, &c. page 53._

Footnote 139:

  _Contra Praxeam, cap. 25._

Footnote 140:

  _See the Author before referred to, in the true scripture-doctrine,
  &c. as also Trigland de tribus in cælo testibus._

Footnote 141:

  Vide Abbadie on the Divinity of Christ, per totum.

Footnote 142:

  _See Quest._ vii.

Footnote 143:

  _See Dr. Clarke’s Scripture doctrine, page 127._

Footnote 144:

  _Reply to Nelson, page 169._

Footnote 145:

  _See a parallel scripture, Prov._ xxx. 2, 3.

Footnote 146:

  ὁ ων εν τω ουρανω, is admitted by Griesback into his text.

Footnote 147:

  By the wisdom of God seems here to be meant the wisdom of God
  essentially considered. But see Matt. xxiii. 34.

Footnote 148:

  _See Dr. Clarke’s Scripture Doctrine, page 63._

Footnote 149:

  _See page_ 344, 345, ante.

Footnote 150:

  _Dr. Waterland, Serm. III. in defence of Christ, page 106._

Footnote 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.

Footnote 152:

  δια Ιησου Χριστου are omitted by Griesbach.

Footnote 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._

Footnote 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.

Footnote 155:

  _See page 304._

Footnote 156:

  _See Quest._ lxvii. _and_ lxxv.

Footnote 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.

Footnote 158:

  _See Quest._ vii.

Footnote 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._

Footnote 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_.

Footnote 161:

  _See Dr. Clarke’s Scripture Doctrine, page 58, 77._

Footnote 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._

Footnote 163:

  _See Dr. Clarke’s Scripture Doctrine, page 132._

Footnote 164:

  _See page_ 322, 323. ante.

Footnote 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.”_

Footnote 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._

Footnote 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.

Footnote 168:

  Letter to Dr. Priestley, in vol. i. of Dr. Williams’ edition of Owen
  on the Hebrews.

Footnote 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.

Footnote 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.

Footnote 171:

  Mr. Belsham’s Disc. p. 24, 25.

Footnote 172:

  Hist. of Early Op. vol. iii. p. 128, 129.

Footnote 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.

Footnote 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._

Footnote 175:

  _See page 249, 250._

Footnote 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_.

Footnote 177:

  _See page 358._

Footnote 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._

Footnote 179:

  _See page 249, 250, 251._

Footnote 180:

  _See page 359, 360._

Footnote 181:

  _See Dr. Clarke’s Scripture-doctrine, page 198._

Footnote 182:

  _See Quest._ lix. lxvii. lxxii. lxxv.




                           Quest. XII., XIII.


    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.


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 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, 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, 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 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, 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 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 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]

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 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 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.

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 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 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.

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.

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 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.

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 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, 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 _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 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.

_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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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_, 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 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.

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_, 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, 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, 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 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 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 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 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
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 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, 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 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]

_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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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, 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 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.

_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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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
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 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 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 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 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.

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 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 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 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, 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 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 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
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 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 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 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 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 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 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.

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 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 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 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 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, 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 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 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 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, 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.

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, 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.

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 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.

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 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 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 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
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.

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 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,

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; 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
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]

Footnote 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.

Footnote 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.

Footnote 185:

  _Dr. Whitby, in his discourse of election, &c._

Footnote 186:

  _See his discourse concerning election, page 36. 37. &c._

Footnote 187:

  _See the contrary opinion defended by Whitby in loc._

Footnote 188:

  _See Whitby’s discourse, &c. page 40, & seq._

Footnote 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_.

Footnote 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._

Footnote 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_.

Footnote 192:

  זגקבצו

Footnote 193:

  _See Questions_ lxvii, lxviii, lxxii, lxxv, lxxvi.

Footnote 194:

  ειναι ἡμας ἁγιους.

Footnote 195:

  _See Prov._ viii. 23.

Footnote 196:

  ειναι.

Footnote 197:

  _Vid. Grot. in loc._

Footnote 198:

  Τεταγμενοι.

Footnote 199:

  _Vid. Whitby in loc._

Footnote 200:

  _Vid. Beza in loc._

Footnote 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._

Footnote 202:

  _See Grot. in loc._

Footnote 203:

  _See Dr. Whitby in loc._

Footnote 204:

  _See Quest._ xliv, lxviii.

Footnote 205:

  _See Dr. Goodwin, vol. 2. of election._

Footnote 206:

  προεθετο.

Footnote 207:

  _See page 137._

Footnote 208:

  _This is what is meant by that axiom, used by the school-men_,
  Decretum Dei, nihil ponit in esse.

Footnote 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_.

Footnote 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.

Footnote 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.

Footnote 212:

  αδοκιμοι.

Footnote 213:

  _See Whitby’s Paraphrase, &c. on Jude, ver. 4._

Footnote 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_.

Footnote 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._

Footnote 216:

  _See Whitby’s Discourse, &c. page 10._

Footnote 217:

  _See his Riches of God’s love, against Hord. Part II. page 50._

Footnote 218:

  _See Bishop Patrick in loc._

Footnote 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.

Footnote 220:

  _See Quest. xliv._

Footnote 221:

  _The words are_, παντα τετραποδα, _that is_, all four-footed beasts.

Footnote 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._

Footnote 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.

Footnote 224:

  _See Whitby of Election, Chap. 5. Limborch. Amic. Collat. page 242._

Footnote 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._

Footnote 226:

  _Vid. Aug. Retrac. I. Cap. 25._

Footnote 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._

Footnote 228:

  _Vid. Forbes. Instruct. Historico-Theol. Lib. VIII. Cap. 28. § 16, &c.
  & Joh. Jacobi Hottingeri, Fata Doctrinæ de Prædestinat. Lib. I. § 35,
  &c._

Footnote 229:

  _Vid. G. J. Vossii Hist. Pelag. Lib. VI. Thes. 8, 9, 10._

Footnote 230:

  _Vid. Calv. Instit. Lib. III. Cap. 22. § 1. Certior est hic Dei
  veritas, quam ut concutiatur, clarior quam ut obruatur hominum
  authoritate._

Footnote 231:

  _See the epistles that passed between Berevov, a physician at Dort,
  and several divines at that time, in_ Lib. de Term vitæ.

Footnote 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._

Footnote 233:

  Evil as well as good actions are links in the chain of providence, and
  yet do not impeach Divine holiness.

Footnote 234:

  _Vid. Senac. de Prov. cap. 5. August, de Civ. Dei, Lib. V. cap. 1, &
  8. Lips Phys. Stoic. Lib. J. Diss. 12._

Footnote 235:

  _See Quest. XVIII._

Footnote 236:

  _See Quest. XXI, XXII._

Footnote 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.

Footnote 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.

Footnote 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.

Footnote 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.

Footnote 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.

Footnote 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.

END OF THE FIRST VOLUME.




Transcriber’s Notes:

Missing or obscured punctuation was corrected. The author's archaic
punctuation and spellings have been retained.





End of Project Gutenberg's A Body of Divinity, Vol. 1 of 4, by Thomas Ridgley